Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To think Universal Credit still won't get the long term unemployed into work and targets the wrong people?

(121 Posts)
retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:14:20

UC (and the bedroom tax) is wrong on so many levels that its hard to know where to start.

I think one of the concerns is that it still won't get the long term employed, who have chosen to live on benefits, into work.

It targets and hurts the wrong people, those who have a real need of the welfare state.

Take my neighbours for example. They are a couple. Have 5 children. And have never worked a day in their life. They have 2 daughters who have left home and have children of their own (both were teenage pregnancies). They have 2 teenagers living at home who are at college. The youngest child is in primary school.

They live in a 3 bed council house.

Even with the recent JSA changes (having to prove you are looking for work etc) they still haven't been made to find employment.

AIBU to think UC will not change this? That they will still manage to avoid work?

I think UC will end up hurting a lot of people but not targeting the people it should be aimed at.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:19:15

Yes, my cousin 16 times removed is like that. They have 28 children and none of them have ever worked. They started procreating when they were 11 and used the monies they got of selling their story to buy cigarettes. They are definitely undeserving poor! They have Sky and play bingo and have goats living in the back garden. It should be the workhouse for such people and mandatory sterilisation. Or shooting. That would be much cheaper.

Go BNP! Go UKIP! Stick it to 'em.

hmm biscuit

ThePinkOcelot Mon 25-Mar-13 20:21:41

Is there an idiots guide to UC anywhere? I have no idea what it is going to do and whether I will be affected or not.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:22:17

I don't believe people should be put into the workhouse.

I also don't believe people should be able to live on benefits for the whole of their life if they have no disabilities.

Surely most people believe that the welfare state should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice?

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:23:48

ThePinkOcelot

Read it and weep. Its truly terrifying.

But I don't think it will help move the long term unemployed into work. It will just hurt a lot of other people IMHO.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:25:39

No way! It should be a lifestyle choice. I mean, fags, booze, bingo, endless shagging to procreating, Sky and fresh-roasted goat for dinner every night. What is not to like? I mean, so many like my cousin 11 times removed out there. You know, take my dog's friend's master's neighbour 8 doors down. Such a scrounger! Got pregnant as a pre-teen just to get a free goat!

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Mon 25-Mar-13 20:25:56

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

CockyFox Mon 25-Mar-13 20:26:47

It will hurt a lot of people, the long term unemployed included.
I really don't think anyone chooses to be on benefits, at some level it is dictated by circumstance in all cases. Whether that be due to disability, caring responsibilities or the simple lack of jobs.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:28:01

Ah, but property, is she truly disabled, or one of those undeserving fakers with a bad back like the OP's fabled neighbour and my hamster's pet sitter's great-granddaughter's son-in-law? He's just using it as a lifestyle choice!

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:28:20

I'm saying that the disabled poster on MN shouldn't be targeted but will be.

That is what is wrong with UC. It is going to target the wrong people.

EntWife Mon 25-Mar-13 20:28:47

I thought the purpose of universal credit was simply to unify the benefit system. It is a cost saving exercise for the welfare beaurocracy I thought.

Other means are being used to encourage welfare recipients into work. Things like the welfare cap, the proposed childcare rebate etc.

The bedroom tax its more about trying to free up larger homes from underoccupation our so I thought.

You are right though in that very little of the measures announced to date by the government will do anything to really change the way the truly feckless live. But then the truly feckless make up such a tiny minority of claimants that changing the whole system to deal with them becomes a losing cost benefit analysis.

Cocky, I'm not sure. I don't exactly think people choose to be on benefits; more that benefits are, as things stands "generous." I've put that in inverted commas, I don't believe in the plasma-screen, BMW myth grin However, if the only alternative is a minimum wage job, often hard work in unpleasant conditions then to be honest benefits are a better alternative for many. I don't think many people intend to be on them long term but they are - I know a lot of girls like this, who had DCs and somehow never got back to work. Not quite a lifestyle choice but not quite 'not' a lifestyle choice, either.

I'm afraid I am in favour of benefit reform. blush <risks the wrath of Mumsnet>

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Mon 25-Mar-13 20:31:47

Exactly, Expat. If OP saw our regular poster she would probably not realise that the poster suffers from several epileptic seizures a day. OP might be quite surprised to learn that you can't tell who is 'deserving' or 'undeserving' at a glance.

pedrohedges Mon 25-Mar-13 20:31:57

What's wrong is that i get around £20000 a year and i work, have partner and 3 dc's.
My mate is married, 6 dc's, neither work yet they get £32000 total.
Both haven't worked a day in their lives and never plan too. Her mother and sister are both the same.
This needs to be stopped and with universal credit it will.
Don't get me wrong, she's a damn good mum but she's become too entitled and is angry that her money will be capped.

My mum has muscle wastage and will probably be in a wheelchair in the next couple of years, she's in immense pain most of the time. Yet they won't allow her to have disability.Where's my nan has a disability element in her benefits just because she's old? wtf? The whole system is bloody wrong.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:32:29

Expat - not fabled. I've lived next door to them for 6 years. They exist.

And they are quite nice. I just used them as an example as to why I think UC is going to fail if its main aim is to get the long term unemployed into work.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:33:24

Yes, they are! They are everywhere!

pedrohedges Mon 25-Mar-13 20:34:10

@ property. One of my good friends has had her disability taken from her. She's a single, diabetic who's just getting over a stroke. She'll never be able to work but they've put her on the dole!!
Why are they taking it out on the wrong people?

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:35:18

Newsflash: the aim is to dismantle the welfare system excepting pensions and pensioners, not get the long-term unemployed into work. You'd need serious investment in job creation for that to occur. It's easier and cheaper to just poach a few coats and worry the sheeple so they don't notice. Only, even most sheep are cleverer than the many who fall for this government's claptrap.

Property - my brother has epileptic seizures and isn't entitled to a penny. I wouldn't mind but he really could do with it as well as he can't drive and since he does shift work (heathcare assistant) he relies on my dad to take him to shifts or get a taxi which is a lot given HCA work isn't highly paid.

There's no rhyme or reason to it. I think that is one of the reasons people like me who are usually quite liberal are just sick of the benefits system as it is.

CockyFox Mon 25-Mar-13 20:36:33

I don't think benefits are generous, I remember when both DH and I were out of work before children and due to lack of contributions only he was entitled to JSA. we were coming to the end of the fortnight and found a single £1 down the back of the sofa and were able to buy a few potatoes and tin of beans and have the only meal of the day.
I can't imagine having to do that now with the children, and nobody would choose that if theu had a real choice.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Mon 25-Mar-13 20:36:54

They are taking it out on everyone. There is no distinguishing between 'the poor '.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:36:55

'Why are they taking it out on the wrong people?'

Because there are no 'wrong people'! The percentage of so-called scroungers and fraudsters is very, very low. This is to get rid of it. Is it that hard to see?

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:37:10

property - I know my neighbours. No disabilities. But they are by the by. They were just an example of people that live on benefits with no intentions of finding work. Not because they can't work (like the disabled poster mentioned above) but because they don't want to.

Or are we not allowed to admit people like that actually exist?

And I'm not a troll property, I've been here since 2007.

Cocky - you would have been entitled to far more had you had children, I actually had someone official 'suggest' to me I should get pregnant when I was homeless (ages ago, thank God!)

There is very little help for adults without children, hence why my brother is in need.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 20:39:25

Thanks for your posts expat.
Made me smile and shout Yay You Go Girl at the time.grin
MN is full of these type of posts tonight.
It's a full moon though, I think that's when the ranters come out.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Mon 25-Mar-13 20:39:35

People like your neighbours might well exist but why use few as a stick to beat many?

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:41:03

"but why use few as a stick to beat many"

That's kinda my point property.

This will hurt many while not affecting the few who it should.

Darkesteyes Mon 25-Mar-13 20:41:45

OP the Joseph Rowntree foundation tried to find all these generations of workless families the Gov and Daily Mail keeps wanging on about and found that they didnt exist.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:42:04

I got pregnant with octuplets just for the free house! Definitely! I got 3 goats thrown in for having over 5. I told them I wasn't moving in until the council set up a 60-in flatscreen TV with full Sky and the mugs did it!

Darkesteyes Mon 25-Mar-13 20:43:04

grin at expat.

ThePinkOcelot Mon 25-Mar-13 20:44:07

Thanks Retro. Very worrying.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Mon 25-Mar-13 20:46:26

Because as long as you buy into the belief that poor, vulnerable people and their children should be punished then you are supporting a blanket attack on the welfare state. If you don't want to see the 'wrong poor' targeted then you need to accept that the welfare system should not be dismantled at all.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:47:04

I do love the way some of you have all jumped to conclusions about my circumstances. Because I have posted about the feckless I must be a benefits basher.

I am a recent lone parent. After years of paying in, the welfare state has caught me when I needed it most and I am so very grateful for it.

I was reading the UC page on MN tonight to clarify how it would affect me.

And it occurred to me that the people who will be hurt by the UC changes are not the 'shirkers' as DC loves to call them but the people who actually need the welfare state to stop them falling below the poverty line.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:48:58

'And it occurred to me that the people who will be hurt by the UC changes are not the 'shirkers' as DC loves to call them but the people who actually need the welfare state to stop them falling below the poverty line.'

EVERYONE who is part of the 'welfare system', including those in work, will be affected by the changes. Is it that hard to see?

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:53:06

No Expat. I don't see how it will force the people who don't want to work into employment.

If they have young children, then they can't stop their benefits? The government surely cannot leave a family on the streets with no money.

So it has to house them and give them money for food.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 20:54:00

Do any of you know how hard it is to live on benefits?
I worked for nearly 20 years in an organisation with a live in job including the last 11 years in the village I live in now.
One marriage break up meant homelessness, joblessness and single parenthood.
I've picked up bits of work here and there, but there's not a lot if you live in a rural community.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:55:14

'I don't see how it will force the people who don't want to work into employment.'

Because that is not the point of UC! The point of UC is to dismantle the welfare system under the pretext of simplification, that's why it affects everyone who uses it including those in work.

In order for lower long-term unemployment, you would need a government that invested heavily in job creation. That's not what this government is about. That is why UC will affect everyone who is in the system.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:55:25

Which is right. Children shouldn't be living on the streets, hungry etc because of their parents choices.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:58:06

LadyBeagle I currently claim

CTC
CB
SMI mortgage assisstance and
IS

So I know a bit about claiming benefits. Although I wish I didn't.

And yes, Expat, I do understand it will affect those that are in work as well but are earning next to nothing as NMW is so low.

Darkesteyes Mon 25-Mar-13 21:00:53

reto people in part time jobs will be treated like they are unemployed and made to do mandatory workfare.

While we are on the subject workfare is making things worse.
e.g. one pizza company took 100 workfarers thats 100 people working for their JSA in ONE company.
And people who say in one breath that they want people off benefits and then in the next breath approve of workfare just prove the point that they want poor people punished. Because workfare doesnt get people off benefits. It depresses the labour market.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 21:00:54

"marriage break up meant homelessness, joblessness and single parenthood."

My marriage break up meant the same for me as well. Although thanks to SMI I haven't had to face the homeless issue yet.

Soon to change under UC though

CloudsAndTrees Mon 25-Mar-13 21:14:37

UC is intended to stop people being better off on benefits than they are in work. If people choose to be one benefits and be worse off, then they can do so, that's up to them. But once UC is fully implemented, then hopefully work really will pay, even after work related expenses are taken into account. I think that's a good thing.

SneezingwakestheJesus Mon 25-Mar-13 21:17:29

And what about the people who don't choose it? They'll be punished along with the few who view it as a lifestyle choice. Normal honest families who have been a victim of bad circumstances will have their lives ruined.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 21:19:40

What fucking work, CloudsandTrees?

CloudsAndTrees Mon 25-Mar-13 21:20:35

Its not that they will be punished, although I realise they will find things difficult.

How else do you make work pay if things aren't difficult if you don't have work?

SneezingwakestheJesus Mon 25-Mar-13 21:24:09

I would count potential homelessness, being unable to eat etc as punishment for being out of work. You do realise that the majority of people on benefits would love to be working and to earn their own money but the jobs just aren't there?

FasterStronger Mon 25-Mar-13 21:31:45

Well except in the last boom work didn't pay as UK nationals didnt do jobs EU workers were willing to and remained claiming.

There was always going to be a consequence of that.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 21:33:23

Is it safe to leave on overnight as that is just genius? I despise making breakfast.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 21:33:56

Wrong thread blush

mumofweeboys Mon 25-Mar-13 21:40:01

What is worrying is the fact it will be paid monthly and the housing benefit part wont be paid directly to the landlord. Anyone else see private rentals refusing to take benefits if there is no guarentee of getting their money anymore and pay day lenders cashing in.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 22:15:19

Does anyone remember the poll tax riots?
It's now even worse than even then, the bedroom tax is the poll tax in another form, the universal credits will affect the unemployed and all those on minimum wage who work their arses off and we're walking into it blindly.
Oh and the bankers will still get their bonuses.
I kind of wish I was back in the 70's and 80's again, because there seemed to be genuine outrage then.

I think probably most people know people that take the piss with benefits and have no intention of ever working. I do.

However, since unemployment is so high there couldn't possibly be a job for every person capable of working. So why force people who don't want to work to compete against those that do?

Surely during a recession is the worst possible time to introduce these changes? I would be also interested to know how much this new system will cost to implement versus the supposed savings.

I'm going to be brave and admit that I have also taken the piss with tax credits, as have a number of other self employed people I know.

The changes should (if implemented as I understand) stop the self employed/ limited companies deliberately declaring a low income whilst claiming 30+ hours a week worked in order to maximise tax credits claims. This isn't currently illegal by the way.

FasterStronger Mon 25-Mar-13 22:24:12

you introduce them now to get everything ready for the economy picking up.

Mmmm not thought of it that way. Good point.

The changes should (if implemented as I understand) stop the self employed/ limited companies deliberately declaring a low income whilst claiming 30+ hours a week worked in order to maximise tax credits claims. This isn't currently illegal by the way.

Could you clarify exactly how these changes will effect the self-employed in this way? Because we are self employed and have a limited company, and we claim tax credits because we ARE on a low income - the same income we declare to the Inland Revenue. Are you saying UC will have their own criteria (and power) to assess income, regardless of what the IR decide? <worried>

AudrinaAdare Tue 26-Mar-13 00:22:56

Accountants have been saying UC is unworkable for self-employed people for ages.

Having to make a net profit of NMW every single month in order to qualify goes against basic accounting and tax principles. Business doesn't work like that! You will have some months with outlays for stock - it is supposed to be calculated throughout the tax year and even then it's complicated.

But this is very deliberate.

What fucks me off is that Job Centres have been told to push as many people into S.E as they can in order to massage the unemployment figures but when U.C comes in they'll be screwed.

Darkesteyes Tue 26-Mar-13 00:32:11

A letter about JC sanctions got leaked to the Guardian. The video is heartbreaking.

Darkesteyes Tue 26-Mar-13 00:34:41
CutePuppy Tue 26-Mar-13 00:53:16

Link darkest eyes?

CutePuppy Tue 26-Mar-13 00:54:49

Xpost as I didn't refresh! Apologies!

WafflyVersatile Tue 26-Mar-13 00:57:52

UC is going to target people on benefits. They are all the wrong people to benefit. Except perhaps buy to let landlords. They're the real beneficiaries of housing benefit.

We need something to target Amazon and Tesco and Cameron etc. Get your bile out for them not people at the bottom of the heap.

fighting over crumbs from the rich man's table, look at you all*. Have some fucking solidarity.

*not 'all' of you obviously.

WafflyVersatile Tue 26-Mar-13 00:58:15

UC is going to target people on benefits. They are all the wrong people to targe. Except perhaps buy to let landlords. They're the real beneficiaries of housing benefit.

We need something to target Amazon and Tesco and Cameron etc. Get your bile out for them not people at the bottom of the heap.

fighting over crumbs from the rich man's table, look at you all*. Have some fucking solidarity.

*not 'all' of you obviously.

WafflyVersatile Tue 26-Mar-13 01:00:56

However, since unemployment is so high there couldn't possibly be a job for every person capable of working. So why force people who don't want to work to compete against those that do?

completely agree with this. We should thank people who are willing to live on a pittance and not steal our jobs!!!! Like you're always complaining the immigrants!!! do.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Tue 26-Mar-13 01:41:56

"We need something to target Amazon and Tesco and Cameron etc. Get your bile out for them not people at the bottom of the heap"

Or, indeed, Guardian Media Group, with their own "efficient" offshore arrangements.

But then,perhaps,it's different when the Guardian does it? grin

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 26-Mar-13 02:26:59

The changes should (if implemented as I understand) stop the self employed/ limited companies deliberately declaring a low income whilst claiming 30+ hours a week worked in order to maximise tax credits claims. This isn't currently illegal by the way

hmm it is if you don't actually work that amount of hours. Its called benefit fraud.

bochead Tue 26-Mar-13 06:46:55

The real feckless under class will simply top up the amount lost from benefits under UC with a few more drug deals, violent muggings and housebreakings each month. Their wide screen TV's, BMW's and fancy holidays aren't taxpayer funded now, but derived from criminal sources. Can people not see this?

However perfectly ordinary fully paid up members of society who have through sheer bad luck and cicumstances will go hungry and cold. Anybody can have a bad accident that leaves them with a disability and nobody's job is secure any longer. The welfare state, NHS and education systems are being dismantled and the public is being encouraged to blame the most vulnerable members of society for this by one of the most effective propaganda machines history has ever seen.

The working and middle-classes are being asset stripped of everything they hold dear, in a systematic fashion for the benefit of the few. (Camerloon must be cheering at the surge in disability hate crimes since he came to power.)

The top of society will be able to use their tax payer funded banker's bonuses to buy the assets & homes of the dispossed at a song in a modern day reenactment of the Highland clearances. The greatest 419 scam of all time back in 2007/8 wasn't enough. The MP's will continue to enjoy their subsidised restaurant, bar and constantly increasing pension.

get ready to doff you cap at your betters as you queue for your bowl of gruel, and prepare to answer your Grandkids when they ask you how the hell did we let this happen?

sashh Tue 26-Mar-13 07:40:56

porridge

\Has your brother looked at the free bus pass (quick before that goes) one of the criteria is that if you cannot drive due to epilepsy you can apply.

I know it's not much good if you are trying to get somewhere at 3am but could save him on day shifts.

mumofweeboys Tue 26-Mar-13 08:09:39

Porridge

what about the access to work scheme, they give money to people in your brothers situation to get to work

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 08:28:13

(Camerloon must be cheering at the surge in disability hate crimes since he came to power.)

his son, the one who died a few years ago, had cerebal palsy. his father as a double amputee.

so probably not.

Dawndonna Tue 26-Mar-13 08:55:09

Those of us that are disabled or have disabled people in the family are well aware of Cameron's situation, Faster. We're also aware that he claimed DLA for his son. The benefit he is now scrapping in favour of PiP with a targeted reduction in uptake of 20%.
this is what happens now.

mrsjay Tue 26-Mar-13 08:59:53

what expat said except my cousin has 20 kids to 5 different dads and never lived with any of them grin UC is going to be shite it isn't about getting anybody back to work it is to keep the poor poorer

Orwellian Tue 26-Mar-13 09:01:50

YANBU. The Universal credit elemnts of current benefits are actually going to be more generous than what they currently are. There is going to be very little pressure for long term workshy to change as they will be getting more than they do now. It is basically about punishing those already in work who are not working enough and making sure that middle income/middle class families lose some of their wage and have to work more hours as they are an easy target and don't really complain. The Tories don't want a repeat of the riots so they won't do anything to upset a certain strata of society.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 09:09:46

dawndonna - do you think he is cheering about the rise in disability hate crime?

mrsjay Tue 26-Mar-13 09:10:01

and long term fit unemployed people still have to sign on every fortnight even those with children

Dawndonna Tue 26-Mar-13 09:20:52

Actually, as it is something that works in his favour, I think it's entirely possible. It is the government that has fed the press. It is the government that has, on a consistent basis, fed the press the wrong figures, have given them statistics that don't add up, have provided them with the new phraseology and therefore ideology of deserving and undeserving poor. We have not had 'benefit scrounger' stories to this extent before. So yes, without taking individual cases, his government (which includes him as leader) are in all probability quite happy about the situation.

AudrinaAdare Tue 26-Mar-13 09:29:36

I don't think he is cheering, but he did claim the DLA that his party has decided to take away from almost a fifth of genuine claimants and to redefine disability as purely physical. We had come so far with understanding how neurodiversity can impact on people's lives and now...

We need to talk about Ivan

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 09:40:37

bochead You talk a lot of sense.

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 09:47:23

I thought that the long term work shy folk , would have to answer to something when UTC comes in confused I thought they would get their benefits cut?

It was the only thing that I assumed might get them out in the workforce.

This thread is telling me that they still will be able to claim as before?

So are we saying that those dreadfully affected by the changes are the disabled and those unable to work?

I despise this situation even more now.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 09:49:11

dawn - if you think the father of a dead disabled child and the son of a disabled man is pro an increase in disability hate crime, i think you have lost objectivity.

dont you think the bullies at Eton will have mentioned his father's lack of legs once or twice?

PearlyWhites Tue 26-Mar-13 10:29:22

Disabled people are exempt from the benefit cap so the poster doesn't need to worry

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 10:32:36

She isn't exempt Pearly because her case is being reconsidered so she has lost the benefit, during this process, which exempts her from the cap.

niceguy2 Tue 26-Mar-13 10:39:04

I thought the main aim of Universal Credit was not to force the long term unemployed to find a job but instead the objective was to change the current system where there are perverse incentives for people not to work.

At the moment someone who is claiming full benefits often finds that either they are:

1) Worse off by working!
2) Marginally better off but they have to put in 40 hours rather than 0.
3) Put off because the job is zero hours or temporary in nature.

Oh and not to mention make it simpler to apply for one benefit rather than several.

Time will tell if this system is indeed better. Of course it won't be perfect and no doubt there will be examples trotted out where certain people lose out but at least it's a step in the right direction.

I know people who would like to work. Genuinely. But who would take on a zero hour contract when it's such a gamble and so hard to reapply for benefits if things don't work out?

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 10:48:51

But I'm still wondering...

If under UTC an intentionally avoiding work claimant still signs on/avoids work will they have their benefits restricted?

Otherwise what incentive is there?

Many deserving people are having their claims cut/done away with. Will the work shy still be able to sit at home?

Boredwench Tue 26-Mar-13 10:52:26

I can understand the frustrations but feel the elephant in the room is being ignored....

Currently as things stand the revenue generated from workers isn't enough to sustain the welfare state. It's all very well wanting this and that etc but if there's no money in the pot, you can't pay with brass buttons. We all want access to the best health, housing, education, state support in difficult times.

The number one thing that fucks me off the most is those who choose to have children knowing the state will support them, don't pay smart with me flamers.... You know some do it on purpose. It doesn't help you get programmes like OEM showing endless couples who've decided they want a child but neither of them work. In the current economic climate that is morally wrong.

Tough decisions have to be made, benefits need to be reformed... Don't patronise those of us who do have friends we know quite clearly have no intention of ever working, it's not as rife as the media portray but ain't just a handful of people either.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 10:54:40

As long as they go through the motions like they do now on JSA, then yes, the people who intentionally avoid work will be able to sit at home. If they refuse to look for work or do any activities set for them to improve employability then they will be sanctioned. Its basically the same as it is now except its supposed to look even more desirable to be in work than it is now.

niceguy2 Tue 26-Mar-13 10:57:59

The sanctions as I understand it will remain in place. But as Sneezing says, those who are currently successfully avoiding getting a job will probably continue to do so.

It is getting much harder though and I've noticed quite a few people who in the past were happy to sit at home are now looking for work. I'm not sure if it is the tightening up or the fact that the money they are receiving is being cut which has had the most effect.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 11:00:19

but couldn't they be placed on workfare?

also where someone appears to be working cash in hand and claiming but difficult and expensive to prove?

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 11:01:18

Thanks for the explanations niceguy and bored smile

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 11:03:07

So the workfare element is different then?

I thought many unemployed were being forced to do that?

I don't understand how many people are still able to do nothing, yet be perfectly able to work?

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 11:04:03

Workfare is one of the activities they could be set to improve employability and they would be sanctioned if they refuse. But workfare exists now so its not a new threat to the people who make a career of staying on benefits.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 11:04:43

Unless they implement it to more people, sooner and more often I suppose.

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 11:09:29

How do people get away with not doing workfare?

I find it hard to tie in what I hear about sanctions and people being left with no benefits when I see my neighbours doing nothing all day with no loss.

BlackMaryJanes Tue 26-Mar-13 11:13:34

I'm so sad reading about UC sad (and it won't even effect me).

Can labour undo all this when they come back into power? I hope so.

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 11:14:24

Will there be the money for them to undo it?

niceguy2 Tue 26-Mar-13 11:15:16

I doubt Labour will BlackMary. Labour haven't even said what they will cut if they get into power.

Out of interest what do you not like about UC?

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 11:29:34

Labours lack of policies is increasingly frustrating.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 11:57:16

I wonder if labour are using the UC fear and keeping quiet about what they will change and stuff to get more votes? People might be so fed up how it is now that they will vote blindly for labour so labour are wary of saying something that could stop that so they just say very little.

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 12:06:51

Honestly, they could anything and people would vote for them just to stop another 5yrs of the Tories.

Currently as things stand the revenue generated from workers isn't enough to sustain the welfare state.

So start making the multi-national corporations and banks to pay their fair share of taxes as well. They're not just here because they can get away with paying bugger-all tax - they take advantage of the additional benefits of operating in this country as opposed to cheaper locations, such as efficient infrastructure, good security, transport and communication networks, lack of corruption, enforceable rule of law. Let them start paying a fair wack.

And this Government is committed to REDUCING worker taxes even further - this is and always has been a central tenet of Conservative political thinking, regardless of how appropriate or feasible it might be. The idea of a 'trickle down' economy, where giving people more money in their pay-packets through raising tax-thresholds and cutting top rates of tax in the hope it will spark a high street boom, and removing the incentive to save money by offering interest rates lower than inflation (so we all rush off to spend our lovely extra dosh!) has been proved wrong for years and years.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 12:53:08

lapsed - how do you get companies to pay more tax here? e.g.

Amazon has a company registered in Luxembourg to 'make' its profits in a country where they are taxed at a low rate.

how do you get either Amazon to choose to move the profits here (so pay more tax on them) or Luxembourg govt to make them provide the UK govt with earnings information so we can tax them here more fairly?

neither Amazon or the Luxembourg govt want any change so how can a UK govt make this happen?

niceguy2 Tue 26-Mar-13 13:00:53

So start making the multi-national corporations and banks to pay their fair share of taxes as well.

The revenue from corporation tax has always been a small fraction of our overall tax receipts. The largest amounts have always come from income tax and VAT.

The problem with upping corporation tax is that it makes businesses more cautious. They are less likely to invest to grow, less likely to employ more people and more likely to move elsewhere in the EU/world.

And right now we desperately need more jobs. I'd much rather we lower corporation taxes, attract more firms here who employ more people than tax them. I'd happily lose a few billion in corporation tax if it means more jobs where people then are not on benefits, paying taxes and buying goods/services.

Viviennemary Tue 26-Mar-13 13:02:10

The problem is wages have been allowed to drift along at a low rate because they have been supplemented by benefits. And also people working only a few hours a week and topped up with benefits. This needs to be sorted out. And working people having a lot of expenses such as travel so would be better off not working and on benefits. That isn't right either.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 13:06:17

we also need to encourage more SMEs like they have in Germany. more likely to pay UK tax on all profits.

we need to encourage entrepreneurship.

Mumcentreplus Tue 26-Mar-13 13:09:14

UC was here long before the Tories..it has been on the cards for years its obvious that this has been planned years in advance the benefits system cannot be changed over night..it takes planning...years of planning..it's been quite a few years since Employment Support Allowance was introduced as a new benefit and it still has issues,imagine changing the majority of the systems to regulate and pay alone would take years to implement.
Certain political governments with particular leanings are machinated into power to implement certain policy..Labour has a moral (and I use the term loosely) obligation towards the working people of this country ..Tories do not..they are all about free enterprise,big business and the wealthy aka utter bastards with knobs on hence the reason Tories always seem to be in place when we the people are being shat on from a height..they also if you notice tend to try things out and quickly back track when people protest...

Benefit claimants are being sanctioned more than ever before, the shortest sanction is 4 weeks the longest 3 years..imagine going without your wages for 4 weeks? because you missed an appointment...you can then claim hardship and if they choose to pay you your payments are further reduced you could get as little as 20% of what you were being paid and you are still expected to look for work in the same way..it's not easy.

Whats funny is that many of the things this government have said they have put into place to make the regime more robust are and have almost always have been there already, the majority of benefit claimants are working but they talking about making work pay when you will effectively make everyone worse off in the long run..it's amazing people fall for it..<<boggles>>

Mumcentreplus Tue 26-Mar-13 13:12:09

Sorry that was a bit of a rant...blush

Viviennemary Tue 26-Mar-13 13:14:59

I've known people with epilepsy that haven't been able to drive and have struggled to work. And they weren't entitled to a penny. The benefit systems as it stands is unfair.

Boredwench Tue 26-Mar-13 13:26:12

I wouldn't want some with epilepsy in the roads, it's not safe.

There are other methods of transport. Sure if we all looked hard enough ex find a reason not to make the effort and give up at the first hurdle.

Babyroobs Tue 26-Mar-13 13:30:24

My brother has Epilepsy so unable to drive,but he gets some kind of heavily discounted travel card as he has to catch a bus & train daily to work. it may even be free.

expatinscotland Tue 26-Mar-13 13:44:11

'How do people get away with not doing workfare?

I find it hard to tie in what I hear about sanctions and people being left with no benefits when I see my neighbours doing nothing all day with no loss.'

You have a lot of concern about what your neighbours do. hmm

expatinscotland Tue 26-Mar-13 13:51:30

'Currently as things stand the revenue generated from workers isn't enough to sustain the welfare state. It's all very well wanting this and that etc but if there's no money in the pot, you can't pay with brass buttons. We all want access to the best health, housing, education, state support in difficult times.'

Then you create more workers. To do this you need a government committed to sustainable job creation first and foremost. But it's easier to put the cart before the horse and label people shirkers and vilify them than work towards real solutions.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 13:52:33

how does govt create jobs?

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 14:17:47

Well they are an example of the people I was referring to - it makes sense to reference them again, rather than explain in detail an example I had already given.

In future when I refer to my neighbours just take it as shorthand for 'long term unemployed who have no desire to find work'.

smile

We need to encourage entrepreneurship. Absolutely!

Well, if UC rules prevent people from starting up or running small / sole trader businesses, because you can't claim unless you can guarantee a minimum PROFIT (not just income) every month, how will this happen?

The Tories have always claimed to be the party which supports self-sufficiency and entrepeneurism and aims to reduce the beaurocracy which hinders small businesses from working efficiently. I wonder what sort of ghastly admin hoops we will have to jump through in future if we have to provide evidence of monthly profits, when the entire tax and accounting system is currently geared up to declaring annualised profits?

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 14:26:41

lapsed - that would not apply if it were a Limited company.

the problem with the sole trader structure is there is no demarcation between the individual and the company money

for a limited company you can smooth out your income over the months.

the monthly reporting is a complete PITA but I expect it is designed to cut down on fraud i.e. make it harder to run cash and declared accounts.

Boredwench Tue 26-Mar-13 14:28:28

Expat...

Yup we need more workers to generate tax etc, we still can't afford to actually build any industry at present though and invest with real money. It's just more borrowing and passing on the buck to the next generation. Common sense dictates we tighten our belts until we can afford to go building all these new job creation schemes. Borrowing in the first place got us into this mess.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 15:25:09

which is why we are reliant on business coming up with the money.

(also the govt is crap at generating jobs)

Viviennemary Tue 02-Apr-13 13:26:34

I don't think it's targetting anybody. Just trying to get the welfare system fairer and under some sort of control. I don't think it's fair at the moment. We have people on low wages say £12,000 a year never being able to afford their own home and yet paying tax. And I do agree with the cap on Housing Benefit to a reasonable amount. And not people getting £2,000 a month housing benefit. A lot of people don't even earn that. it's madness.+

StormyBrid Wed 03-Apr-13 11:00:36

AIBU to think UC will not change this? That they will still manage to avoid work?

You're rather implying that there are plenty of jobs around for them to avoid. As has been said many times on these threads, there are about half a million vacancies (including part time and zero hours contracts) and several million people officially counted as unemployed, and a further unknown quantity of people claiming JSA but counted as employed because they're on workfare.

But yes, your neighbours probably will manage to avoid work for a while at least. Eventually they'll end up sanctioned, although it probably takes longer for that to happen to the long-term unemployed-by-choice, because they know what to say to appease their advisers. When they do get sanctioned and their benefits are cut, it'll mean they have no money, but it won't magic up a job for them.

Your neighbours are clearly managing to get by on benefits. Fair play to them. If they're happy to do that, they're not occupying jobs that people with greater need for them could have. If you really want your neighbours to work, though, you need to make work more attractive - it needs to pay enough to afford a decent standard of living. If you can scrape by in a soul-destroying job for a pittance, or you can scrape by and have your time to yourself, a lot of people will choose the free time.

I'm well aware there'll be responses to that saying "that's why we're cutting benefits, so work pays more." But by cutting benefits to below the level required to survive, we're making people homeless, we're making children go hungry, we're setting ourselves up for a huge increase in petty crime. We're telling the poorest people - whose only failing is not having a job when there aren't enough to go round - we're telling them to piss off and starve. And a hell of a lot of "genuinely deserving poor" are getting caught up in it. How the hell does that help anyone?

In short, if you want to incentivise people to work, you need to pay them more.

chris481 Wed 03-Apr-13 13:56:53

"In short, if you want to incentivise people to work, you need to pay them more."

The extra you pay them will be a subsidy. Because if what they are capable of doing were worth more, they would already be offered it. Ultimately all subsidies are paid by the productive part of the population. There is no "free money" that magically appears because you attach the initial burden of this subsidy to employers.

As a matter of policy it seems to currently be a popular idea that everyone who is not independently wealth should work. We already accept the idea that some people only partly pay their way, by working and claiming tax credits. We just need to extend the number of available jobs so everyone can do this.

Imagine if everyone on benefits was willing to work for free. Do whatever they are capable of, for nothing at all. Surely 95% of them are capable of doing something useful? For example clearning/childcare/gardening for neighbours who can't afford to pay for this at the current minimum wage.

Now imagine that minimum wage is reduced and UC is changed so that there are no out-of-work benefits for able-bodied people, but people can still achieve today's level of incomes from working plus tax credits. (Tax credits would be costing more of course, taking up the slack from lower wages.) Suddenly everyone is willing to do any work, for free, or as close to free as the minimum wage allows.

From an employer point of view, people would be working for as close to free as is necessary to ensure everyone can work. (Note it is the workers who are being subsidised, not the employers, who are only paying what the labour is worth to them.)

From a benefits system point of view, the money paid out is money that would mostly have gone out in benefits anyway, so it may not be a huge extra cost. What extra cost there is is the subsidy we are willing to pay to achieve the public policy objective of having everyone in work. It will come from taxes, which is a fairer source than the random selection of people who will suffer if one had merely increased wages. (That solution might ensure some people were paid more, but would probably destroy rather than create jobs.)

The minimum wage should become location specific and tied to the local unemployment rate, so that the state of the local economy at a particular point in time would determine the extent to which the benefits system was subsidising workers there. It should fluctuate at least annually with the state of the local jobs market.

niceguy2 Wed 03-Apr-13 14:31:24

As has been said many times on these threads, there are about half a million vacancies (including part time and zero hours contracts) and several million people officially counted as unemployed...

You are over-simplfying the problem. There never has and never will be zero unemployment. Similarly there never has and never will be exactly the same number of jobs available as there are unemployed people. Even in the boom times where we were considered to have almost full employment there were people going around claiming we don't have enough jobs.

Firstly I'd say that just because there are less vacancies than jobseekers, that doesn't mean the person should stop looking for work.

Secondly there are many reasons why there are vacancies but noone filling those positions. Sometimes the job itself is simply not realistic. Eg. zero hours but they want a set of skills in demand so those workers with said skills are not unemployed or can find a fixed contract. Other times perhaps the job needs skills not easily available. Eg. leading edge IT stuff.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now