UC salary threshold is £2500 pmc

OP I’ll be honest, I don’t think you even know what it is that you’re trying to say. What’s the point of the thread? Are you trying to understand what benefits a working person can get?

Let’s say I earned £2500 a month (I don’t but I’m using your example). My monthly entitlement to UC is £3133 before any deductions. Once my wage of £2500 has been taken into consideration, I’d still receive £1967 via UC. That means I’d have £2500 via my pay and £1967 via UC which is a total of £4467.

As you can see, it’s ALWAYS in people’s favour to work as you’ll have more money that way. Depending on the elements of UC that someone has, will depend on how much they’re entitled too before deductions. My elements include private rent, childcare costs, childcare element, single person element, two disabled children element and a carer element.

A lot of people won’t get anywhere near as much UC as this hence why it doesn’t really make sense trying to judge the benefits system overall. It really depends on the person’s circumstances

You have a job where you pay millions in taxes? Really, that does suprise me

Nope I didnt tell you to educate yourself. Im not sure you see anything Ive said tbh.

Why are you now moaning about people getting benefits they are not entitled to?

What is the issue? People on too much money get benefits? Single people dont get as much as parents? People dont moan about single parents any more? People on 16 hours getting money? Benefit fraud?

Or do you just want to whine about people getting benefits because you dont like it, you don't really know what you are talking about but you pay millions in tax so that means it's okay for you to complain about poorer people?

Nothing. JSA if you are lucky (I was paid £24 a week so definitely not princely. Although the amount may have gone since I got back into work).

The threshold may be £2500 but you don’t qualify on your salary basis only, you need to be in a precarious situation where it is anticipated, or better said, expected to struggle. Like being a widow living in an expensive city and raising 3 children alone, while working a full time job .

It is because many debates on benefits 'conflate so many issues and ram them together'. Never occurred to you?

So because other debates cant follow a clear line of thought you dont need too?

Nope didnt occur to me, I had a higher opinion of a random person making a thread Thanks for correcting me.

honestly this is the main problem, half of the country doesnt even know what people on benefits do and don't get.

Anyone here who thinks Starmer is going to rock that boat is kidding themselves.

Why wouldn’t he? There’s no benefit for him in pandering to Tory donors.

A system devised by the Blair government and carried on by the current Tory mob.

Anyone here who thinks Starmer is going to rock that boat is kidding themselves.

16 hours at minimum wage is over £600 per month if you are over 21

Honestly you are conflating so many issues here and ramming them together

You've misunderstood. That's relating to if a person's wage varies month to month, and what happens if one month is over 2500 over their earning limit, which will vary depending on circumstances.

What you have quoted is the limit you can earn over the point your payment becomes zero, based on your allowance, in a single assessment period. For example (made up numbers) the elements you are entitled to add up to 1500. You earn 2000 from work over and above your work allowance so you lose 1100 (55p per pound earned) leaving a payment of 400. To get a nil assessment you would need to earn another 727, so 2727 over your work allowance.

What the paragraph quoted means is that you can earn another 2500 on top of that figure before they carry earnings forward into future assessment periods, so could earn 5227 before it affected your universal credit in future assessment periods.

I think that it is very wrong for working people to be reliant on benefits. Both for the tax payers, who should not be subsidising businesses who are paying wages too low to actually live on, and for the recipients, who are doing exactly as we need by working, but are not able to be contributors. They are put in a position of reliance. So wrong.

So, people on the "shit" jobs, like cleaners, carers etc.. that live in the centre of London... They should just move to a cheaper area? And spend hours commuting each day.

Or people should move away from their friends, family, and support networks?

Similar here. LHAfor 3 bedrooms is about 480. Rents are typically double that. A house across the road was up for £800 and had a steady stream of viewings for 2 days because it was so rare. Others in this postcode and nearby are around 1300.

That is true. Although, if you are in your 40s/50s, you don't want to be house sharing.

I think you’d be entitled to something since UC / allowances went up in April. It’d be less than£100 a month though so don’t know if you’d want to put the time into claiming. I appreciate the obligations are more onerous for self employed people

Don't forget you only get that rate of you're entitled to a 1 bed. If I understand correctly some people are only entitled to a house share at an even lower rate

You have misunderstood the earning limit. The earning limit could be £600 or £2500 or any other figure you pluck out of mid air as it's different for different people.

An example of what this means could be a single 20 year old person with no housing gets let's say £300. For every £1 earnt in wages they reduce their UC by 67p. They can earn £446 and their UC will stop so their earning threshold is £446.

Same person but with housing gets let's say £500. They can earn £745 and after that it stops so their earning threshold is £446. If that person suddenly gets a payment of £2500 it will potentially be spread across 5 assessment periods meaning theh get £0 UC

It actually stops people taking one huge payment then claiming for the next x amount of months. Without it someone could do 6 months work get paid a 12k in one lump sum and claim benefits for the 6 months before and from the month after getting paid 12k.

I use these figures at random just to illustrate

The government doesn’t drive wages down; employers do because the unions no longer have any teeth. What the government could do is outlaw zero hours contracts, set a realistic living wage and expect adults to take care of their own lives instead of blaming someone else all the time.

Im a single parent. 2 children.I clear £2,318 per month. No maintenance as ex husband refuses to pay and us self employed so bugger all anyone can do about it. Im not entitled to any UC, just child benefit.