New UC rules to force both partners to work ??

[Citrusmuffin]

I can’t find anything online about this but have heard it’s being changed as previously there had to be a certain number of hours worked but this could be by just one partner but now it’s being changed to make both work even though the total household hours don’t change??

This seems very unfair and taking away choice for some families in difficult circumstances. I just can’t find the official guidance is anyone able to link to it ? Thanks

I haven't said you've said anything about it.

Yes, you did. You stated “So why keep going on about it repeatedly”.

So no quote then? Strange that. Yet another person who makes incorrect claims about my posts but can’t substantiate their claims.

I’m not changing the subject. The subject of the thread is UC, and the health element is part of UC. You have talked about UC, for example, one of your posts states “Therefore, per your link (if it us correct) anybody receiving any PIP would be exempt from UC work requirement if they also decided to claim UC.” That is about UC. I told you to look at the link in response to you posting this quote, for which it is relevant.

I thought the thread is about UC not PIP That's a different benefit. UC is means tested and pip isn't. AFAIK.

Yes, you did. You stated “So why keep going on about it repeatedly”.

I was asking why you keep going on about conditions for claiming UC repeatedly in response to my posts which I said over and over again are about the concerns of how these changes might impact future conditions for claiming PIP, not UC. So asked you to stop referring me to links about conditions for claiming UC which are irrelevant. I'm running out of different ways to rephrase the same thing which you've been told over and over again now.

So no quote then? Strange that. Yet another person who makes incorrect claims about my posts but can’t substantiate their claims.

Quote for what? You posted a link about new conditions that would be imposed on people claiming universal credit. I told you my concerns are about PIP not UC. You keep repeating this same stuff?

Weird.

It has certainly veered a bit of the original post !

Errrr conversations move on? This poster specifically replyied to me and my posts that were about PIP and the future potential impact of this on PIP and then referred me to a link about UC that was irrelevant. And then kept going on about that when it was irrelevant to the question I was asking. But that's fine, you can also chime in in this particular discussion within the threadand do the same clearly also without having read the conversation. 🙄 Waste of time trying to speak to people who do not appear to be able to understand simple sentences.

I asked you to quote where I had been “going on about” PIP being means tested or the criteria changed. Because I hadn’t.

I was asking why you keep going on about conditions for claiming UC repeatedly in response to my posts which I said over and over again are about the concerns of how these changes might impact future conditions for claiming PIP, not UC.

No, you said I was “going on about it”. It being changing the criteria for PIP and means testing it. When I hadn’t mentioned it. I have quoted it in case you have forgotten.

The thread is about UC. The health element is about UC. For someone who claims not to be posting about UC your posts mention it a lot. For example,

12.04 - “So anybody receiving any level of PIP would be entitled to be excluded from work requirements for UC?”

12.38 and 12.39 - about UC work requirements - “So how will it be "decided individually" without anybody assessing it?” And “Presumably making an individual assessment involves... making an assessment of some kind?”

13.14 - “On what basis will these "work coaches", who have no medical training, be making a decision on how much people can work?”
13.50 - “Are you saying that after these changes people who get PIP will receive the health element of UC automatically regardless of income?”

15.05 - “Or are you saying that anyone with PIP, if they applied for UC, would automatically be exempt from work?”

15.20 - the following exchange (your posts are the first and last part, not the middle) to which I replied read the benefits and work link - “@AlienEgg Those already receiving PIP, if they work now but then become too unwell to work, they will automatically be deemed too unwell to work by UC? And for what level of PIP, any? yes and for any level of pip. Working will be a choice.
That makes no sense. Many of us who receive PIP work. And many who don't receive PIP cannot work. PIP isn't about capability to work. It's meant to cover the additional costs of being disabled (but is far too low to do that).”

18.27 - “Therefore, per your link (if it us correct) anybody receiving any PIP would be exempt from UC work requirement if they also decided to claim UC.” Which I again replied read the link.

So asked you to stop referring me to links about conditions for claiming UC which are irrelevant.

They are relevant. The 2 times I referred you to the benefits and work website was in response to your posts mentioning UC work requirements at 18.27 and 15.20 as per the times/posts of yours I have quoted.

I'm running out of different ways to rephrase the same thing which you've been told over and over again now.

I could say the same thing.

And then kept going on about that when it was irrelevant to the question I was asking.

They were relevant!

Pointing you in the direction of a link stating not everyone receiving PIP and thus the health element will automatically be exempt from work commitments is very relevant in response to you posting “Therefore, per your link (if it us correct) anybody receiving any PIP would be exempt from UC work requirement if they also decided to claim UC.”

Pointing you in the direction of a link stating not everyone receiving PIP will automatically be exempt from work commitments is relevant to this exchange:

“Those already receiving PIP, if they work now but then become too unwell to work, they will automatically be deemed too unwell to work by UC? And for what level of PIP, any? yes and for any level of pip. Working will be a choice.
That makes no sense. Many of us who receive PIP work. And many who don't receive PIP cannot work. PIP isn't about capability to work. It's meant to cover the additional costs of being disabled (but is far too low to do that).”

as it answers your question of “they will automatically be deemed too unwell to work by UC?” as no, they won’t.

Oh Jesus, you really have lost it haven't you? Selectively quoting parts of my posts from earlier on. Yes, of course I have also expressed concerns for how it would impact UC claimants and stated that the proposed changes won't work from that point of view either. But then said the more important topic - because any decent society should be focusing above all on how to look after the most vulnerable people - is the impact this could have on trying to erode the basis of disability benefits i.e. that they have nothing to do with capability to work and should not be means tested and this might be used as a first step to conflating the two and trying to water down disability benefits even further or means-testing them in some way by muddying the water between income-based benefits and disability benefits which have nothing to do with that.

This is all very, very clear in my posts so trying to selectively quote where I've expressed concern for other groups that might be impacted and then imply that somehow the rest of what I said didn't exist is ridiculous. It was very clear what I was asking for information about, I told you repeatedly that the link you posted did not answer the question about PIP and whether this would be used to try to change eligibility for that in time, so why keep pretending the conversation was anything other than what it was? It is all here to read if you want or need to read it again.

Tiresome and, frankly, pathetic.

But that is NOT what I was asking for information about. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

What is going on with Mumsnet posters today? Is it a full moon or something? I've seen multiple threads today where people do not seem to be able to read. Or deliberately attack other posters for no reason at all. Really strange behaviour.

Well clearly you were as it answered your questions I quoted. Or are you now saying you didn’t post exactly what I quoted?

I haven’t attacked you. And I can read.

You need to start your own thread about PIP rather than scolding people for not sticking to the topic. The topic is UC.

I quoted the part where you a) talked about UC, and b) said me linking to the benefits and works website was irrelevant because a) you insisted you weren’t talking about UC and b) that my link was irrelevant when it wasn’t. That is not ridiculous.

I told you repeatedly that the link you posted did not answer the question about PIP and whether this would be used to try to change eligibility for that in time, so why keep pretending the conversation was anything other than what it was?

And I repeatedly told you that wasn’t the part of your post I was replying to. I am not pretending anything. As you say, the conversation is there for everyone to read, I replied with the link in response to specific parts of your post, which were relevant.

Well clearly you were as it answered your questions I quoted. Or are you now saying you didn’t post exactly what I quoted?

I haven’t attacked you. And I can read.

You've been warned extremely rude. You have answered what were clearly rhetorical questions to which there is no answer, and not answered the question I repeatedly asked which was about the impact on PIP, then repeatedly claimed that you have done so, when it appears that you have no more idea of the answer to that than anybody else does. So stop pretending you do, and stop posting irrelevant things to people and insisting they answer their questions when they've told you repeatedly that they do not, and why, and stop trying to gaslight people and misrepresent their posts by quoting selective parts out of context and ignoring the main focus if what they said, and in fact just don't reply to me personally at all anymore, ok? I am done speaking to you and don't wish to be harrassed like this any more with you tagging me in nonsense.

You've been warned extremely rude.

I’m not the one who has been rude. Whose doing the warning, you? Haha. I am not gaslighting anyone, nor posting irrelevant posts.

You have answered what were clearly rhetorical questions to which there is no answer

They aren’t rhetorical questions. There is an answer.

then repeatedly claimed that you have done so

No, I haven’t claimed that. Rather I have repeatedly told you I wasn’t replying to that part. Again can you quote where I have claimed it?

in fact just don't reply to me personally at all anymore, ok?

You don’t get to police my posts.

“Therefore, per your link (if it us correct) anybody receiving any PIP would be exempt from UC work requirement if they also decided to claim UC.”

Are you suggesting ^^post of yours wasn’t talking about UC? How strange since it explicitly mentions UC twice. Or are you suggesting responding, and providing a supporting link, stating those receiving PIP (and thus the health element) won’t automatically be exempt for work requirements isn’t relevant? Because clearly it is.

Those already receiving PIP, if they work now but then become too unwell to work, they will automatically be deemed too unwell to work by UC? And for what level of PIP, any? yes and for any level of pip. Working will be a choice.
That makes no sense. Many of us who receive PIP work. And many who don't receive PIP cannot work. PIP isn't about capability to work. It's meant to cover the additional costs of being disabled (but is far too low to do that).”

^This too explicitly mentions UC. Are you saying it doesn’t? Or are you suggesting responding to “they will automatically be deemed too unwell to work by UC?”^ by stating, and providing a supporting link, those receiving PIP (and thus the health element) won’t automatically be exempt for work requirements (i.e. deemed too unwell for work) isn’t relevant? Because, again, clearly it is relevant.

Hi, can we get some peace and love on the thread please❤?

Just awful how two waring posters completely derail a thread. Have people got nothing better to do than go on at each other for hours. very sad. Have reported.

Lots of 'why do you think the state should pay for you to stay at home'? comments here.

Going to assume people making those comments are also against the government giving people on really good incomes interest free loans of 150K so they can buy a half a million pound home? That costs the tax payer tens of thousands of pounds. What about people in council houses being given massive discounts - sometimes amounting to 100's of thousands of pounds to buy their properties? Especially when we know this policy has contributed to the current housing crisis? What about the 30 hours of free childcare that everyone, including people on 100K plus salaries are entitled to? There are people out there who'd say 'if you want to have kids you should fund the cost of keeping them yourself'?

Or is it just poor people on very low incomes claiming benefits that makes you angry?

Those with an adjusted net income of over £100k aren’t eligible for 30 free hours of childcare. The eligibility criteria are here.

Also. The country needs children for that generation to pay tax for the country to keep going and for all older generations to live who have already paid into it.
Without kids the wheels stop turning.

You will be classed as that childs carer so it shouldn’t affect you 😊

@izimbra No , I don’t agree with the policy that has allowed people to buy their Council homes at massive discounts. I also don’t agree with the tax credits (now UC) that allows one person to stay at home and not work. Two crap policies from two different political parties that have contributed to the state of the country today and had a huge impact on those with low incomes. The first has massively reduced the availability of low cost housing and the second has contributed to the wage stagnation that we’ve had over the past twenty years.

As for childcare, the more low cost childcare we have the better. We cannot afford for workers at any level of earnings to be dropping out of the job market. We have a massive skills/labour shortage and an ageing population. It’s stupid for us to let people drop of out of the job market and then import more people to do the jobs they were doing because the people we import need housing, school places for their children, medical care etc…and we’re struggling to provide those things for the existing population as it is.

As for loans for houses, I think any money spent on this would be far better spent put into new low cost housing or to provide some form of Government backed guarantee for people that have rented for a number of years to allow them to buy a property of their own.

Looking after very young children is a contribution to society. Weird that people have bought into the idea that paid work is the only thing of value. Nurturing children is very valuable and something society should value. We should subsidise childcare for parents who go out to work and we should subsidise that care happening in the home if that works best for the family. I’m a working lone (widowed) parent paying higher rate tax btw, happy for my taxes to go towards this. Sounds to me like you could do with some lessons in sharing.

My children were nurtured by us despite going to nursery