Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be worried about Universal Credit

968 replies

idiuntno57 · 23/03/2013 20:21

I am in the lucky position of not needing to claim this but I am so worried about its implementation.

Its coming in in the Autumn and is going to be an online only, monthly, postdated payment. It will be paid to one adult in the family unit.

All well and did if you are god at managing your money, internet literate and in a stable relationship. But in the real world....

How are the most vulnerable in society going to have a chance with this?

Already the council tax changes are coming in and as far as I understand people are confused and shell shocked by it. UC is much bigger and no one is prepared.

OP posts:
FasterStronger · 25/03/2013 00:04

Boot, I have argued, dont spend money you dont have, in response to a poster talking about debt accumulated during work becoming unserviceable after unemployment.

so what point are you trying to make? That everyone's savings run out at some point?

SneezingwakestheJesus · 25/03/2013 00:06

Ah, no that's when they turn five I think. Lone parents and the nominated parent out of a couple are only expected to do the work focused interviews. Its when your child is in school that you switch to the next group which is applying for jobs and, if you have less than the minimum number of hours or no job, improving your employability. I wish I could remember where I had read this so I could check haha!

Isabeller · 25/03/2013 00:07

HI Faster how are you guaranteeing that your savings will retain their value?

SneezingwakestheJesus · 25/03/2013 00:08

Sorry that should say, work focused interviews while the child isn't school age.

FasterStronger · 25/03/2013 00:08

Isa, In what sense?

FasterStronger · 25/03/2013 00:09

Inflation? Falling share market?

ilovesooty · 25/03/2013 00:12

pretty much everyone will be unable to have HB paid directly to landlord, It will be paid to the claimant

This is the aspect I worry about most for my clients.

Booyhoo · 25/03/2013 00:13

the point i am trying to make is that no matter how smug well protected you think you have made yourself you could, in a very short space of time, be the very people you are judging for failing to plan their finances. you could be the person struggling to find the rent money and having to hear strangers comment about how you weren't sensible and didn't do all the right (in their opinion) things to avoid being dependant on benefits. you are not immune from this no matter what you choose to tell yourself.

FasterStronger · 25/03/2013 00:25

Booy, no I couldn't. I didn't say how many multiple years. But as someone pointed out, this isn't the topic of the thread, so lets leave this. If you were my accountant you couldn't proove the point you want to.

Isabeller · 25/03/2013 00:28

Yes, both. Value of any asset, fees/charges eroding sum invested. Wealth tax ie Cyprus relative value of pound, general instability. Who expected Icelandic bank problems?

Booyhoo · 25/03/2013 00:31

couldn't what?

IneedAsockamnesty · 25/03/2013 00:34

That is correct but keeping in touch with the work market does include all the stupid training meetings they just call them work focused interviews.

FasterStronger · 25/03/2013 00:35

Possibly a wealth tax but that fair enough in an euro country. Other than that no.

But not sure how this relates to UC?

Isabeller · 25/03/2013 00:36

ilovesooty I agree about problem with HB not to landlord. Presumably there will be times when a benefit payment which has to go into the bank account of the claimant will sink into an overdraft facility which is then immediately withdrawn. Only those "lucky" enough to have basic bank accounts will avoid this I imagine.

SneezingwakestheJesus · 25/03/2013 00:38

Do you think they will let us take children along to these meetings? I can't think of any childcare that you can just pay for random sessions. Unless they make them at the same time every week. Everything I've read said it would be like the income support ones we have now (which I need to chase up so thank you thread for reminding me).

Isabeller · 25/03/2013 00:41

Faster perhaps I have misunderstood but I thought you were advocating saving in order to avoid UC problems and also saying a sufficiently high level of savings such as yours guarantees the avoidance of financial hardship for life.

When you say don't spend what you don't have it brings to mind the recent lottery winner who will no doubt, having spent what he had, be claiming UC

AudrinaAdare · 25/03/2013 00:43

Totally agree there will be a massive rise in mugging and burglary. With fewer police to deal with it. There is a reason that benefits used to be called Social Security. This will affect everyone who isn't an actual net contributor. And these people are multi generational millionaires who can afford armed guards. That isn't us even if we do use private schools and medicine and look at us all fighting...

FasterStronger · 25/03/2013 00:48

Isa, no. A poster talked about people acquiring debt which they 'could afford' when working but then not being able to afford them after loosing their job. My point was they could not originally afford the debt, as they were already living beyond their means.

However in the Lala land of mn this causes outrage.

Isabeller · 25/03/2013 00:56

Faster I haven't quite grasped your position on debt are you saying any debt is unaffordable? Or certain types of debt?

SneezingwakestheJesus · 25/03/2013 01:22

Aw, I can't tell if people are deliberately winding faster up now. Faster is saying that if you didn't sign up for contracts in the first place, you wouldn't have an issue with paying them if you end up on benefits and the fact you have to sign up for a contract to get the item means that you don't have the money for it anyway or you wouldn't need the contract. So she chooses to avoid contracts and debt for things that she considers less important like mobile phones.

To use me as an example, I was on a course leading to a potential career in my silly head so I got excited and got a contract phone for the first time ever with my student loan. I couldn't afford the phone obviously or I wouldn't need a contract on the handset. I left the course because I couldn't manage it and was on benefits for a couple of months before but oh oh I still had to pay my contract. I couldn't afford to pay and it was a struggle but really, I couldn't afford the phone when I was on the course either or I wouldn't have needed the contract in the first place. Not sure if that's a good example but its similar.

SneezingwakestheJesus · 25/03/2013 01:23

Couple of months before I got a job* that should say

ElectricSheep · 25/03/2013 01:40

What about a BT contract? You can't get internet (to claim your benefits) without a BT/sky line. You have to sign up for 18 mths.

What about gas and electricity? Some utilities offer cheaper rates if you sign up for longer.

What always seems to be forgotton by those accusing people of whining and basically choosing to live on benefits is that there are 2.5 million people who are unemployed

That means that however hard TWO and A HALF MILLION try they WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET A JOB BECAUSE THE JOBS DO NOT EXIST

Disclaimer: even the ONS who issued the employment figures have raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the 2.5 million figure. They imply it is far higher.

Darkesteyes · 25/03/2013 01:58

The ONS also class workfare as being employed.

IneedAsockamnesty · 25/03/2013 02:03

It is higher. The figures get piss arsed about with.

Do you remember about 10 possibly 15 years ago long term unemployment benefit claimants were subject to a massive drive to either claim income support or incap instead of unemployment?

This was so they could pretend unemployment had dropped.

When they want the figures to look shockingly high they tend to also include over 16's who are still in education and those who are unemployed but not on Jsa when they want to say "yippee look how hard we've worked to lower unemployment" they just deduct those claimants from the figures again.

They also don't class a sanctioned claimant as unemployed and dwp staff are instructed to sanction as much as possible, there job is not to help you claim what you are eligible for like it used to be, now its to find reasons not to pay you. And its not even there fault even tho they get the brunt of it. They can't even stop it happening as its now automatic and not up to them.

I feel seriously sorry for front line dwp staff.

JakeBullet · 25/03/2013 07:02

Faster do you include mortgages in that statement about "affording debt".?

Fact is that society has been encouraged for a long long time to live on credit. People take in credit in good faith that they will repay the debt. In reality life is not always like that and job losses etc happen to anyone. I have seen families losing their homes because the breadwinner or both adults have lost jobs. Would you say they had taken in a debt they couldn't afford?
In which case surely mortgages etc can never be affordable unless you can pay them if you lose your job.

I have a child with autism, I had a mortgage but his needs meant I needed to be at home with him hence I couldn't pay the mortgage so I sold.....and rented privately from the proceeds until the money ran out. ...and thankfully a housing association took pity on me.

When I took the mortgage out though I was working full time, I did my finances and worked out how we could afford a baby while paying said mortgage. I didn't plan on autism though.....such is life. My mortgage was repaid when I sold but in reality it had reached a point where I could no longer afford it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread