to be worried about Universal Credit

[idiuntno57]

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.

Have you heard the latest one about Hammersmith and Fulham council giving more consideration to prospective tenants who have volunteered for at least 6 months before considering offering them housing ?

Oh, and the one about if you then stop volunteering you could then be in breach of your tenancy agreement and could be evicted ?

Have just read about this on another forum, surely they won't get away with this ?

I agree, minouminou. It seems they are intent on wreaking as much havoc and causing as much damage as possible, remember, they are all in it together.

So they are using tenants as workfare fodder to keep their homes now as well as their meagre benefits.

I can't see how any council would be able to get away with it, Darkest ?

So :( at this thread.

According to the universal calculator for us with DH starting his new job we'll be £479 a month better off. Also according to that we will also be entitled to £220 per month in housing benefit which only leaves £90 rent for us to pay - great if its true!

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 24-Mar-13 10:55:14

"more needs to be done about childcare" We have lots of choices for childcare in the UK and even have state support towards costs for those low incomes and tax relief for those that self support. Thousands manage to work without free family childcare every day.

Do you think that may be, perhaps, because those 'thousands' of people are earning enough to pay for their childcare? And that perhaps there may be cases where other people are in such low paid jobs that they cannot afford the high costs of childcare? If those people can't afford child care, then they can't go to work. Then people like you accuse them of being lazy, work shy scroungers...

I dont think it should be down to the state to sort childcare, parents know when they have children that they are expensive and it takes two minutes to find out childcare costs from the internet or a quick call to the local nursery. Far too many have children without the means to support them, either at the time or should circumstances change. Of course, its then not their fault but the states.

So, can we conclude from this that if you're poor, you should do a few calculations to check and if the figures are inadequate, then you should refrain from ever having children? So the only people who have a right to have children are those who are fortunate enough to have money?

Have you ever considered the fact that our start in life, whether good or bad, is entirely down to the accident of birth? That some are therefore much more fortunate than others, and that therefore, any civilised society should work at trying to even out those inequalities even just a little?

I wonder from this post and from your previous ones on this thread how much you actually look at real life around you rather than hiding behind online calculations which you conveniently select to present only one perspective on this whole matter.

If you are a single parent on benefits, then my apologies, but I heavily suspect you are not, in which case your comments convey a frightening detachment from real life that David Cameron himself would congratulate you on.

In my view, anyone who hasn't experienced redundancy, unemployment or living on benefits and thinks that the current government benefit reforms are acceptable should be made to spend a day at their nearest food bank and talk to the people who have to use it. Perhaps then they will start to understand that what the government actually means by 'always making work pay more than staying on benefit' is that many will continue to work long hours on outrageously inadequate pay but will only experience even greater poverty because of the cap on benefits.

So, benefits are being reduced to ensure that they fall even further below the income gained from very low-paid highly exploitative work (if you're 'lucky' enough to be able to find it), creating higher levels of poverty and homelessness among the unemployed, while equally nothing is being done to address the fact that many who are actually working around the clock still can't afford to put food on their plate.

What is the universal calculator you are all using?

It's bollicks that people in benefits spend on themselves first and DC's after.

Everyone I know is walking around in coats that can't be zipped up or with holes in, shoes repaired with superglue repeatedly in order to ensure that their DC's have decent clothes and shoes, and birthday & Christmas presents. Most of us go without food at Christmas to buy our DC's presents. Our DC's are washed, and well fed.

Yeah, once a year, most of them fuck off the bills once in order to go out for a break - but that's because they've been studying for a year and need a break.

Then again, last time I went out was 2008. Last time my good friend went out was her friend's 30th. Before that it had been two years. And she was working but on TC's.

It just doesn't happen, and it's a big enough estate.

I am begging anyone that is likely to be reliant on uc to please not pay any attention to the figures thrown out by that calc. Especially if you are going to be a working claimant

Sock - Do you know what one is best for a working claiment?

I'm finding it very hard to know what I will be recieving

Mrsdoyle, yes I do believe people should refrain from having children if the cant support them. Its one thing to be made redundant on maternity leave and have to claim but quite another to have a child knowing the state will be paying for that choice.

Those on a salary too high for benefits but not high enough to not worry about spending have to weigh up if the household budget can cater for a child or a larger house etc so why should those reliant on the state be exempt from personal responsibility?

People have different morals, depends on your view.

Victor,

A correct one does not currently exist even accesable by professionals in the area it was surposed to be piloted in this week.

Its a shambles Sock.

You are not wrong there

HappyMummyOfOne Tue 02-Apr-13 20:04:49

Mrsdoyle, yes I do believe people should refrain from having children if the cant support them. Its one thing to be made redundant on maternity leave and have to claim but quite another to have a child knowing the state will be paying for that choice.

Those on a salary too high for benefits but not high enough to not worry about spending have to weigh up if the household budget can cater for a child or a larger house etc so why should those reliant on the state be exempt from personal responsibility?

I agree there has to be a level of personal responsibility, but taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would result in all those below a certain income level being completely barred from having any children at all throughout their life. That would be very convenient for the Conservative government and voters who share its obvious contempt and hatred of those in poverty, but how can that be right? Surely that is subscribing to the view that all people living below the poverty line are doing so because it's entirely their own fault and therefore they don't deserve any basic rights or goodness in their lives, such as having children. Poverty does not automatically make someone a bad parent - bad parents occur across all classes.Why not question how wider society operates to produce such a huge division in resources between rich and poor, rather than advocate penalising all those without money? I am not justifying high numbers of children per family at the state's expense, but I think we cannot deny people the right to have children entirely because they are poor, either because they are in low paid jobs or unemployed despite genuinely trying to find a job.

If the poor can't have children who is going to pay for their pensions. Without the poor having children who is going to then do the low paid Jobs? It will have to be the children of the rich who will then be the new poor who will not be allowed to have children etc etc etc and eventually there will be no people. No?

I agree, and have made the point on here before that everyone has children in part because, generally, they will be in a position to take care of sick and aging parents in the future. Everyone needs family. The dynamics of a family changes over time, far beyind the intial stage of having a newborn in ones arms.

If people don't have family then they will likely end up in care at some later date. Who picks up the tab for that HappyMum? Or is it just that your point is conceived of a desire to make poor families die out?

Saying that people who don't get any support from the state should be the only ones to have children is as nonsensical as it is bigoted