Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask why Universal Credit is so terrible? (Not goady)

406 replies

evilharpy · 22/12/2017 19:13

I've seen several threads (one today about food banks which I can't seem to find now) where people have had some strong things to say about Universal Credit and the feeling seems to be that it is contributing to the poverty problem and forcing people to rely on food banks and causing more problems than it's helping with.

I'm wondering what exactly makes it so terrible and why it's so much worse than what came before it. Google hasn't been much help as most of the results are just official links on how to apply for it etc. But it seems to be that it's paid monthly rather than weekly or fortnightly and there's a long wait to get it?

I would just like to understand a bit more about it. And I don't mean this to be in any way insensitive or goady.

OP posts:
christmaspudding1 · 24/12/2017 15:13

ah ok,seems fare enough if there not working them hrs that they should only get what they work,had no idea

thank you

Frequency · 24/12/2017 15:15

How do you define bad choices?

If a 17yo takes a full time job to escape her alcoholic parent instead of finishing her education, did she make a bad choice?

What if at twenty-one, having worked her way into management in her job, living away from home and being fully self supporting, she then falls pregnant to her boyfriend of seven years. Is keeping the baby a bad choice? But what if boyfriend of seven years decides after seven years of not being an abusive twat leaves her when she refuses to have a late abortion for him? And then her LL decides to illegally evict her forcing her to flee back home and thus leave her management job?

Unless you know a person fully and have done for years, you have no idea what led up to the 'bad choices' you think they've made. Despite what The Daily Fail prints, very few women have children to stay on benefits or have no aspirations and if you truly believe they do, surely you'd agree that education and support is the best way of helping them as opposed to sanctions which push them and their children further into poverty?

KathArtic · 24/12/2017 15:41

Hell we all make bad choices, we wouldn't be human, but these days one should really ensure that bad choices are avoided as the outcome is decreasing benefits.

Gilead · 24/12/2017 15:55

The problem lies with those who don't help themselves. You only have to read an average MN thread were many (mainly) women have made poor choices: someone, who doesn't have the safety net of a decent job/training/qualifications behind them meets a bloke and within 4 months, whoops, has a 'contraception failure' and is pregnant. Fast forward 3 years and 2 more children, and it transpires he's an abusive arse. You know how the rest of the story goes....... Where's the aspiration to do well for yourself?
This is exactly what I was saying Kath but the problem here isn't someone making bad choices, it's your perception that it's the norm when it isn't. You say that people with disabilities absolutely should come first but you can't seem to see that we're lumped in with everyone else, benefits wise so as long as you toe the line that it's okay to penalise some for their perceived bad choices, you punish us too. There is an acceptable face of demonisation: that is you claiming that most people are on benefits due to bad choices and an a hidden aspect; the disabled. Every time you support your MP making the same choice as you, you erode the rights of those of us with disabilities. It really is the deserving and undeserving whereas what should be happening is an acceptance and an understanding that actually the majority really don't want to be there; there will always be a few idiots; but if we live and let live then those that really need it won't go without.

crunchymint · 24/12/2017 16:15

Some women do choose to have children on benefits. But anyone I know who has done this has been very young, in a shit family, and this has been a realistic way for them to escape.

makeourfuture · 24/12/2017 16:15

The problem is that our current Government has made nothing but bad economic choices.

Their housing policy is actually making things much worse, not better.

Their lack of focus on economic growth and instead an ideologically driven purge has strangled the economy.

Bad choices indeed.

LoisWilkersonsLastNerve · 24/12/2017 17:06

And people who aren't smart enough to pass training, do courses or have the social skills to get through interviews etc what about them? I've met people through work, befriending etc who are not employable and never will be.

LoisWilkersonsLastNerve · 24/12/2017 17:07

It's not always about bad choices, rather no choices.

Nightshirt · 24/12/2017 19:15

@cherrycokewinning, I know what a strawman argument is and I believe this is what you did in your response to sistersofmercy. Sistersofmercy posted two questions, firstly, are there enough jobs out there and secondly is forcing the primary parent, be it man or woman, to go to work in a low paid job when the child is still young (over 3 now for UC) rather than stay at home the best thing for the family and society? Sistersofmercy didn't elaborate the following point but I see it you could have a situation where the primary parent of the child works in a low paid job earning minimum wage whilst a nursery worker is earning a low paid wage to look after the primary parent's child. If the primary parent would like to work then they should have that choice, but I agree with sistersofmercy there is the question is forcing the primary parent to work and not be a stay at home parent at least when the child is young, say up 8-10, a good thing?

You replied the problem was "tax credits allowed parents to have bigger families than they could afford to support. When is taken away, they can’t see a way out." So your response was to say tax credits encouraged families to have more children than they can afford. Yet sistersofmercy comment was not discussing the issue of whether tax credits encouraged families to have larger families but whether are there enough jobs and is making the primary carer go out to work in a low paid job when the child is so young necessarily a good thing? The strawman in your argument was discussing tax credits and large families when sistersofmercy was not discussing family size. Even sistersofmercy said she didn't think you had understand the points they were raising but you just said you were agreeing with them.

Feel free to tell me you were trying to say something other than your comment 'tax credits allows families to have bigger families and now they are taking them away they can't find a way out' and I am happy to listen. Finally, I am getting conflicting information on whether not being allowed tax credits for more than 2 children will be applied retrospectively. Lots of the websites say that even when families of 3 are moved over to UC (families of 3 or more have been stopped from applying for UC at mo and need to apply for tax credits separately still) they will still be calculated to get extra UC credit for the third child and it is only families who have a third child born after April 2017 who will not get extra for a third child or more. I am not on the frontline though so others may know more about the truth of this in reality.

Nightshirt · 24/12/2017 20:12

@MotherofaSurvivor, I am so sorry what happened to you. It's so unfair that by the sounds of it you tried some work, your health was too poor to sustain it so you had to go back on a out of work sickness benefit and they made you apply for UC immediately rather than back on to ESA and you lost your SDP, a significant sum. Also it's terrible how long you had to wait to get the full amount, what a nightmare for you

Downtheroadfirstonleft · 24/12/2017 22:36

It sounds as though the changes are being made to encourage people back to work rather than being able to choose to stay on benefits and close some loopholes. Sadly, along with other activities, the government are not handling the implementation well.

MotherofaSurvivor · 24/12/2017 22:51

Thankyou Nightshirt x

Have put a complaint in and should be hearing back fairly soon x

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 00:20

And I absolutely agree that the disabled should have a decent standard of living on those benefits. That's is what the welfare state is for.... but these days one should really ensure that bad choices are avoided as the outcome is decreasing benefits.

@KathArtic, just please be aware the sick and/or disabled have seen considerable financial cuts under the coalition and Tory govt. They also face a very stressful disability benefit assessment process. The severe disability premium is to be cut under Universal Credit as passed in the 2011 Welfare Reform Bill, the Independent Living Fund to cover those with high care needs has already been abolished, so many having to pay out of pocket to bridge the gap in care, financial care contributions by the person to care packages have increased considerably too, housing benefit rates frozen and disability criteria narrowed.

Institutes have written reports saying the disabled have suffered the largest cuts since Cameron and Osborne implemented austerity. The UN have condemned how the disabled have been treated under austerity here in the UK. The coalition and present government could have left disability benefits and care alone but they didn't.

Your second statement suggests that the welfare budget has got too big because too many people are taking from it. As a percentage of the national coffers, welfare spending (not including state pension here) as part of GDP was not considerably more by 2010 than it had been for the last few decades. It has gone up 0.81% since 1990 (it was 7.65 % of total GDP by 2010) according to a table I have just looked at. Link here www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_brief.php I suspect a considerable amount of that increase was the larger housing benefit bill due to private renting with council housing stock being at an all time low. Also of course if the national minimum wage was enough to live on there would be less need for tax credits.

This Tory govt, and the coalition before, do not believe in a functioning welfare state even for the disabled. They want eventually for individuals to take out private insurance to cover for sickness and unemployment and the state to offer the bare minimum including the sick and disabled. Goodness knows how those disabled from birth or childhood are supposed to live who never had the opportunity to take out private insurance or those on low incomes who would struggle to pay private insurance. America has much less welfare provision and those on low incomes or out of work and disabled get very little state help. I was always shocked when I talked to American friends with the same illness as me how little state support there is. If their family didn't have money to help they suffered a lot, not to mention guilt that families had to pay out so much. The Tories since 2010 are taking this country down the road to the American model of protection for the individual. To gain public support they push the idea that the country can't afford to offer welfare support as people are abusing it. It's a false narrative so people don't protest. There may have needed to be some tax credit changes in certain areas, all systems need to be changed at times, but not the large scale welfare cuts the government have imposed. This was an ideological choice by our government under the smokescreen of austerity. Some economists argue cuts/austerity after a global crash impedes growth and indeed the annual government deficits have got larger not smaller.

Every system will have a few who abuse it or individuals who are born with a very disadvantaged start in life. These people need more education and early years support, not just cuts. HMRC write off large tax losses in total from individuals who don't fill in their forms properly, not to mention corporate tax evasion that avoids paying out billions. Yet there is not the same scale of protest and judgement from the public as there is about benefits.

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 00:31

It sounds as though the changes are being made to encourage people back to work rather than being able to choose to stay on benefits and close some loopholes. Sadly, along with other activities, the government are not handling the implementation well.

@Downtheroadrirstonleft, When you say UC is trying to get back back to work, I take it you understand many people who will be on UC are in work, but due to the national minimum wage not being high enough to live on have tax credits to top up their income? Or are you referring to the primary parent having to work now up to 25 hrs to get credits when before a family needed to work a minimum of 24 hrs before eligible for tax credits?

Even if you believe the change above, please note all those who worked full time and received some work and child tax credits will have a decrease in payments when they switch to Universal Credit. There are cuts as well, it's not just 'getting people back to work'. I have already mentioned how the the sick and disabled will be seeing significant cuts too under UC via abolishing the severe disability premium and the disability element for those disabled who were able to do some work.

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 00:34

@Downtheroadfirstontheleft, apologies for spelling mistakes and poor syntax in some of what I wrote above.

@MotherofaSurvivor, I am glad you are putting in a complaint but I realise this probably will not change things. I really hope it may, though.

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 00:43

Thanks @jingleladies, my carers via direct payments do both personal care and shopping, laundry etc. Also as my mum gets a state and private pension, she earns too much to qualify for the small carers allowance (I know it's not a lot, approx £62.00 a week I believe).

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 00:52

@jingleladies, anyone who gets SDP will have transitional cover when they are moved over to UC, but eventually inflation will cancel it out and as magpie pointed out there are other ways DWP may manoeuvre it so the person loses the SDP altogether.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 25/12/2017 00:52

@NeedsaSockAmnesty, I have learnt something new from this thread. So some people with 3 children and more have been switched to UC and are now only getting the equivalent of tax credits for 2 children? Yet the government said reducing the tax credit component of UC to two families would not be applied retrospectively and only for children born from April 2017? Also the areas where families with 3 children or more are still being told to apply under tax credits is not going to be until the children reach 16 so the cuts are coming to them? So the govt lied?

They didn’t really lie, they just didn’t give the full picture.

When they told us about the two child rule what they said in a roundabout sort of way was “we will not pay tax credits for more than two children but it will be limited to children born after 4/4/17” this is 100% totally true. No families on tax credits will have their children’s money reduced or stopped until the correct time if they were born before that date.

They failed to mention anything about universal credit. Universal credit is not tax credits, there is not a tax credit part of universal credit they are two totally different things that have no relation to each other.
Which is also how they managed to include the earnings reduction in UC whilst making a big song and dance about stepping down from doing it to tax credits.

MotherofaSurvivor · 25/12/2017 01:04

No, if you have more than two children you cannot currently claim UC

NeedsAsockamnesty · 25/12/2017 01:15

mother

That restriction is a fairly recent one. Before it was put it place there was no restriction.its also short term (ends in Nov 2018).

Prior to the restriction being in place a fair few claimants with 2+ kids were forced to claim uc instead of tax credits. Once you are on uc it is not possible to switch back so they are still on it.

I’m working with several families experancing this and if my anadote is not sufficient it’s been written about a few time in the CPAG welfare benefits magazine

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 01:42

Thanks @Needsasockamnesty for the further details. I know they have stopped families of more than 2 applying for UC until Nov 18.

I appreciate Universal Credit is a new benefit replacing a few separate benefits including tax credits amalgamating them into all one benefit named Universal Credit and thus it is not identical to tax credits and child benefits.

I know too you obviously know a lot more about this than me, but when I read some info online it said there are child elements in Universal Credit paid on top of the basic allowance in UC. It also said those with families of more than 2 children who were born before April 17 will get an additional child element for the third child. Those with a third child born after April 17 will not get an additional child element for a third child and is limited to two children. However, as you said, they made a big song and dance about U turning on reducing tax credit amounts in 2015 but I know the amount families will get, including families of 2 children or less, with universal credit will work out lower than what they were getting under the child and work tax credits system.

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 02:00

@NeedsaSockAmnesty, I found the below information on the gov.uk website. I think I am understanding it better now, so those who claimed UC before April 2017 (which were not many as UC had not been rolled out in many areas) can still get child elements for a third child. However, all families with 3 or more children now have been stopped from claiming universal credit and when they come to be allowed to apply for UC they will be classed as applying after April 2017 and thus only entitled to the additional child element for no more than two children. I think that's very crafty of the government. I had not understood this is how they were doing it.

If you have children

How much you’ll get Extra monthly amount

For your first child £277.08 (born before 6 April 2017)
£231.67 (born on or after 6 April 2017)

For your second child £231.67 per child

If you have a disabled or severely disabled child £357.78 to £649.38 (this includes the amount for your first or second child)

If you need help with childcare costs up to 85% of your costs (up to £646.35 for one child and £1,108.04 for 2 or more children)

You only get an extra amount for more than 2 children if:

you were already claiming for more than 2 children before 6 April 2017

you’re renewing a claim for more than 2 children that stopped within the past 6 months

other exceptions apply
You might get the extra amount if you start caring for another child, depending on when they were born and how many children you have.

Nightshirt · 25/12/2017 02:01

Sorry I did not put in inverted commas the section I copied and pasted from the government website on universal credit starting from 'if you have children'

Cosmic123 · 25/12/2017 08:09

To name just a few reasons (and I've worked in the advice sector for 9 years so I know a bit about it)
Loads of genuinely disabled people will end up financially worse off. I'm talking about people who are disabled not the myth of the work shy person pulling the lead you read about in the daily mail. A few of them exist but they're in the vast minority. There's a good article on this site if you want to understand the ins and outs
www.disabilityrightsuk.org/policy-campaigns/benefits/half-million-disabled-people-could-lose-out-under-universal-credit

The fact that it has cost so much to implement it isn't going to save money. For example the government spent billions on a computer system they had to scrap because it wasn't designed properly.

Honestly the fact that they are really expecting people to be able to manage their money monthly in arrears. Yes this reflects the world of work but it is going to end up meaning a lot of people will end up homeless. I know because I've worked in the advice sector for nearly ten years.

There's loads of other reasons but if you did my job and had to give out food vouchers on a daily basis as a direct result of welfare reform you would understand.

In summary it's not about improving a system it's about being seen to be tough on benefit claimants in order to win votes. Call me cynical but you would fully get it if you did my job for a month .

Cosmic123 · 25/12/2017 08:09

To name just a few reasons (and I've worked in the advice sector for 9 years so I know a bit about it)
Loads of genuinely disabled people will end up financially worse off. I'm talking about people who are disabled not the myth of the work shy person pulling the lead you read about in the daily mail. A few of them exist but they're in the vast minority. There's a good article on this site if you want to understand the ins and outs
www.disabilityrightsuk.org/policy-campaigns/benefits/half-million-disabled-people-could-lose-out-under-universal-credit

The fact that it has cost so much to implement it isn't going to save money. For example the government spent billions on a computer system they had to scrap because it wasn't designed properly.

Honestly the fact that they are really expecting people to be able to manage their money monthly in arrears. Yes this reflects the world of work but it is going to end up meaning a lot of people will end up homeless. I know because I've worked in the advice sector for nearly ten years.

There's loads of other reasons but if you did my job and had to give out food vouchers on a daily basis as a direct result of welfare reform you would understand.

In summary it's not about improving a system it's about being seen to be tough on benefit claimants in order to win votes. Call me cynical but you would fully get it if you did my job for a month .