Universal Credit - how can this be right?

[beentheretoo]

I’ll admit I know very little about Universal Credit apart from what you hear on the news thankfully (touch wood) never had to claim).

A friend recently got a new job 2 days a week I congratulated her and said it’s the type of job they are always looking for people I bet they’ll be offering you more days in no time. She then said oh I don’t want more days it’ll affect my UC, I’m allowed to work up to 16 hours before they take money off me and besides I’m really looking forward to having 3 days to myself once the kids are back in school. She’s a single parent her DH left her when she was a SAHM she was on full UC for a bit then had another PT job now this new one (she has a degree but doesn’t want to go back into that field).

I was thinking about it how can they be right that if you work 16 hours you get full UC but if you work 20 you get money taken away? Where’s the incentive to work more hours? My friends DC are older so doesn’t need childcare and I’m sure loads of people would love 3 days to themselves I bloody would.

Am I getting it correct then?

[quote AnaisNun]@Ylvamoon

As an aside- where do you think the line of state responsibility was during the financial crisis? Banks and bankers were “subsidised” and dug out of the shit in a way the ordinary folk most definitely would and will never be- and that WAS something that can be squarely blamed on people being reckless with money and making poor decisions.

They’re called “hedge fund managers” and incidentally, one of them, right at the heart of it all, was none other than Rishi Sunak.

So don’t lecture me about “taking responsibility” when the state is profoundly fucking irresponsible, in structure, ideology and personnel.[/quote]
Standing ovation!!!

I think the majority of people would be absolutely horrified by a financial AMA with me. It would end up sounding like I'm advocating every individual to act like Mossack Fonseca, and drive straight through every loophole imaginable.

The folks who actually think that any government actually gives a shit about our tax receipts (they don't - they'll just borrow from the central bank anyway and funnel it to whichever corporate interests lobby hard enough) would be spitting feathers!!

Maybe then we should!

So if everyone took high flying jobs who would do the minimum wage roles? You know jobs like providing childcare whilst you work your high flying job and putting food on the shelves and delivering goods to your house.
Some people are to ignorant to see the bigger picture.

I think the financial crisis - and then the announcement of 'help to buy' - was the point that people should have woken up to what's been going on. It doesn't matter which party is in power, and the problems are somewhat global.

Personal responsibility is indeed the way. It is your personal responsibility to organise your finances in the most sensible way possible, legally. But try and do it in the least socially reprehensible way (I.e. don't be a landlord, and if you are don't be one who uses leverage).

If you decide to work less and prioritise time, go for it.

If you decide to attempt to climb the greasy pole, and slap yourself on the back for hitting 40-80k, but not really be that much better off, go for it.

If you decide to escape and earn proper money, and funnel everything you are allowed into your pension to avoid it, salary sacrifice to get an electric vehicle, buy shares/assets whilst the money printer goes brrrr continues - go for it.

And leave others making their decisions alone.

Apart from leveraged landlords. You can sarcastically applaud them for their rare genius all you wish

And this is why the general population feels how they do about benefits

Indeed.

If you decide to attempt to climb the greasy pole, and slap yourself on the back for hitting 40-80k, but not really be that much better off, go for it.

I genuinely don't understand this comment.

I used to be in much lower paid roles as a single mum for quite a few years (ranging from 18k to 22k annually), topped up by tax credits (as the system was at the time) to help me fund FT childcare. I am significantly better off now than I was back then, having climbed the career ladder in my field and earning close to 50k now. I definitely wouldn't describe my situation now as "not really that much better off".

Just trying to understand where you're coming from with this comment.

@LucieStar

If you decide to attempt to climb the greasy pole, and slap yourself on the back for hitting 40-80k, but not really be that much better off, go for it.

I genuinely don't understand this comment.

I used to be in much lower paid roles as a single mum for quite a few years (ranging from 18k to 22k annually), topped up by tax credits (as the system was at the time) to help me fund FT childcare. I am significantly better off now than I was back then, having climbed the career ladder in my field and earning close to 50k now. I definitely wouldn't describe my situation now as "not really that much better off".

Just trying to understand where you're coming from with this comment.

We may differ on this - and it is circumstances dependent, but bear with me.

If you have kids and rent, then depending on where you are in the country your entitlement to UC can be quite high - i.e. you can end up still qualifying for it well into the 40-50k part of the income spectrum.

Because of that, you have an EMTR of over 75%, because every pound you earn is tapering your UC entitlement.

Thus it is perfectly possible for two families - one with a household income of 18k, and one with household income of 50k, to only have a net difference of 8k per year. And thats before the additional costs of commuting, work, childcare and the loss of the other 'perks' of being on UC entail.

Now, 8k is 8k - it's another £670 a month - which is a lot, but it's not exactly living at the Ritz difference and it's nowhere near as much as the 32k difference in gross incomes would suggest it might be. it'd make things a lot more palatable if you got to keep more of that.

The really high earners might actually be able to work out the truth. You're stuffed either way unless you earn an absolute shit load, and use every allowance available

I have no idea what this means, but it sounds suspiciously like one of those "i'm such a poor higher earner in the 1% of richest people, honestly you have no idea of my outgoings!" type posts.

Bloody excuse me I do have a career. Not even just a job, a career that I can progress in. I still receive benefits. Many many people on benefits are working mothers and working families. Please educate yourself

Which was LITERALLY the point. Please actually read posts and what they are relating to before having a pop because you haven't understood.

*If you have kids and rent, then depending on where you are in the country your entitlement to UC can be quite high - i.e. you can end up still qualifying for it well into the 40-50k part of the income spectrum.
*
Really? I didn't know this. I just assumed that sort of income would be well above the threshold no matter where you live.

Not all of us have jobs with career progression. I could work full time in my current role and be financially worse of and still have zero career progression at the end of it.

Exactly!Spending some time in the real world would really help some posters here

You didn't understand that the point was to aim higher and get a better job, with career progression? You think you just stay where you are and complain other people need to spend time in the real world?
In that real world, you work harder, you educate yourself, you aim higher.
Or don't, it's not compulsory. But then don't complain about it!

@boltfromtheblueblue

The really high earners might actually be able to work out the truth. You're stuffed either way unless you earn an absolute shit load, and use every allowance available

I have no idea what this means, but it sounds suspiciously like one of those "i'm such a poor higher earner in the 1% of richest people, honestly you have no idea of my outgoings!" type posts.

Then you are incapable of picking up on the sentiment behind my posts.

I couldn't give a fuck about money, or stuff

I have the outgoings of a 50k earner family. But I earn 3x that gross. I've money literally coming out of my ears - I don't know what to do with it, other than buy more vanguard etfs and up my charitable contributions.

Unlike the conventional trope - your outgoings don't have to rise to match your income. That is the exact path to never becoming financially independent.

@boltfromtheblueblue

Not all of us have jobs with career progression. I could work full time in my current role and be financially worse of and still have zero career progression at the end of it.

Exactly!Spending some time in the real world would really help some posters here

You didn't understand that the point was to aim higher and get a better job, with career progression? You think you just stay where you are and complain other people need to spend time in the real world?
In that real world, you work harder, you educate yourself, you aim higher.
Or don't, it's not compulsory. But then don't complain about it!

Also a little insulting to suggest that if you earn a reasonably good salary now because of your hard work and sacrifice, that you have no idea what it's like to be in the "real world" at the bottom of that ladder and struggling - that's exactly where I came from anyway. Single mum, low income, tax credits to top me up, forking out for FT childcare costs. Just because I stuck it out and progressed to where I am now, doesn't mean I'm ignorant to the struggles of getting here. I've done it, so I'm fully aware.

@TulisaIsBrill

What do you mean by you have the outgoings of a 50k earner family? Everyone's outgoings are different - not all families with that income will have exactly matched outgoings.

@LucieStar

*If you have kids and rent, then depending on where you are in the country your entitlement to UC can be quite high - i.e. you can end up still qualifying for it well into the 40-50k part of the income spectrum. * Really? I didn't know this. I just assumed that sort of income would be well above the threshold no matter where you live.

It's possible to qualify for tax credits into the 50-60k spectrum. I know this from personal experience and the > 100% effective tax rate that means.

I would have been better off earning 50k than 60k!

It's possible to qualify for tax credits into the 50-60k spectrum.

In which parts of the country, out of interest? You alluded to location being relevant in your other post so I'm just curious.

[quote LucieStar]@TulisaIsBrill

What do you mean by you have the outgoings of a 50k earner family? Everyone's outgoings are different - not all families with that income will have exactly matched outgoings. [/quote]
It was a simple way to put it. I'd expect the average family on 50k gross to spend what we do on housing, food, cars etc. Basically our outgoings are around 3k per month.

@LucieStar

It's possible to qualify for tax credits into the 50-60k spectrum.

In which parts of the country, out of interest? You alluded to location being relevant in your other post so I'm just curious.

Anywhere with a high local housing allowance.

It was a simple way to put it. I'd expect the average family on 50k gross to spend what we do on housing, food, cars etc. Basically our outgoings are around 3k per month.

Surely that depends on the cost of living and the area that family lives in? For context I'm in the far north of England. My outgoings are nowhere near 3k a month.

You didn't understand that the point was to aim higher and get a better job, with career progression? You think you just stay where you are and complain other people need to spend time in the real world?
In that real world, you work harder, you educate yourself, you aim higher.
Or don't, it's not compulsory. But then don't complain about it!

I notice you didn’t respond to my comment that not everyone is capable of career progression. It’s just isn’t possible for everyone. And many of them know that. They know their own limitations. They know they’d be on a hiding to nothing. So there is absolutely no benefit for them in slogging it out for something they will never have.

You are lying if you come back and tell me you don’t know anyone like this.

@LucieStar

It was a simple way to put it. I'd expect the average family on 50k gross to spend what we do on housing, food, cars etc. Basically our outgoings are around 3k per month.

Surely that depends on the cost of living and the area that family lives in? For context I'm in the far north of England. My outgoings are nowhere near 3k a month.

Yes I'm well aware. it was a back of a fag packet average based on what I estimate the average family with my personal circs (age, number of kids etc) to spend. Apologies for the lack of breaking it down into detail

Yes, there could be a family in the North on 50k living cheaply, and frugally and easily magaing on £1200 all in.

Equally in london, said same family may be living the dream and into debt.

But I reckon, on average 3k is a reasonable estimate of total outgoings for a 50k family averaged across the country. I may be wrong, but it's just an estimate.

If you have kids and rent, then depending on where you are in the country your entitlement to UC can be quite high - i.e. you can end up still qualifying for it well into the 40-50k part of the income spectrum

And what happens when the DC are all grown up and UC plus housing element are greatly reduced?

@TulisaIsBrill & @AnaisNun - moaning about the banking crisis is not going to change anything.

It's not going to give you more money in your pocket or remove the responsibility for yourself.

@Ylvamoon

If you have kids and rent, then depending on where you are in the country your entitlement to UC can be quite high - i.e. you can end up still qualifying for it well into the 40-50k part of the income spectrum

And what happens when the DC are all grown up and UC plus housing element are greatly reduced?

@TulisaIsBrill & @AnaisNun - moaning about the banking crisis is not going to change anything.

It's not going to give you more money in your pocket or remove the responsibility for yourself.

Actually, the banking crisis has put an absolutely shit ton of money in my pocket thanks to printy printy and holding equities.

Is that a good thing?

*Yes, there could be a family in the North on 50k living cheaply, and frugally and easily magaing on £1200 all in.
*
Well. Not quite that cheaply, closer to 2k a month (for me), but yeah - huge variation like you say.

@LucieStar that’s what I was thinking too not that cheap in the North! Even £1200 as a single person won’t stretch far at all unless you live in a very cheap house share.