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?

I did this. I took a job at £21k a year, which was a promotion and seen as a progression. Took me just about out of TC. I get a combined income (wages and TC) of £22,000 as a single parent. So unless I can earn £22k a year, I'll be on some form of TC while I remain a single parent.

I previously worked 40 hours at min wage and got TC. This promotion was for 40 hours, only it wasn't.
I pulled at least 50 if not 60 sometimes approaching 70 a week. Called in at the last minute, told I'd get TOIL for the extra hours, and threatened with demotion should I refuse. The TOIL never materialised, because 'needs of the business' 'your responsibility' etc etc.
I quickly went from 40 hours min wage to less than min wage per hour, for the actual hours I was working, constant bollockings, emails at all hours and sitting up half the night trying to make things balance. I was the 4th person in a year in that job title. And you know what, I wasn't any better off financially than doing the 40 hours and getting top ups. And had I still needed childcare, the role would have been impossible.
Then when covid hit and I got furloughed, I got furloughed on my previous job role, then got made redundant.
Great move that wasn't it? Really worth an extra fuck all a year for between 60 and 70 hours a week, more workload than was physically possible and the added mental stress of it all.
So yeah, £75 grand might be pie in the sky, but £22,000 would have seen me off benefits, £23,000 would have mean I saw a financial increase for the workload increase and stress increase.
And you want me to choose that, to save a society that couldn't give a flying fuck about the conditions I have to work under to gain nothing, a few quid that will be quickly directed into someone else's pocket anyway?
Those conditions are the reality of 'promotion' in low paid industries, which are only open to many people like me, and which society relies upon.
But instead of seeing that, you'd rather label me as lazy. Crack on.

@DontTouchMyHairISwear no. The number is relevant. What you are saying is that anyone who claims benefits should have exactly net zero after their bare essential costs are covered, forcing them to run the rat race for evermore and being trapped in the situation they are in forever.

Of course the amount your are talking matters. If someone receives £500 and can save 100% of that then obviously you would argue they don't need that money. But you're making that assumption and applying it to anyone who might have a small proportion of money not used to pay bills.

Who on earth do you think you are to make that decision??

[quote Ylvamoon]@UhtredRagnarson and how would you pay for your mortgage or the upkeep of your home?
UC is there to help you out not to acumelate assets/ wealth.

Where would the incentive be for people who work FT and just about manage to save for their deposit? When really all one needs to do is work less and claim more UC to achieve the same.[/quote]
So how come people are allowed to accumulate wealth in the form of a pension then whilst on UC?

I can see why people don’t see the point in working more
Of course, when you value immediate reward as opposed to investment.
That's fine, everyone is entitled to make their own choice, but accept that your future financial standing is much less likely to be as co.fortabke than your friend who opted to work FT earning nothing more, and don't resent her when she gets to retire at 55 which a reasonable occupational.ornsion and you're contemplating working for another 12 years.

As I said ages ago... many people won't have it that UC can and maybe should cover ore than the very bare essentials.

Some arguement hold a lot of water. Others are the basis that UC and the whole system needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. Sadly others are still the same old same old... lazy bastards, don't deserve etc etc. Totally lacking in understanding, let alone empathy!

The number is relevant. What you are saying is that anyone who claims benefits should have exactly net zero after their bare essential costs are covered, forcing them to run the rat race for evermore and being trapped in the situation they are in forever

The number is not relevant and that is not what I said. What I am saying is that benefits are not to enable someone to save money for a mortgage.
If you are recieving benefits that you can save in a bank to buy a property, you do not need those benefits.

See the poster above who thinks someone on 18k and UC should turn down a 27 to 40k job because its easier to work less and get money anyway. Should the public purse be paying for their savings as well?

Sorry my post is quite late as the site was down.

I think it comes down to how fine the balancing act is to have the best of both worlds. Maintaining career progression while using benefits when you are a lower earner due to having children is difficult to manage. People in jobs with little progression will suffer the most.

@NativityDreaming any money paid for childcare is not counted as income for ctc. Claimants need to tell the council though , it’s not automatic. It’s the full amount you pay that reduces your income too not just the money UC pay towards it.

@DontTouchMyHairISwear

...and yet some posters are still horrified by the idea that someone on benefits might try and save toward a deposit and be sad that they are limited by the capital cap in being able to do so

i don't think anyone is horrified at all. They are just saying it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Say you can't afford private rent so you get 500 a month from benefits for your rent. That's good, that's what benefits are for, when you can't earn enough to support yourself.
But if you can then put 500 a month into a savings account for a mortgage, you are stating you don't need help with your rent. As you are clearly paying the full rent and saving the 500 a month from benefits. You are saving for your mortgage with free money that you don't need.
You can put it how you like, but that's the sum of it. Lots of people can't afford to save for a mortgage and would like free money to save every month towards it, but that wouldn't work, would it?

So why is it ok to save out of your UC if it’s for a pension then?

What I am saying is that benefits are not to enable someone to save money for a mortgage. And if that money were for the deposit for decent accommodation, private sector rent?

If you are recieving benefits that you can save in a bank to buy a property, you do not need those benefits. Except you do, for decent accommodation and all the usual reasons: once a year bills, you can actually have a holiday! And many many other totally legitimate reasons.

See the poster above who thinks someone on 18k and UC should turn down a 27 to 40k job because its easier to work less and get money anyway. Should the public purse be paying for their savings as well? Well, put in a less combative manner, that is one of the reasons the system needs to be re-worked.

@Viviennemary

Most people not claiming benefits can't save anywhere near £500 a month. So now the argument is lets increase benefits so folk can save £500 a month.

Except no one said that

The problem with it is that potentially it does discourage working more hours however, if we still have a state pension by the time your friend retires she will get less as she hasn't worked enough. She will also be in a worse position when her children reach eighteen because she won't have the work history, skills or experience behind her to get a job to cover everything.

I know how hard it is because I've been there but I was keen to and could progress and we just couldn't manage on benefits.

So why is it ok to save out of your UC if it’s for a pension then?

Did I say it was?

See the poster above who thinks someone on 18k and UC should turn down a 27 to 40k job because its easier to work less and get money anyway. Should the public purse be paying for their savings as well?.......Well, put in a less combative manner, that is one of the reasons the system needs to be re-worked

So its still the systems fault...that a person would choose to live on low wages plus benefits rather than work for more money and prospects? That's not in any sense their fault, you think?

@dontdisturbmenow

I can see why people don’t see the point in working more Of course, when you value immediate reward as opposed to investment. That's fine, everyone is entitled to make their own choice, but accept that your future financial standing is much less likely to be as co.fortabke than your friend who opted to work FT earning nothing more, and don't resent her when she gets to retire at 55 which a reasonable occupational.ornsion and you're contemplating working for another 12 years.

The spite drops off your post.

*drips

@DontTouchMyHairISwear but that IS what you said if you are saying anyone who can afford to say [any amount of money because £500 is just a random number]!!

All you are doing is taking your perceived slights by society and pointing that at the people who need help most and who have the least. It's a common tactic to keep the rabble fighting among themselves. If housing wasn't in the state it is people wouldn't need astronomical benefits to just scrape by. If pensions were anywhere near the amount of other countries' pensions it wouldn't matter if people were renting in retirement because they would be able to afford it.

Instead of caring about any of that, all you can get angry about is the notion of a hypothetical single mum being able to save a small sum of money over a long period and eventually get together a property depost. It's literally mind boggling to me.

@DontTouchMyHairISwear

So why is it ok to save out of your UC if it’s for a pension then?

Did I say it was?

So you agree that people who are able to save for a pension don’t actually need UC?

Ffs. Do people not understand that the fact that it's hard to get into FT work because of the benefit trap is exactly what PEOPLE WHO ARE ON BENEFITS are talking about.

The choice of short term gain over ling term investment is an absolutely archetypal example of the consequences of deprivation. It is so frustratingly obvious.

@MrsBerthaRochester

Feel free to give up the job op and see how fun it is living on benefits. Universal credit is a disgrace to this nation but obviously we should just go back to the workhouse system......

Nothing like going to the extremes! The disgrace is the clear fact that it can pay people not to work because we, taxpayers, will prop them up and hand-wringers will defend them. It's nothing new though, as long as there's been a state-funded safety net there have been those who abuse it. I recall my mother talking about her neighbour whose 2 adult children lived with her in her subsidised council house, they both owned a house that they let out!

All you are doing is taking your perceived slights by society and pointing that at the people who need help most and who have the least. It's a common tactic to keep the rabble fighting among themselves. If housing wasn't in the state it is people wouldn't need astronomical benefits to just scrape by. If pensions were anywhere near the amount of other countries' pensions it wouldn't matter if people were renting in retirement because they would be able to afford it.Instead of caring about any of that, all you can get angry about is the notion of a hypothetical single mum being able to save a small sum of money over a long period and eventually get together a property depost. It's literally mind boggling to me

Wow, someone is projecting here and it's not me. I AM a single mother who was on benefits. I don't have any percieved slights by society and am pretty sure I know more about all of this stuff than you ever could!

How fucking disgusting to label people who care about the poorest as handwringers.

Do you honestly believe most people on benefits are secret property owners or do think most of them are working families with unnaturally high housing costs?

Some of these attitudes have literally no basis in reality.

[quote MyDcAreMarvel]@NativityDreaming any money paid for childcare is not counted as income for ctc. Claimants need to tell the council though , it’s not automatic. It’s the full amount you pay that reduces your income too not just the money UC pay towards it.[/quote]
Unfortunately not true where I am. I wrote a complaint, had backing from two councillors, did the maths for them, and the complaint was not upheld. I appealed and it was rejected. It makes no good sense and I feel my council made the wrong decision.

@DontTouchMyHairISwear says the person who thinks anyone can save a penny should have their benefits removed and seems to have no awareness of the dangers of being stuck living on benefits.

Sure..

@DontTouchMyHairISwear

See the poster above who thinks someone on 18k and UC should turn down a 27 to 40k job because its easier to work less and get money anyway. Should the public purse be paying for their savings as well?.......Well, put in a less combative manner, that is one of the reasons the system needs to be re-worked

So its still the systems fault...that a person would choose to live on low wages plus benefits rather than work for more money and prospects? That's not in any sense their fault, you think?

Think it through! How many people would that apply to? It's an example not an every day reality.

Most who have been on UC for years, usually women for childcare, get offered zero hours NMW jobs.

Yes! Obviously some people will make the cost: benefit analysis and choose not to take on a full time job until it pays appreciably more than UC. That's human nature. But do you deliberately make a law that deals with them to the detriment of everyone else?

Having said that it is one of the reasons the whole system needs to be rebuilt, to make it more fit for purpose!