To ask how people will cope with Universal credit cut.

[ponyexpress22]

Surely they aren't going ahead with cutting it by £20 a week? I'm shocked that the government could stoop this low. What the hell are they doing.

Lets not forget that most bills (gas/elec etc etc) will be rising significantly & so has everything else minor & unimportant things like food
you can't have savings & if you spend some they will get back to you
My grandma told me about public assistance & how families were assessed - She was really poor widow early last century - the assessors came round & if you had 2 pans or 2 coats you were expected to sell them first before you got anything. The way this government are going...housing benefit which is worked out as the bottom being the bottom third of a quite wide area has been frozen. But rents (including council/social housing) have risen & the area assessed usually means countryside (often without public transport because this has been stopped) & urban areas are considered together - I do not know whether they use 2 bedroom properties which councils only allow for a couple with a single child or for pensioners flats which are often cheaper & not available for families or top floors of blocks of flats or accommodation which is below standard (which as a residential Landlord you would not be allowed legally to rent) in this assessment. So most people who work in urban areas rentals are above this rate (there isn't enough cheap poor quality flats in that pay band!) - If you have 2 dc below 11 (I think) different sex they share 2 dc below 16 same sex they are expected to share (not matter the age spread ie 2 years old & 15 year old)
private landlords are getting out of renting (& while some might think that's a good thing there isn't an increase in cheap social housing to make up the difference, private companies who have decided to go into rentals are quoting rents well above affordable levels).
While some jobs are becoming more available - they will not be in either the right area for many or they will not have the right skills or be suitable. & many people have been on 80% of wages or zero hours or their company has closed down.
Our government attitude is based on go back to work or earn more & reducing the figure where you get support or how much savings you would be allowed to have or understanding what life is like for many. UC is a dire & unforgiving system

Her standard allowance is now down to £257 a month. for a whole year that should have said.

@notanotherjacketpotato

I'm too shy to do it myself but I'd like to see a thread for people to explain how they ended up on benefits. It seems so many people (looking at *@Heliachi* et al) can't grasp the fact that life throws curve balls at us and very few people go in to life with a plan for benefits to support us and our children.

I had one child when I had a good job with career prospects. Her dad had a good job and a wealthy family. Then he cheated on me, I left, he wouldn't pay maintenance (self emp) but I still didn't need to claim benefits and supported us myself. Fast forward - violently abusive bf, mental health decline, had to move towns, lost house, lost job, worked hard to get well enough to work again and at that precise moment the wheels came off DD and she attempted suicide. I can't work as I can't leave her alone. Here we are living on benefits. It wasn't the plan at all.

I can't actually think of a single person who's planned children thinking the state would provide for them.

Not on benefits (unless you count state retirement pension) but before I went into welfare rights, I worked with vulnerable individuals and families.

Without a doubt, I would say that relationship breakdown was the commonest reason, notably when children were very young and the mother was a SAHM. Next most common was probably illness, esp MH, and mild LD. Addiction, inc alcohol, was very rare.

Blossomtoes I haven’t refused to acknowledge that, I said I don’t mind people who are working who get benefits and I said I def don’t mind people who cant through illness, I want them to get more. I just don’t think the extra should carry on. It’s the people who don’t and who could work I have a problem with, why are you needing to twist my words, why is that?

@wildmountaintime yours is more precise but we are both coming from the same angle!

Not where I live, which might be why so many people I know are angry about it

Why re you looking at how.many jobs there are of you work?
Looking at jobs and claiming there's loads of jobs is a fallacy.
There could be 1million jobs and 1milliom people. doesn't mean all of them would be able to do that job, or have childcare to enable that job, or have skills relevant for that job etc etc.

You seem very over invested in what.people around you believe when it comes to unemployed people.

Tell me something.
how much tax do you believe goes to unemployed people?
I mean I haven't looked for a while tbh. But when I did, a person earning 30k a year would pay roughly 6k a year in tax.

Of that 6k how much do you think went on welfare? (Not forgetting welfare includes in work benefits and unemployment)

I'll look forward to your answer.

@PalmarisLongus

Not where I live, which might be why so many people I know are angry about it

Why re you looking at how.many jobs there are of you work?
Looking at jobs and claiming there's loads of jobs is a fallacy.
There could be 1million jobs and 1milliom people. doesn't mean all of them would be able to do that job, or have childcare to enable that job, or have skills relevant for that job etc etc.

You seem very over invested in what.people around you believe when it comes to unemployed people.

Tell me something.
how much tax do you believe goes to unemployed people?
I mean I haven't looked for a while tbh. But when I did, a person earning 30k a year would pay roughly 6k a year in tax.

Of that 6k how much do you think went on welfare? (Not forgetting welfare includes in work benefits and unemployment)

I'll look forward to your answer.

Ha ha, I’m not over invested, I’m just telling you my experience, which is the point of mumsnet. Any way you all have given me a good laugh this afternoon and everyone having to twist and make things up that I have said or what I’m thinking just makes it even better.

@Iheartbaby

So you won't answer a simple question then?

Or you can't be bothered to think further than the poverty porn and benefit bashing TV shows you love?

@Iheartbaby things are not that simple - I suspect very few people aim to live on UC - poor education & erratic/insecure childhoods mean that people find getting work very difficult & many families in this situation are on the constant move which, of course, means this whole vicious circle of multiple deprivation continues. Dc miss school no one realizes they have no one helps people go into debt
Punishing people with aim of making life difficult when their alternatives are not available is not only archaically wrong its just defeating the object. I am old to remember when job centres actually helped people find employment! they helped you look up jobs make appointments etc - Now its about going on their website & finding lots of either out of date jobs, fake jobs or agencies get you on their list who claim to have jobs -but don't - or giving you job trials (aka no pay) for promised chance of non existent work & NOBODY checks or takes responsibility or zero hours which are useless -

@Iheartbaby

Still stand by my point

Your original point hoping that the uplift would be stopped because no one gave you anything was one of the nastiest and most mean spirited posts I've ever seen on here.

@Iheartbaby

Blossomtoes I haven’t refused to acknowledge that, I said I don’t mind people who are working who get benefits and I said I def don’t mind people who cant through illness, I want them to get more. I just don’t think the extra should carry on. It’s the people who don’t and who could work I have a problem with, why are you needing to twist my words, why is that?

If this is true, why would you be happy that the £20 uplift was going at all? Surely if you want people working to get more money, you wouldn’t want the £20 to end?

It’s because it’s not actually about that, is it? You’re just another example of a person who is fine financially with two incomes coming into the household who is having a tantrum because those naughty people who don’t work get money that you don’t. Money that you don’t need anyway.

This thread is full of absolutely disgusting people. I have no idea how so many of you can frame access to stable housing, not having to skip meals, being able to keep up basic hygiene standards as greedy and entitled.

@Iheartbaby

Back in 2014, around when the government started releasing those tax breakdown pie charts, they had one sub group called "Welfare" which was around 24%
Some say it was designed to demonise unemoued by making it seem like unemployed were getting 24% of peoples tax. But, breaking down the 'welfare' section at the time revealed unemployment benefits accounted for only 2.9% of total welfare bill.
You can read about that here: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/hmrcs-new-annual-tax-summary-whats-in-welfare/

Any who.
The question:
A person earning 30k a year, paid almost 6k tax, how much went to welfare?
Answer: about £630 total.

So without getting bogged down in it all.
630 total, well say 2.9% of that went to Unemployed people, so £18.50ish.

Someone earning 30k a year contributed around £18.50p a year to the Unemployed or £1.50 a month..

This rhetoric about the unemployed getting tons of "your" money is a load of nonsense.

@wildmountaintime

Thanks you for breaking it down

@PalmarisLongus

I too got that pie chart and thought the same

Lets say Jill gets a zero hours or part time job
But why PT if she has no children? Of course you are going to struggle if you only work PT. The gov expect people to work FT, it's standard. Most people working FT on UC do ok.

@vivainsomnia

Lets say Jill gets a zero hours or part time job But why PT if she has no children? Of course you are going to struggle if you only work PT. The gov expect people to work FT, it's standard. Most people working FT on UC do ok.

That’s where I feel the system changed from welfare to being a choice for some . Not working when physically able to, doing part time, not wanting to pay childcare or making choices outside of what a salary covers etc shouldnt fall to the state to cover. Those not claiming have to make choices within their salary or go without.

Not wanting to pay childcare? How about not able to. Even if UC pays a large percentage towards it, when your spare money after food, bills and work costs are zero how do you pay the extra? Childcare timings still massively limit the work you are able to do too. My ideal job which would see me in a much better financial position and a much better work/life balance isn't possible as it requires a 7.30 start across the city and breakfast club isn't available til 8

@liveforsummer They know all this, they just don't care as long as they get to opine about lifestyle choices.

@itsnotover a similar thing happened to my friend, he is deaf following a brain tumour. The assessor said that he heard her when she said his name. He didn’t (obviously) he is just very observant and can lip read! I don’t think he ever appealed as he thought he wouldn’t get anywhere :(

@vivainsomnia

Lets say Jill gets a zero hours or part time job But why PT if she has no children? Of course you are going to struggle if you only work PT. The gov expect people to work FT, it's standard. Most people working FT on UC do ok.

You aren't getting it. Single people without children (like my example) working full time wouldn't get any UC unless certain rare circumstances.

That’s where I feel the system changed from welfare to being a choice for some . Not working when physically able to, doing part time, not wanting to pay childcare or making choices outside of what a salary covers etc shouldnt fall to the state to cover

You don't get to choose to work part time on UC if you have no disabilities, or have any children over 12 or no children.

It's 35 hours per week they expect.

@wildmountaintime

That’s where I feel the system changed from welfare to being a choice for some . Not working when physically able to, doing part time, not wanting to pay childcare or making choices outside of what a salary covers etc shouldnt fall to the state to cover

You don't get to choose to work part time on UC if you have no disabilities, or have any children over 12 or no children.

It's 35 hours per week they expect.

If you earn above the Administrative Earnings Threshold a month (£345 single and £552 joint) they will leave you alone and there is no expectation you need to earn more

@wildmountaintime

That’s where I feel the system changed from welfare to being a choice for some . Not working when physically able to, doing part time, not wanting to pay childcare or making choices outside of what a salary covers etc shouldnt fall to the state to cover

You don't get to choose to work part time on UC if you have no disabilities, or have any children over 12 or no children.

It's 35 hours per week they expect.

Unless you are part of a couple and your partner earns above a certain ( very low ) amount,. Then you are put in the light touch group and can look for as few hours as you like. One rule for lone parents and another for couples despite couples being more likely to have help with childcare, the option of working around each other, 2 sets of grandparents etc.

If you earn above the Administrative Earnings Threshold a month (£345 single and £552 joint) they will leave you alone and there is no expectation you need to earn more

That's just not technically true though. The AET is only until UC is fully rolled out and there are enough staff etc. Otherwise why have the 16/25/35 hour expectations to work in the first place??

Also, they do not just 'leave you alone' - you are expected to attend appointments, and seek more hours, they just are a bit more lenient on you is all.

@wildmountaintime

If you earn above the Administrative Earnings Threshold a month (£345 single and £552 joint) they will leave you alone and there is no expectation you need to earn more

That's just not technically true though. The AET is only until UC is fully rolled out and there are enough staff etc. Otherwise why have the 16/25/35 hour expectations to work in the first place??

Also, they do not just 'leave you alone' - you are expected to attend appointments, and seek more hours, they just are a bit more lenient on you is all.

Looks like there is no mandatory work search requirements once you earn the AET though I’ve not looked at the UC regs www.uc-advice.co.uk/further-universal-credit-information/conditionality-regime