UC salary threshold is £2500 pmc

[Reallyxx]

On a separate thread, I was asked to google this. So, I have.

Quite many people earn £2000-£2500 pcm that they should be able to live on. So why are there UC benefits for that group?

So more than half of the population is on UC?? I am aware gov has driven wages down over the years, but it seems the net result is of 'more' people being on benefits.

Anyway, why not just 'not tax' these groups? As it seems like people pay 'some tax from their income that is £2500 net' whilst being entitled to 'benefits'.

That is true. Although, if you are in your 40s/50s, you don't want to be house sharing.

Similar here. LHAfor 3 bedrooms is about 480. Rents are typically double that. A house across the road was up for £800 and had a steady stream of viewings for 2 days because it was so rare. Others in this postcode and nearby are around 1300.

So, people on the "shit" jobs, like cleaners, carers etc.. that live in the centre of London... They should just move to a cheaper area? And spend hours commuting each day.

Or people should move away from their friends, family, and support networks?

I think that it is very wrong for working people to be reliant on benefits. Both for the tax payers, who should not be subsidising businesses who are paying wages too low to actually live on, and for the recipients, who are doing exactly as we need by working, but are not able to be contributors. They are put in a position of reliance. So wrong.

What you have quoted is the limit you can earn over the point your payment becomes zero, based on your allowance, in a single assessment period. For example (made up numbers) the elements you are entitled to add up to 1500. You earn 2000 from work over and above your work allowance so you lose 1100 (55p per pound earned) leaving a payment of 400. To get a nil assessment you would need to earn another 727, so 2727 over your work allowance.

What the paragraph quoted means is that you can earn another 2500 on top of that figure before they carry earnings forward into future assessment periods, so could earn 5227 before it affected your universal credit in future assessment periods.

You've misunderstood. That's relating to if a person's wage varies month to month, and what happens if one month is over 2500 over their earning limit, which will vary depending on circumstances.

16 hours at minimum wage is over £600 per month if you are over 21

Honestly you are conflating so many issues here and ramming them together

A system devised by the Blair government and carried on by the current Tory mob.

Anyone here who thinks Starmer is going to rock that boat is kidding themselves.

Good observation. It is because many debates on benefits 'conflate so many issues and ram them together'. Never occurred to you?

@dimllaishebiaith

16 hours at minimum wage is over £600 per month if you are over 21

Thank you for that explanation.

Anyone here who thinks Starmer is going to rock that boat is kidding themselves.

Why wouldn’t he? There’s no benefit for him in pandering to Tory donors.

honestly this is the main problem, half of the country doesnt even know what people on benefits do and don't get.

So, the maximum someone who works 16 hours and has some kids can get is £1600? SO confusing>

Yet they say you can earn £2900 and still get UC. Would that be around £400 UC since the person works and loses 0.49 pence as pp said per an amount they earn over £2500?

It is because many debates on benefits 'conflate so many issues and ram them together'. Never occurred to you?

So because other debates cant follow a clear line of thought you dont need too?

Nope didnt occur to me, I had a higher opinion of a random person making a thread Thanks for correcting me.

Missed the point entirely. Or are you also saying I should educate myself what benefits pp are entitled to at the same time I am holding down a job that pays millions in taxes so that all those on benefits (including those who shouldn't be on benefits mind) get their share? I see.

Nothing. JSA if you are lucky (I was paid £24 a week so definitely not princely. Although the amount may have gone since I got back into work).

The threshold may be £2500 but you don’t qualify on your salary basis only, you need to be in a precarious situation where it is anticipated, or better said, expected to struggle. Like being a widow living in an expensive city and raising 3 children alone, while working a full time job .

You have a job where you pay millions in taxes? Really, that does suprise me

Nope I didnt tell you to educate yourself. Im not sure you see anything Ive said tbh.

Why are you now moaning about people getting benefits they are not entitled to?

What is the issue? People on too much money get benefits? Single people dont get as much as parents? People dont moan about single parents any more? People on 16 hours getting money? Benefit fraud?

Or do you just want to whine about people getting benefits because you dont like it, you don't really know what you are talking about but you pay millions in tax so that means it's okay for you to complain about poorer people?

OP I’ll be honest, I don’t think you even know what it is that you’re trying to say. What’s the point of the thread? Are you trying to understand what benefits a working person can get?

Let’s say I earned £2500 a month (I don’t but I’m using your example). My monthly entitlement to UC is £3133 before any deductions. Once my wage of £2500 has been taken into consideration, I’d still receive £1967 via UC. That means I’d have £2500 via my pay and £1967 via UC which is a total of £4467.

As you can see, it’s ALWAYS in people’s favour to work as you’ll have more money that way. Depending on the elements of UC that someone has, will depend on how much they’re entitled too before deductions. My elements include private rent, childcare costs, childcare element, single person element, two disabled children element and a carer element.

A lot of people won’t get anywhere near as much UC as this hence why it doesn’t really make sense trying to judge the benefits system overall. It really depends on the person’s circumstances

Thank you. You have explained this very well.

OP for someone who pays "millions" in tax, I'd assume you were bright enough to look up this information

This is like "poverty porn" to you.

But we must remember from your last thread you "happily pay millions in tax"

I think it's generally a good idea to have a reasonable understanding about how something works before you start slagging it off, personally.

The biggest single item in every UC claim I look at (I work in welfare rights, so I look at loads of them) is invariably the rent. The ultimate beneficiary of that is the landlord (or the mortgage company that gave the landlord their BTL mortgage). And the amount included for rent is rarely as much as the actual rent, as many PPs have explained, so the rent has to be topped up from the amount included in the claim for living expenses.

UC is far from perfect, but it has a significant advantage over tax credits in that it is recalculated every month, unlike TCs, which was reviewed annually, leading to significant over and underpayments.

I work full time and take home £1400 a month. I get UC as a single parent with a teenage daughter in FT education.

When she finishes college I will get nothing from UC so will have to manage on £1400 or get a new job.

No problem🫡

Yes poverty porn

Thats a really good phrase for what this is

Out of interest, if you think this is true, how do you suggest it is fixed? Do you think wages would rise if benefits were cut or abolished?