To think very few carers will benefit from the “ increase “ in carers

[Ionlytrymybest]

reading the budget and I can see some carers may benefit
those who can work along side up to the maximum amount allowed of earnings or those with partners who work full time with a wage good enough to not be on UC.

but many full time carers are on universal credit, so the increase in these cases is surely pointless they won’t see an increase in their monthly money at all as it is deducted 1.00 for 1.00 from Universal credit ?

so unless they change the 1.00 for 1.00 deductions it’s not really that big of a change ?

It's so bad. I was talking to a guy at the bus stop with epilepsy who said people think he's making it up...like why would people think someone has all that time and energy to go around making up such stories like that?!

It won't help me in any way as I can't work anyway as I've got 2 autistic sons and another on the way. If I was able to work it would be good it be able to earn more

A lot of the budget will not help a lot of working people. Those on minimum wage will earn more, but will then lose it from any top-up Universal Credit.🤷‍♀️

Wages are 55p per 1.00 after the 400.00 threshold a month

carers is deductible 1.00 for 1.00 x

I gave up a great career to become a carer for an elderly relative.

Relative claims attendance allowance (not means tested) for several health reasons.

I claim carers allowance

I live on my savings & a small self employed wage

I do not claim UC

However, I am thinking of getting a second PTime job, because relatives health has currently stabilised.
I welcome the extra that a carer can now earn & claim.

However, the amount paid to carers is pitiful compared to what care they provide.

It is not an easy option to be a carer !

It's not very well thought out is it.

I haven't looked at it in a while but from what I remember, when working, it was better to go slightly over the CA threshold and lose it because it meant you retained more of you UC entitlement (plus you still got the other pros of being on UC). Whereas working but staying under the CA threshhold meant you lost your UC instead.

Now those same people will just lose their UC because they'll still be entitled to CA.

I suppose it’s one where how well thought out it is depends on what the intention was behind it.

If the intention was to encourage carer’s to work, or to work more hours, then yes it does work for it’s intended purpose.

If the intention was to enable more carer’s to be eligible by raising the earnings limit, then yes it does work and it well thought out and it means (by their figures) that 60,000 more people will now be able to claim it.

If the intention was to help ALL carer’s, then yes it’s not well thought out.

Unfortunately though labour’s plans are aimed at encouraging anybody who CAN work, to work, so it’s planned to incentivise those people but provides no benefit to those who actually cannot work.

If the intention was to encourage carer’s to work, or to work more hours, then yes it does work for it’s intended purpose.

if there is nowhere to send the disabled person whilst the carer works, how can most carers work? there was absolutely zilch in the budget for increasing access to respite and social care provision so carers can get a break from their main job (caring) to head out for a second job to actually earn some cash.

No I agree, there are absolutely so many people that this doesn’t work for. But people who CAN work extra hours, but previously didn’t due to the earnings limit, can now increase their hours to the new limit without losing it.

If the intention was to encourage carer’s to work, or to work more hours, then yes it does work for it’s intended purpose.

It doesn't, though, because they will just lose their UC. They won't be financially any better off than the current system.

If the intention was to enable more carer’s to be eligible by raising the earnings limit, then yes it does work and it well thought out and it means (by their figures) that 60,000 more people will now be able to claim it.

Except those people would probably be better off claiming UC with the Carers Element rather than Carer's Allowance. 16hrs a week is what? £190ish minimum wage. A carer would still get UC on that wage currently. But when this new thing comes in, they won't. Carer's Allowance is worth less than UC with Carer's Element.

The only people this change will help is those with too much savings to be able to claim UC.

The only people this change will help is those with too much savings to be able to claim UC.

That isn’t true. For example, as I explained in a previous post, single carers without children who aren’t/wouldn’t be eligible for the housing element of UC and are caring for someone outside their household e.g. a parent will benefit.

No-one is forced to claim CA if they don’t want to. If they want to just claim UC including the CE they are free to do so.

yanbu as those working part time (usually on minimum wage or close to it), are likely to see pay rises that take them over the earnings threshold. Not sure if the threshold has gone up in the budget.

What do you mean? Single people aren't entitled to help with housing?

I think pp means people who live rent free somewhere, like a relative, or have a mortgage paid off etc.

I didn’t say all single people aren’t entitled to the housing element, but some aren’t. Just like some couples and families are eligible and some are not. It is not just living rent free somewhere or having a mortgage paid off. Claimants with mortgages are not eligible for the housing element.

A single person who is a carer, over 25, without children or young people on the claim, not eligible for the housing element, caring for an adult outside the household e.g. a parent and earning, say, £190pw would have the following example.

At the moment, such a person is not eligible for CA because they are over the earnings limit for CA, so they have their earnings of £190pw plus UC with a UC calculation of:

Standard element £393.45
Carer element £198.31
Total = £591.71

Earnings of say £190 per week. £823.34 per month ((£190 x 52) / 12).

Earning deduction of £823.34 x 0.55 = £453.83 (before anyone comments, those without children/young people on their claim or LCW/LCWRA do not have a work allowance.)

Total of UC elements - earnings deduction = UC award
£591.71 - £453.83 = £137.81

So £137.81 in UC and £823.34 earnings per month. Total income = £961.15.

—

With the change, they will be eligible for CA so they have their earnings of £190pw plus CA but no UC because the CA deduction will wipe out the remaining UC award.

Earnings of £823.34 per month and £354.90 CA (made into the monthly amount for ease of comparison so (£81.90 x 52) / 12). Total income = £1,178.24.

This assumes all carer’s also claim UC though, which they don’t.

That’s a very narrow group of people though, I doubt there are many that fall into such a very specific set of criteria.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that no carers at all will benefit, just that a very large proportion won’t. And probably those with the greatest poverty - as a generalisation - will be those who miss out. Families with children on a low income, households with disabled people, single parents - all of these groups are likely to rely on UC which means this change will make precisely no difference.

Carers are often low income families, and many rely on UC. It’s the total obliteration of Carers Allowance by UC that is the issue. Even treating it as part of monthly “earnings” would help, surely that would be a good compromise?

I think the issue is that all of this is never looked at holistically - it’s a sticking plaster slapped on here and there, rather than really thinking properly about how everything hangs together and what would make a real difference.

There are many barriers that carers face in trying to work longer hours - upping the permitted work doesn’t address any of these. And by failing to consider how CA dovetails with other benefits, it’s a missed opportunity to provide genuine help.

Both of my responses mentioning other groups who would benefit were in response to posters saying:

1. “This will benefit one small group of carers - those who work between 12 and 16 hours a week but also have a partner who earns too much for them to claim UC. Other than that, nearly all carers are also claiming UC!”
2. “The only people this change will help is those with too much savings to be able to claim UC.”

I was pointing out neither of those posts are true. There are other groups who will benefit. You would be surprised how many single carers with no children on their claim and no housing costs there are. The example I gave was of caring for a parent but there are other situations it applies to. I support parents of disabled children and many of the parents of adult disabled children I support fall into the example I gave.

As I said in a pp, there is a lot wrong with carer’s allowance. I was just showing there are other claimants who will benefit.

That's me!
I had to give up my well paid nhs job to care for my two disabled children.
It's impossible to get someone to care for a six foot strong 20 year old who can display challenging behaviour.
He's an angel for me though.
And can't claim uc as his dad works!

Similar situation but with additional needs kids. I cam work school hours now I have placements finally sorted so too much for carers but I can't extend my hours or work any school holidays

I agree there are some who will benefit.

I just think compared to the total number of carers, it’s a very small number that will see any benefit at all. And yet, it’s being touted as some great policy change for carers which ignores the fact that a) it won’t help the majority, particularly not as a standalone tweak and b) those with the lowest incomes won’t benefit at all.

We can debate all day about what individuals in very specific circumstances might be able to benefit, assuming of course they can fit in longer working hours alongside their caring responsibilities. However the crux of it is that it’s not a policy that will help most/many carers and it feels like nothing more than lip service - from a party that’s supposed to be interested in helping those in the greatest need.

There is more that could be done, but, personally I think Carers UK estimate of 60,000 more carers being able to access CA is more than lip service.

It's the amount you can earn. So if you qualify for carers you care fir someone minimum of 35 hours a week at an hourly rate of £2.34 an hour. But wait the government says you can work another 16 before they take anything off. So not only being a carer with overnight responsibility we can now work 50plus hours a week.

I think that while 60,000 - assuming that's an accurate estimate - sounds like a lot, it's a drop in the ocean when compared to the actual number of carers.

There are 1.4 million people receiving Carer's Allowance, and there are an estimated 10.6 million carers in the UK. 60,000 people out of those figures is pretty poor, in my opinion.