To believe UC needs a bloody makeover!

[Lovethystupidneighbour]

Don’t panic - not a benefits bashing thread.

I see a lot of negativity around the benefits system in the UK (namely UC) but it needs to be said that in the right circumstances you can be very comfortable on benefits. It seems the government is incompetent and distributing these benefits efficiently. Why do some people get too much money and others get not enough to breathe on? Seems bloody ridiculous to me. UC is not fit for purpose!

AIBU to think they need to create a better system? How is this the best they can come up with?

But they aren’t comfortable for many is what I meant.

Well we cut our coat to fit our cloth and perhaps that’s what we can afford as a country? Is your idea of a makeover increase benefits? I’m not clear what your point is?

But it doesn’t produce revenue that’s the point.
If it did completely understand and it would be both taxable and deductible from universal credits.
And actually if it didnt exist then the children would be entitled to claim £400 a month each towards their housing costs.

It does produce revenue. You are choosing not to produce revenue by allowing your children to live there rent free.

That is a choice you made. The government will not pay you when you have a revenue stream you are choosing not to take.

I always thought if the value/ equity of a property you own other than the house you live is more than 16k then you don't get UC at all ??

Why would anyone falsely believe that though, if they've paid attention to what it is?

The government clearly stated UC would 'make work pay', so it was designed to be an incentive for work - those who work and get top ups can be 'comfortable'; those who don't work struggle.

Of course there are other factors that affect 'comfort levels' - extortionate, childcare costs, dependent vs non-dependent children, disabilities...

Can we afford to implement yet another system?

If anything the thing that needs changing is Carer's Allowance. The amounts and the conditions around qualifying are woeful.

I agree about carers allowance. Not to mention UC taking it straight back off of you too.

Tbf it's strange someone can have the same income and live in two identical houses next to each other but one mortgages and one rents. And the mortgager gets no help. Especially when it's becoming really hard to find somewhere to rent I mean where are people supposed to live

The one with the mortgage gets a much higher work allowance if they have kids on the claim or limited capability for work element. This means that they can earn a higher amount than someone renting before deductions for wages are taken off. So people with a mortgage rather than renting do end up getting some extra help that way. Of course if you are single with a mortgage and have no kids and are healthy there is no extra help as you don't get a work allowance.

It’s not strange. If the government paid your mortgage they would be paying off a bank loan to fund a high value asset in your ownership. How can people not see why they don’t do that???

Benefit bashing thread, and the OP makes no sense in her OP.

I agree Universal Credit needs a make over, but not because some people are getting too much!

• waiting five weeks for your first payment and having to rely on advances means people with no money are being put into debt straight away.

• The standard allowance on its own is a pittance. I defy anyone to be able to pay for gas, electric, water (reduced) Council Tax and healthy food for £400 a month. Plus then the Internet connection/phone needed to apply for jobs and the clothes, transport costs to attend interviews.

• The two child limit is proven to put children into poverty.

• The carers element is less than Carers Allowance which is deducted in full from any award. So claiming carers allowance on UC may actually make you worse off.

• Anyone who is paid any other frequency than calendar monthly will have at least one month a year where they lose entitlement because of an extra payday in the assessment period. This pushes people into debt.

So yes, there are some people who receive huge amounts in benefits. But for the vast majority of claimants they're stuck in a system which is designed to keep them in poverty, not lift them out of it!

It’s not like you get to keep the money though. It sounds like a lot say you get £800 towards rent, £800 towards childcare. Maybe an extra £500 on top single parent couple of kids working part time taking home £1k in wages. Rent contribution is capped so maybe an extra few hundred childcare is limited so another few hundred there.

Your household income is £3100 but by time you’ve paid you’re child care, rent, other essential bills. I can easily see how you would be down to £700-800 per month to do food, travel, clothes, any expenses for three people. It can get tight it’s perfectly doable for a month but it’s for years and needing a new washing machine can wipe you out for months.

I am forever muttering on about this but we need to invest in social housing rather than being fleeced by private landlords. Invest in properly funded childcare that doesn’t need massive top ups.

Lots of people who recieve in work benefits are only getting them due to rent/ childcare costs.

Which is what they did from 2000 until at least 2012
They bought very many people houses.
Now they buy landlords houses and people have no issue with that whatsoever vs individuals actually having assets to pass down to their family.

And of course the mortgage has come to an end, whereas renting doesn’t ever. It just gets more and more expensive.
This attitude of not wanting to help individuals costs the taxpayer a great deal more in the longer term.

I do get that. But like I said imagine two identical families living next to each other in two identical houses but one had a mortgage and the other rents. If the mortgager loses their job their family will become homeless.

It's not like it's as simple as "just move and rent somewhere" when landlords are so fussy these days and you have to compete with multiple people gazumping the rent price

People do have a problem with paying (individual, not corporate) landlords. But there is no solution without people being made homeless en masse

How do renters on UC manage then? They still have to move house

Imho issues include:

• not enough geographical weighting. Life is far far more expensive in the south east than the north east.
• not enough financial incentive for parents to move from doing a minimum of low paid low responsibility part time hours & qualifying for a lot of UC top up, to working full time & requiring less UC. We essentially subsidise a lot of people to work part time
• too broad a criteria for ill health/disability payments that enable people to live solely on benefits without working at all. We can only afford this for the most severely disabled.

Totally agree, I think the system does need reforming. There is something wrong when a person/family on benefits is able to afford a lifestyle that a person/family in work is unable to. I have seen examples of this and totally understand why those who are working have turned to Reform as they feel that it is unfair. I am not saying that those on benefits should live in poverty but their benefits are funded by those who work and if those who work see their taxes being used in this way then why should they bother to work or pay taxes

. If the government paid your mortgage they would be paying off a bank loan to fund a high value asset in your ownership. How can people not see why they don’t do that???

There should be a system where UC provides for the interest element of a mortgage payment the way it covers rent. This would not fund a high value asset but would mean people would not lose their home if they are out of work for a period.

My Dsis, receives UC - she is really frugal & manages very well, including being able to save. She is a LP, has an old banger of a car, rents her house privately, 2DCs in full time education with no childcare costs. She works FT but in a low paid job and receives just over £900 in UC.

If she was tied into driving a flashy car on finance, and / or spent massive amounts of money on stuff she doesn't need, maybe it would be a different story, but she doesn't. By the sounds of it from reading this thread, if she had a mortgage, things would be very different and much more of a struggle.

Mad that UC will happily pay an additional income to for her LL who owns multiple properties sans mortgages, but she would be unable to claim that money towards a mortgage of her own. The rich get richer, and all that!

The system is screwed & I partly blame the LLs!
Flame me!

They do already pay support for mortgage interest. It is however a loan which needs to be paid back when the property is sold. Back in the days before they made it a loan this literally did used to virtually pay people's mortgage each month for them, especially when on interest only deals which were popular for a long tme.

@IwasDueANameChangecross posted!
I agree!

They quite literally break every element down in their statement, which are universal. And put all the calculations in which I keep an eye on in case they are wrong. That is likely referring to ones that people haven’t noticed (added elements for eg) or have decided to ignore

Of course UC shouldn’t pay peoples mortgages! I also don’t think it’s accurate to say it funds the landlords mortgage. UC or not, the landlord is getting paid their rent. What UC does it ensure the renter actually has some money left over after rent.