Benefits v Defence Lord Robertson

[Wednesdayschild87]

Lord Robertson’s Speech… seriously does anyone care?? He’s laid out the fact that as a nation we can’t carry on like this… he said we can’t afford to keep throwing money at benefits whilst leaving our country defences I’m actually shocked no one has come out and spoken on this matter before. I’m incredulous.

A large part of the “out of control” benefits bill is companies not paying adequate wages and having taxpayers subsidise their shareholders.

I should really contain myself. Next I'll be saying that people can claim UC and work full time and not even necessarily in low paid work AND those on disability related elements/benefits often can and do work too.

And not every claimant has a massive TV or spends all their benefits on cigarettes and alcohol.

They don't all live in council houses either. Some even have mortgages!

You know, you might have considered before you posted this nonsense that it's very easy to check. At least 35 countries in the developed world pay disability benefits - even the USA. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but please don't counter my posts with lies.

What evidence do you have that swathes of these people are on UC in the first place?

We are subsiding low skilled, low income individuals who are either very bad at budgeting and/or have made poor choices in life. In retail and hospitality and other such sectors, profit margins are razor small. Where do you expect pay increases to come from?

They get paid what they get paid. If they want more they can either work more hours, upskill. They can also learn to budget better as well.

Can you claim pension credit to top it up?

We have a very generous NMW which has pushed up inflation for everyone else to a very noticeable degree.

The majority of people on UC do not work all, and the % that do work many are very part time to stay under the 16 hour cap.

People are far less stupid than they want to appear in my experience, if there’s some kind of financial benefit they will nearly always find a way to do it.

Oh golly this is getting embarrassing. The 16 hour cap doesn’t exist. It was an old rule relating to income support, which is long defunct. UC has no maximum cap on hours, or earnings.

There is no "16 hour cap" on UC. Comments like this prove that people just trot out the same old myths about benefits when they clearly need to do more research.

However if you earn less than 16xNMW you're subject to the benefits cap unless you claim a disability benefit

It’s 18, not 16. But that’s evidence that it incentivises work, not de-incentivises so not the poor @Chocaholick was wrongly making (again).

People are far less stupid than they want to appear in my experience

I hope so for your sake 😂

No, because I have a small occupational pension that takes us over the limit. We manage ok with both our incomes. However, if I die first, DH will have to claim PC. We were never big earners, and he had serious health issues from middle age. He could only do part time work afterwards, and it was low paid. He should have claimed disability benefits, he’d have been entitled, but we didn’t know. I thought as I worked, that was it. Our mistake not to be clued up.

I have issues with corporate welfare which is what UC is.

Honestly I see many posts from people asking after jobs but ‘it has to be less than 16 hours so won’t affect benefits’. Genuinely curious but why would they say this?

Good discussion on R4 today about pensions. Worth a listen for those of you below pension age

But that comes from the worker too, so the workers themselves are still under mistaken beliefs. One of my clients has two convenience stores and can't get any of his part time staff to work more than 16 hours - he's tried, time and time again, but they won't do it. Presumably, it still applies to those still on the old tax credit regime or legacy JSA or income support? Maybe it affects other benefits, such as free prescriptions, council tax relief, etc?? I'm not expert, but there's something still in place. Perhaps the extra earnings doesn't make up for the loss of UC and other benefits??

Outdated misconceptions mostly. Even the work allowance on UC (the amount people are able to earn before deductions are made from their total UC) is lower than the equivalent of 16 hours at minimum wage. So they would already be over that at around 8 hours if they have housing element on their claim and 13 hours without housing element.

And when deductions are made for earnings, it is on a taper basis so there is no sudden dramatic drop in earnings if someone works a few hours extra one month. Many people don't seem to understand that at all. The deduction is made at the rate of 55p for every £1 of earned income so if someone brought home an extra £100 one month for example then £55 would be deducted from their total UC. They wouldn't just suddenly lose hundreds or their total award as many seem to believe.

To drop my hours to 22.5 even though I’m a single parent? | Mumsnet

UC does incentivise people to work less even when they can work more.

Some people may see it as that. Most people still do work as much as they can despite the wage deduction as more hours means they will always be better off by 45% of their wage. But sure keep spouting the same nonsense that people love to claim about benefits. It clearly never gets old.

My DH lost the last bit of his sight on in his dodgy eye on Thursday last week, so I we are quite engaged. And the NHS is incredibly responsive, if you are in the system. The surgery is scheduled for Tuesday, The lead consultant has taken it on and will do the surgery. No one can foretell the success rate.

@Papyrophile I'm so sorry to hear, hope he gets good help

Wishing him the best for his surgery.

I've had a similar experience with my son who has had multiple surgeries. Very happy with our NHS experience overall and I deal with them often now due to my son.

Thank you very much @nearlylovemyusername . He's already in the system and I think the system is wrapped around his case. We seem to have been there for most of the last three weeks. I am beyond grateful for the care he has had already.

Thanks @Kirbert2 , that's a very kind message, and appreciated.

I am incredibly grateful for the NHS. It saved my DH's life 20 years ago, when he had a cardiac arrest in an ambulance. It has monitored him since. When he went into ventricular tachycardia 18 months ago, the paramedics whisked us through city centre traffic at 105 mph and had him in the emergency room within minutes. For life saving treatment.

The NHS is brilliant in any crisis, but struggles to manage routine maintenance. DH was lost for two years when 'his' consultant was ill.