The Universal Credit

[Xenia]

Well done Iain Duncan-Smith.

1. Anyone in work will be better off than anyone not.
2. More benefits can be retained despite starting work
3. Housing benefit, income support incapacity benefit of dozens of other payments all scrapped and replaced with one simple universal credit.

This is reported in the Times. No treasury comment.

Very good news.

actually it took me about 6 months to find a job to fit around exH's hours - and I ended up working night shifts, not sleeping and fucking up my sleep (for good it would appear) and my MH in the short term.

And am I expected to ask my friends to give up their jobs to find something to fit around a job I may find???

You seem to be totally mising the point also that many don't have family members they could live with. Not even to "tolerate" (I suppose my brother could give up his job that he's trained for, and my parents their adapated bungalow so we could all move a total of 600 miles or so to live with each other ). I can't live with my friends - they'r pretty squashed in as it is - I think my poor friends would have a heart attack if I suggested moving 4 of us into their homes

well I have asked the same question on this thread a few posts ago - but no one has yet answered why it would be different.

it is going to mean changing a whole system and spending billions on a new system and getting the same benifits

but spending whilst cuts are happening is really not on

ivykaty - what you said is what I am worried about although I support what IDS is trying to do and also the cost cutitng that is desperatley needed to balance the budget.

"Am I being really cycnical if I say it's a new scheme and will cost millions to implenemt and be very similar to the tax credits and before them working family tax benifits and before that there was another scheme when the tory party where in power"

A real political and economic chance to totally change the way benefits and taxes work could be squandered here.

It's nice to agree

I really think that this is what will happen and the only people that will suffer - are the people collecting the benifit either because they suddenly fidn they don't qualify and the tax payer paying for the changes to be implimented

tax credits have sorted themselves out - almost, they arent the best service but they aren't the worst (CSA wins hands down x 10 on that one)

But goverment ministers want to stroke their own ego, out with labour "quangos" and "system" and in with slighlty different systems and their own quangos and this will cost more as both will have to start rom scratch and get to the point that the other quangos and system were at before they were abolished

nothing really changes - but the poor will suffer

You can't have a reciprocal childcare agreement with a friend anyway. You both have to register as childminders, under current law.

I thought there was that case with the 2 police officers and they were allowed to continue??

What Xenia says happens in some countries, just not the UK..yet.

and who is going to pay for all the families that are scattered across the country to move to the same location so they can share a house?

My BF is the only person I know who has family locally (and she 'aint gonna fit any more in her house - not with 2 under 10's, 1 couple, 2 single adults, and an (almost) baby - it's due any day) on the way in their 4 bedroom house).

And you could pay me a 6 figure sum a year and I would never live with my parents or brother (both of whom thankfully several hundred miles away).

Ceasing contact (or severaly limiting it at least) with them has increased my odds of becoming one of those economically active adults - living them would I'm 100% reduced it

The state owes no one anything. If they need to move to family so as not to starve then they'll have to hitch hike or save up or take out a loan until they can afford the coach fare. Anyway we'll see what the nation can afford but there certainly isn't the budget available for the current welfare arrangements.

PMSL @ "take out a loan"

I'd love to see you try to take all your personal possessions on a coach or hitch a ride with them (and your kids stuff as well ).

Mind - I did frequently see beds and fridges on top of buses in Zimbabwe.......

So - once they've hitched their ride with their kitchen sink tied on the roof - where are they going to live?

or do you want to go back to victorian times with people living in squalor with 10 to a room??

and I think you'll find if they're at the "going to starve" stage there'll be no money to save up.

Xenia - have you ever lived in the "real world"?????????

Ah okay, I just remember the story with the police officers and remember everyone quoting at the time that you needed to be registered so assumed that was the case.

well I think there was a U-turn on it - I can't remember now to completely honest - wasn't in the best state of mind at the time the story broke so could be a million miles off track.

Well they just might have to leave a lot of them behind. People are far too materialistic anyway. If they starve or move to their family 300 miles away leaving most of their possessions behind they might just have to leave them if they can't afford van hire for the afternoon.

What we're really talking about here is making real incentives for people who are out of the world of work, sometimes for several generations through carrots and sticks being persuaded back into it and losing their feeling of entitlementment, making it a bit nastier to depend on the state, getting back to a culture where it was shaming and wrong to be dependent on the state for long periods.

Anyway one universal credit will be a good start and a lot simpler than complex long winded forms and alternative benefits.

Xenia, words fail me. It is so easy to have an opinion such as yours when you won't have to be a recipient.

surely it makes sense if you're going to need a bed to sleep in to take the bed with you? Or is having a bed to sleep on too materialistic?

Van hire for the afternoon for a 300 mile trip??? ermm - ok - needed a van for most of the day to move to the next street personally

You see the problem is you're talking about wanting a culture where it's shaming and wrong to be dependent on the state for long periods - that's fine (carers/disabilities aside).

But what you don't seem to realise that these radical moves are going to affect the woman who has escaped a violent relationship with her 2 children, the family who were employed in the steelworks that closed their doors and laid off all their workers, but are looking for work - along with xxxxx number of other people in their area.

This universal credit could be a good start for some.

Right now they need to do something so that working a 15hr a job is worthwhile. So that people on benefits can take on the temporary jobs without worrying about being homeless in 3 months time when the contract runs out and benefits take 6-8 weeks to sort out.

"..too materialtic" coming from someone who owns her own island.

Xenia did they mention DLA at all of carers?

mind - you gotta give her some credit - she didn't suggest they used their car - so she obviously realised that many benefits claimants can only dream of running a car

Actually - I don't dream of running a car - I dream of a bicycle........and a lightweight family tent and a youngest child that can ride a bike............

"why it would be different..."

The main difference - as I understand it - is the objective rather than the amount of money the individual sees per se. The objective is to get away from facilitating long term, generational unemployment - the current case - and make work of any kind an attractive proposition. It costs more up front because it would guarantee anyone in work to be better off than they are on benefits. And the 'better off' part I would suggest is going to be significant enough to make it worthwhile.... not a tenner a week. It is front-weighted because there would be a set-up cost of reorganisation. However there would be significant cost-savings in administration after that - a one-stop shop rather than multiple departments - and the scheme would maybe have a payback period of 5 or 10 years.

One other positive point about a universal benefit would be that there would be no more forms to fill in. No more intrusive questions about your finances and living arrangements. No more humiliation down at the jobcentre if signing on....

"Why would we want to make sure people are no worse off? We want it to be rather painful and nasty to rely on state benefits"

Oh really, do we need a version of this phrase in every single benefits thread? It is obviously totally painfree and a joy to be on benefits.

I reckon we should send Xenia on a Secret Millionaire type thing - give her a pokey little council house with mould in most of the rooms, £64.50 a week to live on and leave her to it - bet she'd have a right barrel of laughs

If helps stop fraud that is excellent. It makes me sick that people cheat while others with terrible disabilities need more help.