Hoo-bloody-ray! Child benefit cuts to be 'looked at for fairness'

[NoWayNoHow]

Basic logic and maths prevails at last!

Fingers crossed they actually find a fairer way to implement - I remember the uproar when it was first announced, simply because it was so ridiculously prejudiced against single salary families.

You wouldn't raise much on your tax regime incidentally; not enough to off set the extra staff needed to work it out. Makes a difference of £700 to us on your figures.

'Why penalise someone who CAN'T for whatever reason, get qualifications and work their way up the ladder?' Fine, but don't expect those that can to stay in the UK and have their arses taxed off. The system you seem to advocate is communism, and that didn't work, everyone getting the same wage whatever job they did, so a street sweeper got the same as a brain surgeon.

I think the problem came when the NMW was introduced and then topped up with benefits. If the govt didn't provide the top ups (this is hypothetical), then the companies would have to pay more. The govt could legislate to raise the NMW and not pay benefits anymore. When I had ds there were no tax credits, CTC or otherwise.

I also think you are penalised under the current system for trying to work hard and improve your situation - and particularly once the child benefit cliff edge comes in.

The NMW worker WILL still be subject to the cap though, LilyBolero. Once Universal Credit comes in next April (2013), and the benefits cap is then applied, those people that currently get protection from the cap by virtue of being on WTC no longer will.

Because WTC will no longer exist. Which will then mean that those workers on NMW, or even a fair amount more than NMW, will be subject to the cap. People who WORK for NMW in the SE, and therefore have no choice but to pay expensive rents, and have no choice but to currently claim Housing Benefit and Tax Credits to cover their BASIC living costs.

IDS's statement that those on WTC is just a spin-doctor produced soundbite designed to make unaffected people think that the cap is all OK because it's only going to hit the 'scroungers'. It's a LIE. Because when WTC no longer exists, and is paid through the UC system, they will NOT have any more protection from the cap than an unemployed person.

So they can be working full-time, paying tax, but needing support from Tax Credits and Housing Benefit, due to the fact that THEIR WAGES DON'T COVER BASIC LIVING COSTS, and they will also be subject to the cap - possibly meaning that they have to move to a cheaper house, TOO FAR AWAY FROM THEIR JOB TO CARRY ON WORKING, thus becoming UNEMPLOYED.

Why can't people see that, even in the DWP's impact assessment AND the government's own research, they have ADMITTED that there may be a LOT less savings than they hope for with the change in the Welfare system IF people don't react in the way they are expecting.

What is being expected is that all the low-paid workers MOVE away from their workplaces to cheaper housing to save on the HB bill. What has NOT been taken into consideration is that if the low-paid HAVE to move too far away from their workplaces, then they won't be able to AFFORD to travel to work. So they will give up work. And then claim UNEMPLOYMENT benefits.

So they ADMIT that any savings are dependant on 'behavioural adaptations of claimants' while neglecting to state that any person would NOT spend so much TRAVELLING to work that they can't afford to eat.

The only reason they aren't worried about the increase in unemployment benefits? Because of the 'conditionality' of UC - which means that they can stop ALL UC for 3 months, then 1 year, then 3 years - if the claimant does not either take NMW work (which they can't afford to pay the travel for and eat...starving the proles till they do as we say), or do Workfare, working for big business for their UC - which is the equivalent of making them work for £1.07 an hour (Thus circumventing the NMW laws...lets pay the proles less so we can make more profits, who cares if they starve), then they will lose their UC.

This government are bringing in Indentured slavery for the 21st Century. And that is OK with everyone? I just hope that those of you nearer the top are never unfortunate enough to end up in the situation I have, it is fine if you are at the top of the heap, I'm sure. But the future looks far from rosy down here at the bottom, and is contributing to the depression I am currently suffering from.

The sheer fact that there are over 7 million people in the UK that are classed as disabled by the DDA and the Equality Act 2010, yet only 300,000 of them will be protected from the UC cap is terrifying if you are one of those disabled people outwith that 300,000.

Hunty, you keep saying this, but this is what the DWP says;

"Households which include a member who is in receipt of Working
Tax Credit (WTC) will be excluded from the cap. This will increase the incentive
for people to find employment because once they are in receipt of WTC their
benefits will no longer be subject to the cap. Once customers have been migrated
to or have claimed Universal Credit, WTC will no longer be available to them and another measure of being ?in work? will be applied. The Department is still
considering the best definition for this.""

Ok, how it's implemented will need to be looked at. But the intention is there that families CURRENTLY on WTC will not be subject to the cap.

I'm NOT saying that everyone gets the SAME wage - just that no one person can earn MORE than 10 times what the LOWEST-PAID worker is paid.

It's just greed, pure and simple, to expect to be paid any more than 10 TIMES what the lowest-paid are getting to survive off.

OK, my tax system wouldn't work - it would be too punitive - BUT, WHY should the lowest-paid work for LESS than their basic living costs? Scaryteacher has it right, that NMW should be raised, to meet the amount that the Government are having to top it up by at the moment.

Either the Government DOESN'T want businesses to stay in the country, and is pushing them out by, indirectly, forcing them to pay higher wages, the Government doesn't feel the NEED to top the wages up because they are going to get the proles to work for food and lodgings - Housing Benefit and Universal Credit - (indentured slavery), OR the Government is relying on these businesses to START paying a living wage without leaving the UK, OR the Government is happy for people to starve and be homeless...

4 options. Government pushing businesses away because they can't get people to work for LESS than they need to live off. Government doing away with top-ups because they are re-introducing indentured slavery. Government expecting businesses to step up, take the profit hit, and start to pay more to their workers. Government not caring about those who can't or won't be indentured slaves and leaving them to starve without work that pays enough to cover their basic living costs...

Any of those sound fun if YOU are one of the people this ideological change is aimed at?

Everyone is only one accident or diagnosis away from disability, and 1/5 of the working age population are classed as disabled by the DDA and the Equality Act 2010. Everyone is only one redundancy away from poverty.

They WILL be. The current expected measure is that you are earning the equivalent of 35 hours at NMW - if your company has given you the option of shorter hours or no job (LOTS of businesses local to me have done this, so the workers don't count as unemployed, but have to claim EXTRA TC's and HB due to the shortfall in income) - then you will not MEET that conditionality. And will be subject to the cap AND having to do workfare, working for big businesses for the equivalent of £1.07/hr.

A HUGE amount of people in my town are on 'short hours'. Businesses that have been open and turning a profit for 160 years are closing down. There are 600 applicants for EVERY NMW job. If you are still getting 20 hours a week from your employer, you are 'lucky'.

But they WILL be subject to the cap. If you read the Universal Credit Policy Briefing notes, it sets out what will happen to them. It makes frightening reading, if you are like me and see that the figures on the tables actually represent REAL PEOPLE and THEIR LIVES, rather than just numbers on a table.

I don't know where you get your figures from, because you haven't linked to sources, the figures I've seen suggest more like 20-24 hours per week.

The thing is Hunty, I hate the government. I cried when David Cameron was shown walking into Downing Street. I cried when Nick Clegg sold his soul for a front bench seat. I've voted Labour pretty well all my life. I detest the Government and what it stands for.

But it isn't 'socialist' or 'left-wing' to have a society that traps people in unemployment, because they are earning too much on benefits, so that there is no incentive to work. It isn't socialist to stifle the economy of the country so that there are NO jobs for people, while the wealthy squirrel their money away. It isn't socialist to have a generation of people growing up in work-less households.

The benefits system needs to be there to help people in difficult times, but ideally to help them to get back on their feet. And at the moment, it's undeniable that the benefit system really does trap people, and provide incentives to stay at home having ever more children. It's not 'just' a Daily Mail cliche, I see it happen, both in family and in the playground. And it is absolutely not right that this should be a lifestyle choice, paid for by people who go out to work.

The solutions? Imo, they need to be;
Building more social housing, to avoid the problem of subsidising landlords. Until they do this, housing benefit is always going to be a problem. But it can't be unlimited, especially not atm. Once there is enough social housing, it can be given out at a small rent, to the people who really need it.

More opportunities for work - either paid or unpaid. If someone wants to work, I don't see a problem in including voluntary work in the definition of 'work' - could be helping with reading in a school, could be working in a charity shop, could be helping out in an old people's home - whatever. There's a myriad of possibilities. And this prevents the 'sofa-lifestyle' becoming an option. Without any work, the cap is imposed. Plus, there need to be more NMW jobs created by the Government - they always deride these as not being 'proper' jobs, but if they nurture a work ethic, and provide experience crucial to getting the next job, then that's money well spent.

More choice for people with disabilities - I don't think people who are registered disabled should be pressurised to work at all, but the opportunity to work should be there, whether by a bigger range of jobs, or improved access, or peer support - whatever - I'm betting most disabled people would be glad of improved possibilities for work.

Better links between schools and businesses, so that there is a clear route from leaving school into work, just as the route from school to uni is clear.

But incentives to work will ONLY work if the culture of choosing to live on benefits is no longer an attractive option. I don't think the benefit cap is quite right, but I do support the idea of a cap in principle, as do the Labour party.

The threshold for WTC from next year, is 24 hours/week per household with one person working at least 16 hours/week. That would exempt you from the cap. The proposals have plenty enough flaws in them to criticise without making them sound even worse!!

Hunty, I've no idea anymore what you are on about. You seem to be frothing about cuts and the NMW but you never seem to stop to consider those of us who actually have to work and pay our taxes to fund whatever scheme you feel is totally unfair.

Right now you accept we have a budget deficit yes? And do you accept we cannot continue to borrow money to plug the deficit yes? Therefore we either cut back or raise taxes.

The nub of it is that I (and millions of others) don't want to pay MORE taxes. Not because I'm an uncaring right wing wanker who thinks anyone less fortunate should be shot. But because many of us haven't had a payrise in years and are struggling as well.

So to keep banging on about how the govt should be paying for more is just insulting to the millions of families who are struggling to keep their head above water.

And don't simply bang on about rich people because frankly there are not enough rich people to plug the gap.

yy about pay rises - and in times of high inflation, that is tough. the benefits go up with inflation, salary doesn't, it just gets harder and harder to get to the end of each month solvent.

Also Hunty, do you REALLY think 42k is the right place for HRT to kick in? Given how paltry everyone seems to consider 35k as the benefit cap?

Bear in mind that at 42k you start paying 40% TAX, and LOSE CHILD BENEFIT in order to pay every penny of the benefits bill. It is simply not right to argue against a 35k cap whilst describing 42k as a HIGH INCOME, deserving of being in HRT.

Actually, I think HRT should kick in higher than £42k, as it used to. When I am ranting about high-paid people paying more tax - I am talking about people on £55k+. And those on over £110kshould be hammered by tax. They don't NEED more than 10 times the wages of their lowest paid workers. They JUST DON'T.

And while I do accept that there needs to be cuts made - I don't believe they need to be made so quickly, and that there are BETTER areas to make the cuts in.

And, believe it or not - I do broadly agree with SOME principles of the cuts. Telling people that any children born after a date 9 months in the future won't get any benefits if they are the 5th or subsequent child, gives people warning, DOESN'T penalise children already born, etc etc.

I DON'T think that the benefits cap is the right way to address the fact that some people get more money on benefits than going out to work - I think that raising WAGES is the correct response. If the wages AREN'T enough for a BASIC standard of living in the UK in the 21st Century, then the WAGES ARE TOO LOW. It's not that benefits are too high, but that wages are too low. HOW can you justify cutting money from those already classed as below the poverty line (which is anyone having a household income of less than 60% of the 'average'), rather than making it so that they get PAID enough by going out to work to cover all of their BASIC living expenses.

And THAT is where I divert on the solution to the problem of it being economically more viable to be on benefits than to go to work. DON'T CUT BENEFITS, RISE WAGES.

HOW can you cut benefits when it WILL leave some people homeless. OH - and for the person talking about the 24hrs conditionality - that is for a Lone Parent with all their dc over 5yo. If you are in a couple, one of you will have a 35hr a week @ NMW conditionality and the OTHER will have a 24hr conditionality.

The Universal Credit Policy Briefing Notes are easily available on Google - but they are PDF files, and, being a bit crap with technology, I don't know how to link to a PDF file. .

HOW can you justify cutting money from those already classed as below the poverty line (which is anyone having a household income of less than 60% of the 'average'), rather than making it so that they get PAID enough by going out to work to cover all of their BASIC living expenses.

The GROSS average household income in England was £711/wk in 2011 ONS data = £36,972pa, not much more than the gross equivalent of the benefit cap which is circa £35k

60% of this is £22183pa gross, so no one with an income of

And just how does the government "RISE WAGES"? Magic wand economics?

My job actually is in outsourcing. Let me tell you that 9/10 we move them [jobs] abroad quite simply because it's cheaper.

You can employ a tri-lingual degree educated person in certain 'emerging' countries for less than a third of the cost of a UK person. That person will work longer hours and complain less about their 'rights' too. Throw on top of that their government is usually bending over backwards with grants and tax breaks to attract the business. So forgive me if I don't think that making UK salaries HIGHER helps us at all.

The fundamental problem as the other thread I started sums up is that in Europe we need to get used to the fact we're poor now and get used to living within our means. That means less money all round, not just the workers but EVERYONE.

You are confusing two different types of conditionality.

• You will continue to qualify for WTC or the equivalent under Universal Credit if your household works 24 hours/week. You will be exempt from the £26k cap.

• If you are receiving Universal Credit and you have children over 5 you will be expected to look for work if you are not already receiving at least minimum wage for 35hrs/week and 24hrs/week. However, if you can't find it you will still receive the same level of Universal Credit. It's like the requirement for JSA that you are expected to look for work, but you don't lose JSA/UC if you don't find that work/extra work. You just have to show you are trying.

And if you DON'T succeed within a certain time period - they will put you on workfare. If you don't meet the conditionality for YOUR situation, you will be made to do workfare. If you refuse, they can stop your UC for 3 months for a first refusal, 1 year for a second refusal, and 3 years for a third refusal. That is, a refusal to work extra hours for your UC without any WAGES. OK you still have the wages from your original job, and they will only make you work the amount of hours to make up to your conditionality level, AND they will, kindly, fit it in around your current paid employment, but you will STILL have to do the Workfare hours if you aren't doing enough hours.

So a Lone parent that is currently doing 16 hrs a week, and can't get their current employer to offer them an extra 8 hours a week, and can't find any other employment that fits in around their available childcare, WILL be made to do workfare.

As will a couple whose youngest child is 5yo, if the 'main' carer isn't working for 24 hrs a week AND the main 'earner' isn't working 35 hrs a week @ NMW. THEY will also face Workfare if they can't get another job or more hours within 26 weeks.

Believe me, I have read the policy briefing notes backwards and forwards, time and time over. And I have read so many other pieces of legislation etc, including the Welfare reform bill in its entirety. It's SCARY.

So, because someone who lives in a country where a loaf of bread costs the equivalent of 8p will work for much less than a person in the UK, it is OK to expect workers IN the UK to work for the same amount of money, JUST to ensure that the UK as a country are 'competitive'?

PEOPLE are not business commodities to be bandied about like this. It is NOT ok to leave people in the UK to live in tin shacks just because those in the developing world are left to. They shouldn't be, and nor should anyone here. We are meant to be a civilised country. It is hardly civilised to expect people to work all the hours there are for LESS than it costs for them to run a home, and pay for their basic utilities. I find that a disgusting attitude.

People who have that sort of attitude need to understand that their life is only one disaster away from being sent to the bottom of the pile. Just like mine was.

I heard someone on the radio today say that there is no minimum wage in Germany.

Any one know if this is correct?

Many people on minimum wage are not trying to get by on it but using income to top up their pension or partner's earnings.

There's no national minimum wage for all jobs but there are minimum salaries for certain professions which have been negotiated.

But the other point i agree with you entirely on and something I've tried to point out several times to no avail.

The problem with those complaining that the NMW is too low for a family to live from are making the assumption that everyone is like them. Clearly for many such as students, retired pensioners, SAHM's who want a part time job, those people may well find a wage around the NMW is enough for them.

The economic principle being that if an employer cannot find a suitable employee for that wage then they will be forced to pay more. Or vice versa.

By setting a NMW you give the employer a really convenient point to set as many wages on as they humanly can. All knowing that tax credits will pick up the slack for most people. Basically you are messing with the law of supply & demand.

HuntyCat Wed 08-Feb-12 21:28:02
"And if you DON'T succeed within a certain time period - they will put you on workfare. If you don't meet the conditionality for YOUR situation, you will be made to do workfare. If you refuse, they can stop your UC for 3 months for a first refusal, 1 year for a second refusal, and 3 years for a third refusal. That is, a refusal to work extra hours for your UC without any WAGES."

Then I won't refuse and I will still get my UC, if necessary. And if I'm getting UC I will have enough money to live on. Not quite sure what point you are making?

yy, I'm not sure what the problem with working through workfare to get UC is - if you can't find a job with an employer, then contribute in another way, via workfare. Most people would prefer to do that than to just expect society to pay for them.

As ever, I'm not including people who can't work.

(The administration of it needs careful planning, so that it doesn't reduce the number of jobs available, but as a principle I would agree that you should contribute in some way, even if it is with your time instead of your taxes).

The problem with Workfare is that it stops employers like Tesco's and Poundland from even OFFERING paid employment. Because they can get the staff for nothing.

My local Tesco's has a revolving door for 'workfare' participants. It hasn't had a PAID job advertised for over 15 months. And all the customers can tell who s 'workfare' staff, as they don't wear a Tesco's uniform. They wear white shirts, black trousers and a black sleveless pullover.

Workfare is TAKING AWAY paid employment opportunities.

And as for NOT refusing - how are you MEANT to take an unpaid workfare placement when the UC will not be covering any of your CHILDCARE COSTS and if you refuse as YOU can't afford to cover the childcare costs from your current level of UC (as the workfare is unpaid), then they can and will stop your UC. It will be dependent on the whims of your JCP staff.

With no right to appeal.

And surely, if these companies have an opening for a workfare participant, then they have an opening for a PAID employee? So why have an indentured slave to do the work when you could PAY an employee to do it.

And one thing you are forgetting, NiceGuy, is that if you are on JSA and are told to apply for a specific job, and you get offered it, you HAVE to take it, or they can place sanctions on your benefits. SO the people accepting these low paid jobs and claiming Tax Credits are doing so because they have been given no real choice in the matter - accept a job that doesn't pay enough OR lose their benefits money anyway.

Tax Credits HAVEN'T removed supply and demand from low-paid jobs - nothing ever can, because there are far more people who need low-paid jobs than there ARE low-paid jobs...

JosieZ - I think you are mistaken - the MAJORITY of people that are working for NMW are doing so because they are the MAIN earners for that family. One partner who earns NMW for 37.5 hrs a week, and one who earns NMW for 16 hrs a week is the standard among the people I know. Just because it isn't for the people YOU know, doesn't automatically follow that the majority are doing NMW work for 'pin money'. That JUST isn't true. I know people in ALL walks of life - and I an assure you that only ONE person I know works in a NMW job for pin money. And most of the others are working in NMW jobs because they want to WORK rather than claim benefits.

I CAN'T be happy about Workfare, why should big businesses increase their profits by using a worker who is getting the equivalent of just £1.07 an hour rather than employing someone to do the job at the real NMW? It IS slavery. And I can assure you that YOU would feel the same were you ever misfortunate enough to be in the position where you could end up on workfare. Would YOU devalue the cost of your labour to £1.07/hr?

Because I wouldn't. I AM worth at least NMW. And I will NEVER work for a penny below that. If the DWP ever put me on workfare, they will get what they pay for. They will get £1.07/hr work from me. I've worked out that it means that I will do just under 11 minutes work each hour. When they pay me the going hourly rate (NMW), then they will get a full hours work from me. And EVERYONE I have spoken to is saying the same thing, that they will NOT make someone else rich off the back of their hard work while being paid LESS than NMW.

It is servitude by any other name.

Because slavery is the ONLY way the UK can be 'competitive' with economies like India and China.

My question is - how far down that line are people willing togo? Do they CARE that real people are being treated as little better than slaves to be told to go work for hours for next to nothing?

I guess the question is, when you hear about the Chinese workers in a factory where they stay in digs, away from their families, have to do 24 hr shifts for next to no pay, at just 30 minutes notice, what do you think? Do you think WOW! THAT'S the way to get the economey going, or do you think that's horrific treatment of human beings...

Apologies for the rogue 'e' in economy.