News4 mins ago
What's All The Fuss About With Universal Credit ?
77 Answers
https:/
Sounds like a much needed simplification of the benefits system to me.
Sounds like a much needed simplification of the benefits system to me.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
hc4361 ///Going five or six weeks with no income after submitting a claim would send many people to the pay day lenders, getting them in to a lot of debt and causing a huge amount of stress.
That is unacceptable.///
It also isn't going to happen. You can borrow up to 100% of your first payment anytime from the first day of your claim interest free.
That is unacceptable.///
It also isn't going to happen. You can borrow up to 100% of your first payment anytime from the first day of your claim interest free.
Borrowing up to 4 weeks in advance isn't actually a 'given' and the application for the loan could be turned down. In which case an appeal to reconsider should be made. Can't help but wonder just how many decisions not to lend the money are overturned on appeal. Not many, would be my guess, based on reconsiderations as regards fitness for work tests.
I am all for universal credit and a simplification of the benefits system . But as has been said though the bugs need sorting out.
Help in hard times and for those incapable of caring for themselves is one thing and in any right minded society should be a mainstay of policy. However just because someone is unemployed should not mean they get benefits that a higher than working, which in a lot of cases it seems to be the case. To my mind it shouldn’t even be equal to working. I would allocate a max of perhaps 75% of minimum wage and 75% of any benefits you might get if you were working on MW. If you are low skilled then that minimum wage is likely what you would earn.
I know it wouldn’t happen but I would take a very draconian view. You want the state to care for your every need. Well that care will be basic. No cash in your pocket to buy luxury’s like booze, fags and TVs, get given food stamps, or in fact any spare money to go on holiday. Even a week by the sea if frivolous if you are not working. If you can save for that you don’t need it, and a monthly invoice of how much you are costing the state and tax payer. The longer you are unemployed the lower your benefits would get. (Up to a minimum point of course).
I know, I know it will never happen. There are too many on the benefits bandwagon who will scream and shout to ever get in.
Help in hard times and for those incapable of caring for themselves is one thing and in any right minded society should be a mainstay of policy. However just because someone is unemployed should not mean they get benefits that a higher than working, which in a lot of cases it seems to be the case. To my mind it shouldn’t even be equal to working. I would allocate a max of perhaps 75% of minimum wage and 75% of any benefits you might get if you were working on MW. If you are low skilled then that minimum wage is likely what you would earn.
I know it wouldn’t happen but I would take a very draconian view. You want the state to care for your every need. Well that care will be basic. No cash in your pocket to buy luxury’s like booze, fags and TVs, get given food stamps, or in fact any spare money to go on holiday. Even a week by the sea if frivolous if you are not working. If you can save for that you don’t need it, and a monthly invoice of how much you are costing the state and tax payer. The longer you are unemployed the lower your benefits would get. (Up to a minimum point of course).
I know, I know it will never happen. There are too many on the benefits bandwagon who will scream and shout to ever get in.
//Well that care will be basic. //
fine. as long as the system keeps up with modern society. there's a report today on the BBC that suggests it won't be long before shopping won't be possible without access to online technology, ie do it online, or using a smartphone. https:/
smartphones, computers and internet access don't come without charges - charges that could well soon be essential for even the most hard pressed citizen.
fine. as long as the system keeps up with modern society. there's a report today on the BBC that suggests it won't be long before shopping won't be possible without access to online technology, ie do it online, or using a smartphone. https:/
smartphones, computers and internet access don't come without charges - charges that could well soon be essential for even the most hard pressed citizen.
The National minimum wage and the National Living wage are two different things.
Many on minimum wage are already entitled to benefits.
The earlier references to 'poverty porn' on TV is valid, TV companies know which buttons to press - it's rare they visit homes in those types of shows that have holes in the ceiling,dodgy electrics and vermin problems - they get brought up on the dispute programmes.
If you don't know anyone who hasn't got a plasma TV, smokes like a chimney or has a fridge or all the gadgets struggling away unheard then you're lucky.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the aspect in the article but suffice to say the roll out has been badly handled - again.
Many on minimum wage are already entitled to benefits.
The earlier references to 'poverty porn' on TV is valid, TV companies know which buttons to press - it's rare they visit homes in those types of shows that have holes in the ceiling,dodgy electrics and vermin problems - they get brought up on the dispute programmes.
If you don't know anyone who hasn't got a plasma TV, smokes like a chimney or has a fridge or all the gadgets struggling away unheard then you're lucky.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the aspect in the article but suffice to say the roll out has been badly handled - again.
"This TV/Smartphone does my nut in. I have 3 large TV's and a smart phone. If I had to start claiming benefits I would still have them!"
Indeed, ummm. But there are two aspects to that:
1. Many people who have the TVs and gadgets you describe have never been in gainful employment. It is not that they bought them whilst they were employed and suddenly hit hard times.
2. Back in the days before the government became so munificent with other people's money, if somebody claimed benefits they would have their assets examined. If they had three large TVs and a top-of-the-range phone they would be told to sell them before benefits were payable. They would have to dispose of the phone anyway as the benefit level would not support the contract payment or the top-up fees. Benefits were supposed to be a short-term safety net for people who hit hard times and needed temporary support. They were not supposed to be a lifestyle choice.
Indeed, ummm. But there are two aspects to that:
1. Many people who have the TVs and gadgets you describe have never been in gainful employment. It is not that they bought them whilst they were employed and suddenly hit hard times.
2. Back in the days before the government became so munificent with other people's money, if somebody claimed benefits they would have their assets examined. If they had three large TVs and a top-of-the-range phone they would be told to sell them before benefits were payable. They would have to dispose of the phone anyway as the benefit level would not support the contract payment or the top-up fees. Benefits were supposed to be a short-term safety net for people who hit hard times and needed temporary support. They were not supposed to be a lifestyle choice.
HC talked about people not having any money and using pay-day lenders.
I pointed out that wouldn't happen.
Now the usual suspects are whinging that some people are turned down for that loan.
Well they aren't turned down on a whim or because they have ginger hair. If, big If, they get turned down, it will be for a very good reason.
I pointed out that wouldn't happen.
Now the usual suspects are whinging that some people are turned down for that loan.
Well they aren't turned down on a whim or because they have ginger hair. If, big If, they get turned down, it will be for a very good reason.
-- answer removed --
They did do that NJ - did it to an Aunt of mine with three small children after her husband walked out.
They told her to sell her upstairs curtains as she wasn't overlooked and rip up and sell the stair carpet (?) and put the baby twins in the same cot and sell one.
One may have thought an educated person knew that babies grow, hey ho.
She ploughed on with family support and what little she got and went back to her job soon after, gave all but that brief time of her life to the NHS and died at 49.
We may be disillusioned with what is now but let us not hanker for the oh so rosy past.
They told her to sell her upstairs curtains as she wasn't overlooked and rip up and sell the stair carpet (?) and put the baby twins in the same cot and sell one.
One may have thought an educated person knew that babies grow, hey ho.
She ploughed on with family support and what little she got and went back to her job soon after, gave all but that brief time of her life to the NHS and died at 49.
We may be disillusioned with what is now but let us not hanker for the oh so rosy past.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles75 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles78 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.