Universal Credit

19th February 2014

Well I've asked twice on a thread already but not got the answer so...

If Universal Credit tops up a person's money if they find work but that work pays less than they were getting... how long does it carry on doing that - for the rest of their lives, or does it stop after 6 months?

BigAndy9 wrote:19th February 2014

Well I've asked twice on a thread already but not got the answer so...

If Universal Credit tops up a person's money if they find work but that work pays less than they were getting...  how long does it carry on doing that - for the rest of their lives, or does it stop after 6 months?

There are no limits on how many hours a week you can work if you’re claiming Universal Credit. Instead, the amount you’ll get will gradually reduce as you earn more, so you won’t lose all your benefits at once.

is what the website says

NemsAgain wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:19th February 2014

Well I've asked twice on a thread already but not got the answer so...

If Universal Credit tops up a person's money if they find work but that work pays less than they were getting...  how long does it carry on doing that - for the rest of their lives, or does it stop after 6 months?

There are no limits on how many hours a week you can work if you’re claiming Universal Credit. Instead, the amount you’ll get will gradually reduce as you earn more, so you won’t lose all your benefits at once.

is what the website says

Thanks nems - this UC really does seem good for those on benefits who want to get back to work.

Does it have any limits - time/money?

Anybody know?

Nems - you also said "gradually reduce as you earn more" - what if they don't earn more - does it continue forever?

As far as I am aware any limits are worked out on an individual basis through the personal agreement people will sign.

So say your high powered manager quits their job to become a cleaner there will be discussion as to why they did so but to be honest that is unlikely.

As I said elsewhere I think there will actually be a seachange in attitude because every extra pound earned means more money in the pocket - there will be no point in dropping from £100 to £70 because even with the top up you will be worse off

Say on £100 you take home £146 then on £70 you would take home £137 - there would be no point in dropping to the lower paid job because you would loose money.

But when do they start reducing the money they top it up with?

And how quickly do they reduce it to nothing?

There must be a time limit on it?

BigAndy9 wrote:But when do they start reducing the money they top it up with?

And how quickly do they reduce it to nothing?

There must be a time limit on it?

Why must there be?

There is no time limit on JSA - if you dont get a job you keep getting JSA. The only limits on that is the contribution based which will see you get 6 months of money even if your partner works or you have savings. After the 6 months if you have no other income you change to income based.

The whole point of UC is to be much more flexible. With current JSA if someone who is unemployed sees a job offered 10 hours a week for 4 weeks there is little point in taking it - they will not take home any more money before during or after, will have to fill out vast amounts of paperwork, and stand a good chance that there will be a screw up somewhere so they will either lose money or have no payments for several weeks. With UC there will be every point in taking it because they will have more money, without a break in payments and a lot less paperwork - working will pay.

I mean even the laziest scrounger is going to see the point of getting more money and with working resulting in more money it will seem attractive - and the more work done the more money they get so the habit will build up slowly.

Humans are animals and animals respond to rewards - you can tell your scrounger they have to do work experience for their benefits and they will do it but will not see the point because it will make no difference to their day to day lives (or no beneficial difference they can see). With UC it will be different - you have your scrounger and the world cup coming up - they want to be able to get kit and extra drinks. There is a temporary cleaning job for a few hours and they take it cause its temporary and will get them the extras they want - then it finishes and their money drops again - and they will have got used to having the extra money. So they actually look for another temp job - which become permanent, and Christmas is coming up so they do more hours and get more money. Then after Christmas the hours drop and their money goes down and again they dont like it so look for more hours. Before you know it the scrounger is working every hour god sends and is studying for promotion to earn more money.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:But when do they start reducing the money they top it up with?

And how quickly do they reduce it to nothing?

There must be a time limit on it?

Why must there be?

There is no time limit on JSA - if you dont get a job you keep getting JSA.  The only limits on that is the contribution based which will see you get 6 months of money even if your partner works or you have savings.  After the 6 months if you have no other income you change to income based.

The whole point of UC is to be much more flexible.  With current JSA if someone who is unemployed sees a job offered 10 hours a week for 4 weeks there is little point in taking it - they will not take home any more money before during or after, will have to fill out vast amounts of paperwork, and stand a good chance that there will be a screw up somewhere so they will either lose money or have no payments for several weeks.  With UC there will be every point in taking it because they will have more money, without a break in payments and a lot less paperwork - working will pay.

I mean even the laziest scrounger is going to see the point of getting more money and with working resulting in more money it will seem attractive - and the more work done the more money they get so the habit will build up slowly.

Humans are animals and animals respond to rewards - you can tell your scrounger they have to do work experience for their benefits and they will do it but will not see the point because it will make no difference to their day to day lives (or no beneficial difference they can see).  With UC it will be different - you have your scrounger and the world cup coming up - they want to be able to get kit and extra drinks.  There is a temporary cleaning job for a few hours and they take it cause its temporary and will get them the extras they want - then it finishes and their money drops again - and they will have got used to having the extra money.  So they actually look for another temp job - which become permanent, and Christmas is coming up so they do more hours and get more money.  Then after Christmas the hours drop and their money goes down and again they dont like it so look for more hours.  Before you know it the scrounger is working every hour god sends and is studying for promotion to earn more money.

As one who is worse off working than claiming. I get what Andy was saying. I was not working and claiming so I would be getting UC how long would I still get UC for once I got a job ?

NemsAgain wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Why must there be?

There is no time limit on JSA - if you dont get a job you keep getting JSA.  The only limits on that is the contribution based which will see you get 6 months of money even if your partner works or you have savings.  After the 6 months if you have no other income you change to income based.

The whole point of UC is to be much more flexible.  With current JSA if someone who is unemployed sees a job offered 10 hours a week for 4 weeks there is little point in taking it - they will not take home any more money before during or after, will have to fill out vast amounts of paperwork, and stand a good chance that there will be a screw up somewhere so they will either lose money or have no payments for several weeks.  With UC there will be every point in taking it because they will have more money, without a break in payments and a lot less paperwork - working will pay.

I mean even the laziest scrounger is going to see the point of getting more money and with working resulting in more money it will seem attractive - and the more work done the more money they get so the habit will build up slowly.

Humans are animals and animals respond to rewards - you can tell your scrounger they have to do work experience for their benefits and they will do it but will not see the point because it will make no difference to their day to day lives (or no beneficial difference they can see).  With UC it will be different - you have your scrounger and the world cup coming up - they want to be able to get kit and extra drinks.  There is a temporary cleaning job for a few hours and they take it cause its temporary and will get them the extras they want - then it finishes and their money drops again - and they will have got used to having the extra money.  So they actually look for another temp job - which become permanent, and Christmas is coming up so they do more hours and get more money.  Then after Christmas the hours drop and their money goes down and again they dont like it so look for more hours.  Before you know it the scrounger is working every hour god sends and is studying for promotion to earn more money.

As one who is worse off working than claiming. I get what Andy was saying. I was not working and claiming so I would be getting UC how long would I still get UC for once I got a job ?

For as long as your wages were below threshold. The threshold varies with circumstances like child tax credits.

Under UC it should be impossible for anyone to be worse off working.

If you are only able to get a job for a few hours a week you will get UC as long as you are in it - your personal contract may require you to show efforts to find a second job, increase your hours or do courses to improve your chances of promotion - the contract will vary from person to person.

The thing is if every extra bit of money earned is extra money in the pocket the biggest stimulus to get a better paid more hours job is going to come from the person.

of course, what is NOT mentioned...ever ...is IF you are severely disabled, and your partner is earning above 16,000, or has more than 16,000 in savings....YOU WILL be denied any help, You will be required to become dependant upon your partner. period.

victorismyhero wrote:of course, what is NOT mentioned...ever ...is IF you are severely disabled, and your partner is earning above 16,000, or has more than 16,000 in savings....YOU WILL be denied any help, You will be required to become dependant upon your partner. period.

How is that any different from what is happening now - other than partner earning levels are higher?

Or are you confusing the changes from JSA/ESA/IS etc to UC and the changes from DLA to PIP - which is a totally different subject and which I am opposed to.

Ahhh...that could be it sphinx....yep the DLA to PIP, disgusting that is....

victorismyhero wrote:Ahhh...that could be it sphinx....yep the DLA to PIP, disgusting that is....

Yes I fully agree. DLA was an incredible insight by the state into identifying and relieving a problem. It recognized that diagnosis does not define disability and that disability costs money while trying to help level the playing field.

Unfortunately the government in trying to assess it failed to properly account for the reason for increasing claims - they totally missed the fact that our ever improving medical technology saves more lives than ever before but that many of those lives are not unscathed. A large amount of the increased claims came from people who as little as 10 years would have died.

victorismyhero wrote:of course, what is NOT mentioned...ever ...is IF you are severely disabled, and your partner is earning above 16,000, or has more than 16,000 in savings....YOU WILL be denied any help, You will be required to become dependant upon your partner. period.

Well, this is where decent, hard working folk who save up get completely rinsed.

And it shows how awful this country has been for years - when people say you're better off not working, living in council accommodation and blowing your money every week, they've got a point, haven't they?

No matter how rich you are - when you hit 60 - 65 and you need to be cared for, you're buggered if you have a few grand in the bank and if your house is your own.

BigAndy9 wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:of course, what is NOT mentioned...ever ...is IF you are severely disabled, and your partner is earning above 16,000, or has more than 16,000 in savings....YOU WILL be denied any help, You will be required to become dependant upon your partner. period.

Well, this is where decent, hard working folk who save up get completely rinsed.

And it shows how awful this country has been for years - when people say you're better off not working, living in council accommodation and blowing your money every week, they've got a point, haven't they?

No matter how rich you are - when you hit 60 - 65 and you need to be cared for, you're buggered if you have a few grand in the bank and if your house is your own.

Well you're not buggered because you would have the money to take care of yourself, or to pay someone else to do it. Once that money has run out, or fallen below a certain level, you'd get benefits instead.

I take your point though.

i shouldn't worry too much about universal credits, it sinking faster than tory confidence..