al_yrpal wrote:If I remember rightly the benefit cap was to prevent claimants getting more in benefits than low paid working people,
Al
And yet the Tories fought hard against the minimum wage.
al_yrpal wrote:If I remember rightly the benefit cap was to prevent claimants getting more in benefits than low paid working people,
Al
al_yrpal wrote:If I remember rightly the benefit cap was to prevent claimants getting more in benefits than low paid working people, and to prevent benefit claimants living in costly publicly owned Knightsbridge mansions at public expense? No doubt those forcibly relocated to Merthyr Tydfil are pretty upset. Its clear that UC requires a sensible overhaul, the idea of it seems good but the execution has some serious faults which need addressing.
Al
al_yrpal wrote:As I understand it people on benefits get sanctioned for breaking the rules pertaining to benefits or recieving benefits to which they are entitled.
Is it only the Tories that would apply sanctions or is this simply the way a local official interpretted the rules in an inhuman fashion?
Al
al_yrpal wrote: Its clear that UC requires a sensible overhaul, the idea of it seems good but the execution has some serious faults which need addressing.
Al
al_yrpal wrote:If I remember rightly the benefit cap was to prevent claimants getting more in benefits than low paid working people, and to prevent benefit claimants living in costly publicly owned Knightsbridge mansions at public expense?
Al
thelawnet wrote:...people who live a relatively comfortable existence while working 9-12:30 5 days a week
11 July 2018, received £500 for an article. Hours: 4 hrs.
thelawnet wrote:My understanding of Universal Credit is that it is designed to prevent claimants from being workshy - there are hundreds of thousands or millions on tax credits who refuse to work more than 16 hours (or 24) because they get tax credits , and the extra hours are barely remunerative. Whereas on UC that's no longer an option - instead of taking £4000 from the government for doing nothing at all, you should instead take £5800 from your employer in return for working more hours.
bovlomov wrote:thelawnet wrote:...people who live a relatively comfortable existence while working 9-12:30 5 days a week
Sounds reasonable. This was the bright future that Tomorrow's World promised us in the 1970s.
PH wrote:bovlomov wrote:thelawnet wrote:...people who live a relatively comfortable existence while working 9-12:30 5 days a week
Sounds reasonable. This was the bright future that Tomorrow's World promised us in the 1970s.
Going off topic - I used to love that program, the thing that spoilt it was my Dad always saying "That'll never happen" every time they told us how much leisure time we'd have and how much easier life would be, seems he was right, if there's no profit in it it won't happen.
I read or heard something a few years ago that it takes 11 hours to be as productive as someone working 45 in the 1960's. So it ought to be possible to work 22 and have twice the standard of living, anyone seen where all the rest has gone?
thelawnet wrote:I do not find journalists to be reliable sources on these matters
According to the source
https://www.understandinguniversalcredi ... sanctions/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... #sanctions
"If you fail to do what you have agreed in your Claimant Commitment without good reason, your Universal Credit payments may be reduced for a set period. This is known as a sanction."
"If you are asked to attend a work search review but don’t attend and don’t have a good reason why, you will receive a sanction until you arrange and attend another work search review.You will be sanctioned for 91 days for your first higher level sanction in any 364 day period, 182 days for your second, or 1,095 days for your third "
"You will be sanctioned for 28 days for your first medium level sanction in any 364 day period, or 91 days for your second "
So for the scenario described there should be multiple failings to meet obligations without good reason.
Whether that actually occurred, or whether the petty bureaucrats were too harsh, is impossible to say from the undoubtedly one-sided account in the newspaper.
My understanding of Universal Credit is that it is designed to prevent claimants from being workshy - there are hundreds of thousands or millions on tax credits who refuse to work more than 16 hours (or 24) because they get tax credits , and the extra hours are barely remunerative. Whereas on UC that's no longer an option - instead of taking £4000 from the government for doing nothing at all, you should instead take £5800 from your employer in return for working more hours.
How this works in practice is certainly up for debate, but the issue certainly exists, and I believe that it is seen as a public policy imperative by much of the electorate to address it, in that many know such people who live a relatively comfortable existence while working 9-12:30 5 days a week