How Can A Government That Spends Billions On Mass Testing Quibble Over Helping The Low Paid?

growstuff

PippaZ

growstuff

I don't think this has anything to do with systems. It's to do with a government which doesn't have a clue how precarious some people's existences are. Losing a few thousand might seem like pocket money to them, but to the low paid it's a fortune.

It is quite possible that it is both, surely?

Maybe, but the article doesn't mention that the government doesn't actually want to do anything about the situation and lays all the blame on HMRC systems.

It certainly lays blame on the HMRC but "all the blame", does it actually say that or is it rather, an article about the contribution the failings of the HMRC are making to people slipping through the systems?

Alegrias1

Hetty58

Apologies all - I really should have said 'the worst death rates in the World' shouldn't I?

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-covid-death-rate-coronavirus-b1788817.html

Ah, OK - more people are dying per day in the UK just now that in any other country - just now.

Overall more people have died per head of population in several other countries.

I do apologise if that sounds crass, I don't mean it to.

And we're one of the smallest countries too---Shameful !

I would support the idea of a UBI, but I am not in favour of it being taxed back from those who 'do not need it'.

I am sorry Doodledog that was very poorly put. Obviously, you would not tax to get the UBI back or it wouldn't be a UBI The whole point is that it is unconditional and cannot be withdrawn under any conditions.

What I probably should have said is that taxation is a separate matter and should be simple and progressive but I do think progressive is very important.

And we are one of the smallest countries, too

And we are an island! If ever there were an advantage when it comes to stopping the spread of incoming virus, that has to be it. Our figures should be way lower than any on mainland Europe.

PippaZ

^I would support the idea of a UBI, but I am not in favour of it being taxed back from those who 'do not need it'.^

I am sorry Doodledog that was very poorly put. Obviously, you would not tax to get the UBI back or it wouldn't be a UBI The whole point is that it is unconditional and cannot be withdrawn under any conditions.

What I probably should have said is that taxation is a separate matter and should be simple and progressive but I do think progressive is very important.

Agreed. Sorry for the sermon on the evils of means testing . It is a pet hate of mine, and I am easily triggered when I see it.

Pippa It says it by omission.

Apart from the number of people dying, we're discussing two issues here:

1 The £20 uplift to Universal Credit.
2 The (approx) 3 million self-employed who have had no support. Some of them, of course, have been eligible for Universal Credit, but not all.

The article is about the latter. The fact is that the government has been aware of the issues and Sunak has at least once that I can remember stated that he's not changing his stance. To blame HMRC for its systems is disingenuous. The article does not even mention that pleas for help have been ignored.

As far as Universal Credit is concerned, the government "leak machine" was going on about scrapping the uplift and bribing people with a one-off £500 payment, which would only compensate people if they can find another job or increase their earnings within 25 weeks, which is probably unrealistic.

I don't think UBI would be appropriate in the current circumstances and would cause a great deal of resentment.

UBI assumes that people can choose to live on the basic income or find work to top up their income. The trouble at the moment is that there really is no work available, especially in the industries where jobs have been lost. It's highly unlikely that retail jobs will reappear, even after the pandemic is over. They were teetering on the brink anyway.

I only receive any Universal Credit because it's been increased by £20. Otherwise, I would get nothing. I'll actually cease to be eligible at the beginning of April anyway because I'll finally be 66 and a state pensioner. I'm very grateful for the £20 because it pays my food bill.

Every two weeks, I have my "jobseeker's interview" by phone, which is a farce. My advisor is actually quite sweet and no longer follows his script. He told me that there are few jobs around and after accepting that I wasn't really in the market for retraining we now just have a chat. He told me that they've never been busier and have had to take on new staff. He's one of the new recruits and told me that he's recently graduated and is only doing the job on a temporary basis, but he said there really weren't any other jobs.

growstuff

UBI assumes that people can choose to live on the basic income or find work to top up their income. The trouble at the moment is that there really is no work available, especially in the industries where jobs have been lost. It's highly unlikely that retail jobs will reappear, even after the pandemic is over. They were teetering on the brink anyway.

This is also true of JSA and UC, though. At least UBI would (or in theory at least) ensure that people could live on the basic income, and remove the stigma attached to claiming, as opposed to just getting, the money.

I can't see it ever happening, though. The idea that people should get only what they 'need' is too ingrained in too many people for it to be popular, and there are too many voters who want to see income differentials maintained.

I also worry that it would just cause prices to rise, so nobody would actually be better off. So much spending relies on the idea of items being 'luxury' or 'aspirational', and if everyone could afford them those attributes would be lost, and prices would go up to push the items back into the 'exclusive' category.

How much do you think people need? The calculations I've seen haven't been very much - about the same as JSA.

JSA would be nice as a top up, if I had a job, but I can't live on it.

I really don't see the advantage. the poorest would be no better off. The only ones who would benefit would be those not claiming JSA/UC now.

If you would like a discussion on UBI Growstuff we could start another thread.

You obviously hold strong views on the current situation and I can see why.

BTW It's not true of JSA and not really true of UB either, certainly not for self-employed, who are usually expected to hit a minimum income floor. That's something to look out for, if the £20 uplift is scrapped. I wouldn't be eligible for anything with the minimum income floor. Only very few people in work are eligible for UB, unless they are single, have two children and pay rent.

PippaZ

If you would like a discussion on UBI Growstuff we could start another thread.

You obviously hold strong views on the current situation and I can see why.

No, I'm not really that bothered about UBI, because I don't really think it's a great idea. My main interest is UB and, connected to that, the lack of support for the self-employed. Of course I hold strong views on the current situation. I wonder how many other GNers have been affected and have to live on a pittance.

There are usually people complaining that the raising of the state pension age has caused them to be destitute, so I'm surprised there aren't more people interested in it.

I think the point in the OP was that £20 really isn't much compared with the billions which have been handed out to all sorts of other people, including cronies for dodgy contracts. To me, that £20 really has made a difference.

Anyway, I'm going now.

I really don't see the advantage. the poorest would be no better off. The only ones who would benefit would be those not claiming JSA/UC now.

Which includes countless people working in the gig economy or on minimum wage. These people would benefit from UBI, and would not risk it being reduced pound for pound if their circumstances improved, so they could try to plan for a better future.

It would also mean that people who have saved for a small pension wouldn't see those savings wiped out by means testing that ensures that they would have the same income if they hadn't saved and claimed pension credit.

At the same time, it would mean that those who do get pension credit wouldn't have it taken from them if they get a stroke of luck and their savings rise a bit above a threshold - they too, could see a realistic possibility of a better life ahead that means testing takes away.

It would remove the 'scrounger' labels from claimants.

It would give people a bit better off than 'the poorest' some hope of improving their situation.

I think that a fair system looks out for everyone, and measures the impact of policies on all of us - not just the people at the very bottom of 'the pile'. Clearly they should be a priority, but not at the disproportionate expense of those just above them in that pile.

I really wish that we could edit posts for clarity on here. I so often read my posts after sending and realise that they read very badly, but I need to see them as they appear before that is obvious to me.

Even if there were just a five minute window for editing it would make such a difference. I don't understand why we can't have that option.

I think the point in the OP was that £20 really isn't much compared with the billions which have been handed out to all sorts of other people, including cronies for dodgy contracts. To me, that £20 really has made a difference.

That was why I wrote it Growstuff.

Doodledog I won't quote your post Wed 20-Jan-21 16:10:27 but I would have been very happy indeed to have written it. You put your finger on the equalities it could bring.

I think the only thing I add is that it would make the "cushioning" more equal which in turn would offer more opportunity to learn and train, more opportunity to stay with young children if you want to and more to transfer to a job which, while it may not pay as much allows you to offer your skills to your countrymen.

Yes, it would give the choices that the better off take for granted to everyone, and society as a whole would benefit from that as well as individuals and families.

We need a major rethink in this country which has seen the extremes of the income distribution move further and further apart in recent years.

Doodledog I did qualify my reservations by saying that I don't think it would work at the moment. There really is no work for people to do, so they couldn't earn more. With B** still to make itself felt, I am not optimistic about the future for jobs - not for some time anyway.

Nor I, growstuff, but I think that is all the more reason for doing it now, for all the reasons I gave. It will have less of an impact when there are more people in work (whenever that may be). UBI is not meant simply to replace JSA, but to lift everyone into a decent standard of living, and remove the lack of security that so many people live with day to day.

A side-effect might be that rogue employers have to improve their dreadful conditions of employment for staff, including the sub-contracted ones such as delivery drivers. If people have a fallback, they wouldn't feel compelled to work in the manner of the main character of 'Sorry We Missed You'.

Sadly, this is one reason why I can't believe that a Tory government will ever bring it in - their donors have too much to lose.

I really can't see it happening now. It would have to be costed first and I seem to remember the Greens backed away when they looked at the details. Then there would be debates etc etc, "leaked" to find out public opinion etc.

This thread was about the £20 UC payment. Like free school meals, it's a sticking plaster but the trouble is that people need the money now.

But the figures I've seen suggested for a UBI payment would be about the same as JSA, which is why I said the poorest wouldn't benefit, unless they had another source of income, which they're going to find difficult at the moment.

Even the JobCentre have admitted there aren't any jobs. I've had no pressure at all to find one or even fill in my "journal" to make it look as though I'm looking for a job.