Robber Reeves mantra: "Boosting Growth"

MaizieD

^Therefore a part time job plus UC may bring in as much as the same job worked full time.^

If UC is cut to 45p for every £1 earned it must be a pretty poorly paid job.

The meanness towards people living on the poverty line can be quite breathtaking. Beat them all back to full time work. Starve them if necessary.

Though bankers who think it's not worth getting out of bed for a job that doesn't pay a bonus on top of their more than adequate salary are just fine?

My taxes don’t pay bankers Maizie. The financial services sector is important to the economy and I have no problem with the salaries and bonuses paid..

When BJ "committed" to the Ukraine, we could not know what would follow. Of course it would be better to spend money on disability not war, but would you go as far as completely withdrawing?

ronib

But is the benefits unsustainable in the long term? What do you suggest the long term disabled do?
I would much rather spend £3 billion a year on our disabled population rather than send it to Ukraine for the next 100 years.

Hear hear. Why you commit a country to that. Perhaps the next rational Gov will cancel that.

Barleyfields

Presumably the more hours worked, the more is earned. Therefore a part time job plus UC may bring in as much as the same job worked full time. Some people may be genuinely unable to work more than a few hours but if they are able to work full time they should. I object to paying someone to have the luxury of working part time when, if they are able and can work full time, they would have exactly the same income.

Well at 45p in the pound is the cut off point then a person can't earn the same as working full time.

Until we have decent childcare, a number of people have not choice but to work part time, and there are those who can only manage part time work at any given point but its better they do that than not work.

People who regularly only work part time, it's relatively easy to work out what their benefits should be.

What really gets complicated is when people need to make regular claims because they are working on zero hours contracts and the number of hours varies. They are expected to take the jobs, but it leaves both them and the benefits office in complex situations where benefits cant be delivered on time

Therefore a part time job plus UC may bring in as much as the same job worked full time.

If UC is cut to 45p for every £1 earned it must be a pretty poorly paid job.

The meanness towards people living on the poverty line can be quite breathtaking. Beat them all back to full time work. Starve them if necessary.

Though bankers who think it's not worth getting out of bed for a job that doesn't pay a bonus on top of their more than adequate salary are just fine?

Presumably the more hours worked, the more is earned. Therefore a part time job plus UC may bring in as much as the same job worked full time. Some people may be genuinely unable to work more than a few hours but if they are able to work full time they should. I object to paying someone to have the luxury of working part time when, if they are able and can work full time, they would have exactly the same income.

UC is tapered.

Barleyfields

Would be cut. That is not acceptable.

That’s in the “old days” One could only work less than 26 hours a week on Job Seekers Allowance or all benefits would be stopped.

Universal Credit totally ignores hours worked, its amount earned taken into account.

Casdon

I don’t know much about it, but I imagine there is a universal credit bar, similar to the pension bar? If people earn more than whatever the bar is, even if only by a few pounds, do they lose their universal credit altogether? If they do, people won’t be able to afford to work a few extra hours.

According to a govt website UC is tapered. For every £1 earned UC is reduced by 55p. So there could ultimately come a point when UC is eliminated, but the taper should mean that there isn't a sudden drop in earnings.

www.gov.uk/universal-credit/how-your-wages-affect-your-payments

Though I might be looking at this simplistically and others might identify a point at which work pays no more than UC did.

Which does make logical the belief that it's not worth working if it's not going to make a financial difference to income. You might as well be poor with no effort rather than slog your guts out to be in exactly the same place. Work should be financially rewarding, not a frantic struggle to stay afloat.

I'm reminded of something I read recently (and wish I'd bookmarked in some way) A banker saying that if he didn't get a bonus what would be the point of working... One rule for the rich, another for the poor?

Doodledog employers NI now starts for anyone on a salary of £5,000 pa (£96.15 per week) at a rate of 15% from this April, employees NI starts at £12,570 pa (£242 per week)

I wonder if this will limit the amount of part-time positions available?

I don’t know much about it, but I imagine there is a universal credit bar, similar to the pension bar? If people earn more than whatever the bar is, even if only by a few pounds, do they lose their universal credit altogether? If they do, people won’t be able to afford to work a few extra hours.

I agree with both Barleyfields and Cossy. Minimum wage should mean that nobody works a full week and needs top-ups. At the same time, I see no reason why people should be able to work half a week for a whole week's pay. Again, that comes down to unfairness on those who do work full-time on the same hourly rate and do twice the work for the same take-home pay. It also means that taxpayers are propping up the profits of low-paying employers.

Childcare needs to be looked at, too, as in some cases that would eat any extra pay for extra hours worked. I would like to see state nurseries providing free or very affordable childcare to all working parents who want it.

Of course people should be able to work P/T if they want to, but there shouldn't be so many jobs with deliberately short hours that mean employers are not obliged to pay NI, and employees are not entitled to sick pay, maternity leave and pensions, and those who choose to work P/T should expect to get paid pro rata.

Would be cut. That is not acceptable.

Maybe some deliberately take a part time job and know full well that that particular employer can’t offer more hours. Other employers are available. I have heard too many say they can’t work more hours because their benefits would

“How many of the people mentioned in your final paragraph are deliberately limiting the hours they work so as to preserve their UC though? If they are capable of working more hours they should do so.”

If they are capable, I agree with you. Work coaches do ask that question, however in some instances their employers cannot offer more hours, better a part time job than no job at all.

Barleyfields The question you ought to be asking is why some organisations pay so little the govt is propping them up with UC, in exactly the way Tax Credits did!

Cossy

If claimants are on Universal Credit, it’s a tapering benefit, it picks up income details directly from an HMRC feed meaning benefits continue until UC receives income details from HMRC, there is no 5 week gap.

Also PIP won’t stop as not means tested, so that would continue automatically in its own right until assessment period ends, anything between 1 & 10 years.

Also remember many people currently in receipt of both PIP and UC are already working, albeit low paid or part time jobs.

How many of the people mentioned in your final paragraph are deliberately limiting the hours they work so as to preserve their UC though? If they are capable of working more hours they should do so.

Wylow Access to work does still exist, as do the DEA work coaches. Maybe less funded, but that could easily be changed.

I completely agree, supported employment needs good funding.

If claimants are on Universal Credit, it’s a tapering benefit, it picks up income details directly from an HMRC feed meaning benefits continue until UC receives income details from HMRC, there is no 5 week gap.

Also PIP won’t stop as not means tested, so that would continue automatically in its own right until assessment period ends, anything between 1 & 10 years.

Also remember many people currently in receipt of both PIP and UC are already working, albeit low paid or part time jobs.

Cossy

Also, this govt scheme has been going for a very long time and should be better publicised

www.gov.uk/access-to-work

In additional every job centre has a least one specialised work coach, they used to be called “Disability Employment Advisors”

The previous govt shut down or refused funding, under austerity, for many schemes helping people with manageable health conditions back into paid work.

It's a great scheme but an expensive one therefore was cut in austerity.

Thats what I meant by saying its no good pursuing a back to work scheme that doesn't fund workers to do it.

Freya5

ronib

The Guardian is definitely off Labour today.

Just telling the truth.

Whose truth?

Barleyfields

So do I. I look forward to hearing what reforms are intended. People who genuinely cannot do any form of work should be unaffected, but those who can work but are unwilling to do so should have their benefits taken away.

It won't be a rapid process, as decisions in many cases about fitness to work are complex and take time, which means adequate staffing to make those decisions/interviews. We'll have to find out how the process is to be enacted.

Also, this govt scheme has been going for a very long time and should be better publicised

www.gov.uk/access-to-work

In additional every job centre has a least one specialised work coach, they used to be called “Disability Employment Advisors”

The previous govt shut down or refused funding, under austerity, for many schemes helping people with manageable health conditions back into paid work.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

A new report by The Centre for Social Justice, entitled Lost Boys, has revealed an alarming trend of disengagement among young men, namely that since the pandemic alone, the number of males aged 16-24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased by a staggering 40% compared to just 7% for their female peers.

Something is going on here. Benefits to NEETS enable ‘lifestyle’ choices. But how can we turn the tide?

This does raise 2 interesting points. Firstly, what I have always suspected, that this "covid" generation were impacted by events.

And the second, why so many more young men than women?

So do I. I look forward to hearing what reforms are intended. People who genuinely cannot do any form of work should be unaffected, but those who can work but are unwilling to do so should have their benefits taken away.