The problem with the benefit system
I don’t often post in here but this has slightly annoyed me.
one of our staff has kids, his partner doesn’t work and they claim universal credit and their payment is based on their income.
apparently the basis of UC is that it encourages people back in to work.
I asked said member of staff to work a full weekend as we’re snowed under, he agreed and afterwards realised that what he earned was just taken away the month after via UC.
how is this encouraging people to work?
basically he worked 16 hours expecting timex1.5 for 8 and timex2 for another 8 and got sod all.
its bloody ridiculous.
Comments
-
It's the myth of UC. If you are working a few hours a week at min wage then the credit top up is worthwhile. Once people start to earn close to a basic low income wage, the drop off in credits, taxation etc. generally means they are financially worse off.
It was devised by Iain Duncan Smith and I know a few of the Civil Servants that had to actually implement it through a previous job of mine. It was never really meant to encourage people back to work, it was meant to con them into believing they were financially better off in work in order to get them off benefits.
0 -
It is a very well known problem in economics.
I think it's good for us as a society to support those who have less. But as soon as we do that, it's inevitable that those taking credits because they're earning very little, are discouraged to upgrade their earning from very little to a little-bit-more....
I wouldn't blame the individuals.
Sorry, there can't be a perfect solution.
0 -
It's a slightly more complex take on the old adage that you pay people enough to do nothing, that's what they will do...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
I'm talking generally rather than in the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. I thought you would agree with me - or does my old adage only apply to pensioners?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah look I do think that work is part of being a responsible citizen. It doesn't necessarily need to be paid; caring after family members is work etc.
I do also think we need to recognise that not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to support themselves and that they deserve to be able to live without destitution.
The balance between the two is tricky. Some people will always want to game the system - you need to have a system that minimises the incentives to do so, but also recognise that the actual burden of people gaming the system may well be quite small, especially if there aren't that many people doing it.
I still maintain most people do want to work and earn a living.
I also think it is just impractical to be able to fund the retired as much as we are and the reality is that the retirement age needs to be materially higher than it is. In return, in recognition that the working-age cohorts will have to work deeper into their lives, in part, to fund the care for the current retired, there needs to be a quid pro-quo. Whether that's reduced state pension/benefits, or whether that's heavier taxes on wealth, whatever the mechanism, that I think is a reasonable compromise to the reality of the situation.
0 -
A problem with your view on retirement is that we are generally living a lot longer than when the system was set up, but we are not healthy for very much longer.
0 -
My wife used to get a lot of problems trying to cover shifts in the care sector when people called in sick because overtime for other staff would affect their benefits (not sure if that was under UC or the previous system but it is a ridiculous situation). I don't think you can get a perfect system though.
0 -
I think legalising assisted dying would go some way in aiding that.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
-
You.
0 -
I personally think that those that insist on not working when able should be made to do voluntary work. Those that still insist they can't work and dont engage for whatever reason should be put forward for assisted dying given they're not making a contribution to society. Harsh but might improve things. Also suggest the same action for those working under the radar and not paying there fair amount in taxes etc.
Too many bikes according to Mrs O.0 -
Two words. The second one is "off".
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
This is all well but how do you prove they're not working and parse them apart from those who are doing unpaid work?
A wife who looks after an ill husband full time - does that count? Is she not allowed to see friends for coffee midweek in case that's considered sufficiently "not working"?
0 -
That is *slightly* harsh. Who would do the assisting?
So is it a myth that there are hoards of people insisting that they cannot work, but who are actually all perfectly fine? Answers on a postcard...
0 -
Assisted dying means helping someone top themselves, killing people is different.
0 -
just send them to rwanda
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny1 -
And keep the economically active immigrants.
0 -
Around 22 million people claim some form of benefit through the DWP each year, so about one third of the UK population. About half of that is state pension, and around 50% of the remaining half are UC claimants. It is a bit of a myth that the majority of benefit claimants are people able to work who are claiming they are not fit to work. PIP or disability allowance claimants account for around 20% of all claimants, but many people claiming such benefits can still be working and just using benefits to top up or cover extra living costs. They will all have to rigorously prove they have a genuine disability as well, so little chance to con the system.
There will always be a small % that game the system and are able to work but basically choosing not to, but I suspect the actual numbers of people getting away with this are relatively small.
1 -
That attracts carers allowance. Saves the NHS a fair bit.
Too many bikes according to Mrs O.0 -
I haven't got an issue with people who work, however I have no time for those that want to milk the system or do bugger all. What i find upsetting is I've worked hard for everything yet people who milk the system get everything paid for.
Too many bikes according to Mrs O.0 -
What about those who have worked hard for everything then choose to do bugger all when financially independent?
They're not contributing. The above question is rhetorical by the way.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's also worth considering that working a desk job into your 70s is a different proposition to laying bricks into your 70s
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!2 -
Good point.
0 -
I just wouldn't worry about it. Life is too short. But if you really can't stand someone having a slightly better deal than you, have a look at exactly what UC gets you. It's quite a long way from "everything".
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
True. Sitting still for 40 hours a week will ruin your health. Also are we not slightly past the idea that people have a single job for their entire working life.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
It's definitely a different case, but it's not like the (average)70 year old will have the mental flexibility of their younger colleagues.
Hopefully experience etc will go someway in countering that and obviously roles evolve with experience.
0 -
I'd have thought the broad point that continuing work in a physically demanding job into your 70s is a different proposition than continuing in a desk job, and that this would need consideration when asking people to work for longer was fairly uncontroversial.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
Yeah. Fuck 'em
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
