Universal credit: Should the temporary increase be kept for longer?

[Bromptonaut]

Paying the rent directly to landlords, no questions.

How about mandating the same from salary for those who are working?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

How about mandating the same from salary for those who are working?

Because if they don't pay they can be evicted and no-one seems overly bothered by people working getting evicted. If a benefit claimer gets evicted there is hell to pay and the same landlord that would have evicted a working non-payer suddenly becomes a 'slum landlord'.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Oh, so now it's a joke?

You accuse me of hitting my wife and make a joke of it? Why is violence towards women funny? Because I seem to remember on other threads you are dead against it, or maybe the veneer is just very thin and now the real you is coming out?

Do you really not understand why I asked you such a loaded question when I know nothing about you? I am sure that everyone has heard of the use of that question before.

That seemed to be your style of post, loaded questions and non-answers, but clearly you do not do self-perception ... or irony.

You do not post to put forward your point of view, but to attack the posts ond opinions of others. Tbf the post above is one of the very few occasions I can remember where you have actually put forward suggestions rather than attacks so perhaps you at last see that your style is apparent to everyone.

 

[AndyRM]

But I have never said I could. I have said endlessly that a proper review needs to take place.

The problem, like all of this, is that nothing proposed by a Tory government will ever meet what you want, and as no-one is willing to put a figure to what they think it should be you can all keep endlessly slagging the government for not doing enough.

Come on, one of you, what should be the level of a Universal Basic Income in £'s?

My rent is £150 p/m, gas and electric were £49 p/m but I've come to the end of my fixed rate tariff and it's gone up, mobile and broadband are £50 p/m, council tax is £97 p/m, leaving me a grand total of about a £50 to eat and have a life.

I live on my own, so I can pretty much manage that, but only just.

If I was asked to put a figure on it I'd say that £500 p/m should be the standard, minimum UC payment.

 

[fozy tornip]

,, council tax is £97 p/m.

Is that after rebate/deductions to reflect your circs?

 

[Archie_tect]

Not at all. Although I would be massively more controversial!

I would completely overhaul absolutely everything, and I mean everything.

Paying the rent directly to landlords, no questions. I would set the minimum benefits rates below the minimum wage so work always paid more, but if someone was working I would top them up to their equivalent full time wage if they worked more than 20 hours a week.
People with disability, this won't be popular, but I would with the huge changes in home working have more of them working remotely! UC was supposed to bring benefits in together, and I think as a concept is actually a good idea, but as with any benefit reform everyone jumps on it and doesn't really give it a chance to bed down.

Alongside all of that though, I would invest in the care, education and development of those claiming benefits to support them to get employed and improve their lot, but claiming benefits should not be more lucrative than working unless a person is totally unable to work. Assessing that is not easy though, and will always be seen as harsh by people who feel they have been hard done by when the result comes in.

I have seen people with mental illnesses be treated harshly by the benefits system for 3 decades now, so please, no-one kid themselves that the Conservatives do this, a dozen or more of those years were under a Labour government, and the system then was just as 'unfair' if you were on the wrong side of the decision.

Cheers for the reply Craig. I agree on the need to overhaul the whole social care and social responsibility sector... but you're probably not surprised to hear I would seriously look at Universal Basic Income as a starting point and following Aurora's point adjust the system, to make sure that people don't fall through the gaps, possibly via personal tax codes.

The whole network of support for the vulnerable can't be separated from their social care. Care in the Community hasn't helped vulnerable people with learning difficulties either - all that happened was that people with learning difficulties and addiction issues were left to their own devices in many Local Authorities where the grants and network for day centres was removed by central government.

I completely agree with your point about supporting and helping people who are capable of meaningful work. I also appreciate that a small minority of people who are capable of work are on benefits but don't always make good use of their payments, including pre-payments for rent and utilities, but that's where social worker care provision needs to be re-worked to kick in with community support and training to give people, who feel they have nothing to contribute, a sense of worth and purpose, and encourage a different outlook on their situation [similar to the work that the Crisis Charity does] through adult education.

Where people are on DHSS lists they are more vulnerable to more ruthless landlords but that is down to privatisation of accommodation and the closing of day centres which has nothing to do with benefits at all.

Between us all there will be a workable solution- it's sad that we know that on a cycling forum but there appears to be little appetite to deal with it in Government. LAs are trying to cope but without proper funding and strong leadership from the top nothing will change.

.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Do you really not understand why I asked you such a loaded question when I know nothing about you?

No, please enlighten us to why you suggested I hit my wife?

It is weird how you are so right on in other threads but you think, in the current climate, that bringing an accusation of domestic abuse into a thread is still appropriate?

Like i said, maybe it says more about your true beliefs than all your bang on message PC comments in other threads. Maybe really you think that joking about me hitting my wife is actually a good way to advance an argument?

I don't know you either, but I think we all got a good glimpse of your true colours this evening.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Cheers for the reply Craig. I agree on the need to overhaul the whole social care and social responsibility sector... but you're probably not surprised to hear I would seriously look at Universal Basic Income as a starting point and following Aurora's point adjust the system, to make sure that people don't fall through the gaps, possibly via personal tax codes.

The whole network of support for the vulnerable can't be separated from their social care. Care in the Community hasn't helped vulnerable people with learning difficulties either - all that happened was that people with learning difficulties and addiction issues were left to their own devices in many Local Authorities where the grants and network for day centres was removed by central government.

I completely agree with your point about supporting and helping people who are capable of meaningful work. I also appreciate that a small minority of people who are capable of work are on benefits but don't always make good use of their payments, including pre-payments for rent and utilities, but that's where social worker care provision needs to be re-worked to kick in with community support and training to give people, who feel they have nothing to contribute, a sense of worth and purpose, and encourage a different outlook on their situation [similar to the work that the Crisis Charity does] through adult education.

Where people are on DHSS lists they are more vulnerable to more ruthless landlords but that is down to privatisation of accommodation and the closing of day centres which has nothing to do with benefits at all.

Between us all there will be a workable solution- it's sad that we know that on a cycling forum but there appears to be little appetite to deal with it in Government. LAs are trying to cope but without proper funding and strong leadership from the top nothing will change.

.

I think you are probably right, between us on here, we could probably work out a reasonable solution to the problem. Sadly though, everyone is just too entrenched in their corners to move out to the middle and find it.

Two things definitely won't help to find the solution though
1. A dogmatic belief that the Tories are bad and the Labour party are good on this stuff. Both parties lose their bottle when it comes to proper reform because they both know that [the right] lose votes for being too harsh on benefit claimants, and [the left] lose votes for being too lax on claimants. There isn't a Goldilocks solution to this.
2. Throwing pots of money at the problem. No problem is ever helped by simply throwing pots of money at it, which governments tend to do, just before they realise the futility of it. You need some money, but you also need a plan, a coherent costed model, limitations to what can be claimed and support and incentives to work. Benefits should be a safety net to catch the poorest and those unable to work.

 

[cookiemonster]

Oh, as ever, a bit of sarcasm goes down well with the audience eh? However, the assessors I know try and do a good and fair job.

As ever, and for god knows how many times now, the system needs reform, but I will say that I have been involved with people claiming benefits for at least the last 30 years, and I haven't seen a perfect system yet, have you? Which one would you go back to? Or as ever, you all take the easy route of saying 'the system is wrong' while studiously avoiding making any recommendations or suggestions as to how you would run the system, because you all know that actually there is no perfect system and anything you say would be easily pulled apart and you made to look a twat within minutes.

I've yet to see a suggestion from you. Repeating the words 'controlled and sensible' isn't going to work.

So, let's have a suggestion or two from you.

 

[cookiemonster]

Yep, as ever, focus on the player and not the ball.

Come on, which system would you use for assessing benefits, the rates of those benefits and who should get them?

I have said over and over, the system has problems, it needs review, but whatever is put in place will be met by people like you saying 'It's too confusing/ it isn't fair/ it's the rich keeping the poor down/ it's Tory heartlessness' all while having not the slightest clue about what to put in its place, and certainly not the balls to suggest any changes on a forum where you know full well it will be pulled to bits in a heartbeat.


.....it needs changing, I don't know how many times I have said that. I assume though, that you believe all will be well with the UC system by just adding £20 a week to it? Or should the whole thing be reviewed and done in a proper way?

How? You keep saying it needs changed and yet never suggest an alternative.

 

[newfhouse]

No, please enlighten us to why you suggested I hit my wife?

I find it hard to believe that you have never come across such a widely used example of a loaded question. In the hope that it’s ignorance rather something worse, here’s a Wikipedia link that may help explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

 

[cookiemonster]

Why is that many on the right believe you can beat the poverty out of the poor ?

Victorian values and many of them were buggered to within an inch of their lives at public school.

It's revenge.

 

[Archie_tect]

I think you are probably right, between us on here, we could probably work out a reasonable solution to the problem. Sadly though, everyone is just too entrenched in their corners to move out to the middle and find it.

Two things definitely won't help to find the solution though
1. A dogmatic belief that the Tories are bad and the Labour party are good on this stuff. Both parties lose their bottle when it comes to proper reform because they both know that [the right] lose votes for being too harsh on benefit claimants, and [the left] lose votes for being too lax on claimants. There isn't a Goldilocks solution to this.
2. Throwing pots of money at the problem. No problem is ever helped by simply throwing pots of money at it, which governments tend to do, just before they realise the futility of it. You need some money, but you also need a plan, a coherent costed model, limitations to what can be claimed and support and incentives to work. Benefits should be a safety net to catch the poorest and those unable to work.

What it would need from Parliament is a cross-party committee to look back at what worked and what didn't, looking at taxation revenue generation, social care, social reform, Care in the Community, welfare, education and benefits, probably prison reform and the NHS too. An opportunity exists as we emerge from Covid to look again at revenue streams and how Brexit has shifted the whole political divide.

The UK no longer has an effective two party system. The media has has been manipulated, leaving us all unsure of what and who can be believed and trusted.

It's a unique political situation that we've never faced before where the PM is exposed as an incompetent, bumbling liar yet he keeps his job and no-one stands out as an effective replacement , except perhaps for Caroline Lucas who sadly for the UK is the PM we'll never get.

 

[Deleted member 49]

I find it hard to believe that you have never come across such a widely used example of a loaded question. In the hope that it’s ignorance rather something worse, here’s a Wikipedia link that may help explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

You had to go and spoil it didn't you....

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, that's the point.

A non-means-tested basic income which provides everyone with the same underpinned income.

It requires a different mind-set- where people then contribute according to their own skill-set, or choose to do nothing, or re-train. All work then creates a service or a surplus which is taxable to fund both the UBI and the local and national services we all use.

People will; no doubt point to trials and say no, it doesn't work but it needs a fundamental shift not a half-hearted local trial which gives up at the first sign of dissent from opposing parties.

Although didn't quote my question, I assume this is an answer to:

What ALL of it, UC, PIP, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Family Allowance, SSP.... etc etc ?

Not disagreeing, just trying to determine if everyone thinks of UBI in the same way

In which case, basic rate income tax personal allowance would be set at the UBI threshold?, there would be no additional payments? (for example, carers allowance, attendance allowance, mobility allowance... I am sure there are more I am unaware of).

I like the simplicity of such a system, but, I can see a lot of winners and losers.