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

[Bromptonaut]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand you, I have suggested that rent should go direct to the landlord, you have said here that would contrary to the basic concept, which is to pay the money direct to the landlords. Isn't that better described as 'exactly the same as', and not 'contrary to'?

Look, you can snipe and disagree with absolutely everything I type, that's fine, but I am trying to move this forward with suggestions, you are stuck in a loop of 'well that is rubbish', and 'so is that', 'the Tories are terrible'. You have years of experience too, how was it for benefit claimants under Labour?

An example of how an omitted comma can change the entire sense of a sentence.

Correctly expressed it would read:

The starting point for this was your punitive and impractical suggestion, which also runs contrary to the basic concept of UC, that the Housing Element should be paid directly to Landlords.​

​

The basic principle of Universal Credit is that it replaces six benefits paid by three different agencies into one single payment.​

 

[the snail]

You have years of experience too, how was it for benefit claimants under Labour?

The implication that people think benefits claimants had it great under Labour is a straw man argument, nobody other than you has suggested that. In reality, both main parties have tried to show how tough they are on 'benefit scroungers'. Labour under Blair introduced some harsh sanction regimes. Cuts to benefits (often stealth cuts like council tax) have been terrible under the tories though, which is why poverty has rocketed under them.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Look, you can snipe and disagree with absolutely everything I type, that's fine, but I am trying to move this forward with suggestions, you are stuck in a loop of 'well that is rubbish', and 'so is that', 'the Tories are terrible'. You have years of experience too, how was it for benefit claimants under Labour?

I'm trying not to sound snipy but removing from claimants the agency to handle their own rent is a big step and, I suspect, a gross over reaction to the actual scale of the problem of rent default by recipients of UC.

I'm no fan of the Tories and I think it's pretty much incontrovertible that IDS's original design of UC was constrained in the Cameron/Osborne era to abet their skivers/strivers agenda. However the basic concept is good. You can argue whether it should contain the option of more frequent payment, that the various ways in which it's been hobbled (removal of addition for Work Related Activity, the Cap, the two child limit and Work Allowances/Taper) but I don't think an incoming opposition would want to start again on the infrastructure.

As to Labour, well they gave us Tax Credits which probably did more for Child Poverty than any other change post WW2.

 

[BoldonLad]

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

Personally, I don't agree with paying the rent directly to the Landlord, from Benefits or Salary.

I have a problem with Housing Benefit too, it appears to me, it is effectively a subsidy to landlords (and, all to frequently, for substandard housing).

However, like others on here, I have, in the past, done some voluntary work (for CAB and for a Credit Union). I my (admittedly limited) experience, a sadly common situation, is income spent on none essentials (eg tattoo, top range mobile phone contract), while Rent and/or Council Tax go unpaid. Many people who end up in financial difficulties (note, people, not just those on benefits), are sadly lacking in simple financial skills, mainly, simple budgeting. Ahh, immediately I can hear the cry, "these poor people don't have enough money to budget". But, I would contend, the less money you have, the more essential it is to manage it carefully. Any fool could manage on £50,000/week, it takes skill to manage manage on £100/week (or less).

 

[BoldonLad]

The reduction for low income is set by the billing authority; every council in England has its own scheme. A sole occupier should get the 25% reduction everybody gets to reflect that, then whatever CTR (Council Tax Reduction) is allowed by the scheme in a particular area.

A very few still pay 100% but most now only meet 70-80%. A few, take a bow Lincolnshire, are as low as 50%. Others limit to the equivalent of band D or E.

It would appear that my Local Council deserve a gold star then. To the best of my knowledge, my UC Claiming son pays no Council Tax, and, approximately £6/week in rent (which includes water rates). If I am wrong, presumably, a visit to court for unpaid Council Tax is due in the very near future.

 

[Bromptonaut]

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.

As somebody else said why to those of a Conservative bent think you can beat people out of being poor.

There's obviously a need to deal with those, whoever they are, that are perfectly capable of work but choose to live on benefits. But they're a very small cohort; you cannot deal with that by manipulating benefit rates down. There's already a cap the purported reason for which is to ensure people are no better off on benefits. It doesn't do that; the reality is that it penalises those who rent privately. The way to get people back into work is by increasing opportunity. While £15/hr is aspirational the current National Living Wage is set way too low. Here, in Northampton, a single person working 36 hours at NLW and renting a one bed flat privately, even if they could get a place at the ceiling of what is payable (most pay more) would get £120/month in UC.

It's simply inhumane to penalise somebody with very real health issues, including receiving/recovering from chemo by deliberately setting rates below the minimum for a reasonable lifestyle.

One of the problems with reform is that all the tweaks down the years have been aimed at reducing what is payable. That includes the Osborne era freeze, the cap, the two child limit, rent caps set at the 30th centile, taper rates, work allowances limited to certain groups, removal of extra money from those who's health problems are not utterly life limiting (nothing extra while you're on Chemo for example) and the 13 week wait for any extra money for health unless you're terminal.

I'm sure working remotely might help some people who cannot hack the shop floor, the office or the journey in but the idea that it's a game changer for those with ill health or disability is nonsense on stilts.

And please don't try Whataboutery regarding Labour governments and Mental Health. It's been a Cinderella area for as long as my career has touched on it (at least the nineties). The Tories have been in power for 11 years; ample opportunity for a step change. At least things stopped going back under Labour.

 

[BoldonLad]

As somebody else said why to those of a Conservative bent think you can beat people out of being poor.

There's obviously a need to deal with those, whoever they are, that are perfectly capable of work but choose to live on benefits. But they're a very small cohort; you cannot deal with that by manipulating benefit rates down. There's already a cap the purported reason for which is to ensure people are no better off on benefits. It doesn't do that; the reality is that it penalises those who rent privately. The way to get people back into work is by increasing opportunity. While £15/hr is aspirational the current National Living Wage is set way too low. Here, in Northampton, a single person working 36 hours at NLW and renting a one bed flat privately, even if they could get a place at the ceiling of what is payable (most pay more) would get £120/month in UC.

It's simply inhumane to penalise somebody with very real health issues, including receiving/recovering from chemo by deliberately setting rates below the minimum for a reasonable lifestyle.

One of the problems with reform is that all the tweaks down the years have been aimed at reducing what is payable. That includes the Osborne era freeze, the cap, the two child limit, rent caps set at the 30th centile, taper rates, work allowances limited to certain groups, removal of extra money from those who's health problems are not utterly life limiting (nothing extra while you're on Chemo for example) and the 13 week wait for any extra money for health unless you're terminal.

I'm sure working remotely might help some people who cannot hack the shop floor, the office or the journey in but the idea that it's a game changer for those with ill health or disability is nonsense on stilts.

And please don't try Whataboutery regarding Labour governments and Mental Health. It's been a Cinderella area for as long as my career has touched on it (at least the nineties). The Tories have been in power for 11 years; ample opportunity for a step change. At least things stopped going back under Labour.

I did ask for clarification of which posts on here suggested violence or beating the poor, but, so far "answer came there none".

 

[BoldonLad]

As somebody else said why to those of a Conservative bent think you can beat people out of being poor.

There's obviously a need to deal with those, whoever they are, that are perfectly capable of work but choose to live on benefits. But they're a very small cohort; you cannot deal with that by manipulating benefit rates down. There's already a cap the purported reason for which is to ensure people are no better off on benefits. It doesn't do that; the reality is that it penalises those who rent privately. The way to get people back into work is by increasing opportunity. While £15/hr is aspirational the current National Living Wage is set way too low. Here, in Northampton, a single person working 36 hours at NLW and renting a one bed flat privately, even if they could get a place at the ceiling of what is payable (most pay more) would get £120/month in UC.

It's simply inhumane to penalise somebody with very real health issues, including receiving/recovering from chemo by deliberately setting rates below the minimum for a reasonable lifestyle.

One of the problems with reform is that all the tweaks down the years have been aimed at reducing what is payable. That includes the Osborne era freeze, the cap, the two child limit, rent caps set at the 30th centile, taper rates, work allowances limited to certain groups, removal of extra money from those who's health problems are not utterly life limiting (nothing extra while you're on Chemo for example) and the 13 week wait for any extra money for health unless you're terminal.

I'm sure working remotely might help some people who cannot hack the shop floor, the office or the journey in but the idea that it's a game changer for those with ill health or disability is nonsense on stilts.

And please don't try Whataboutery regarding Labour governments and Mental Health. It's been a Cinderella area for as long as my career has touched on it (at least the nineties). The Tories have been in power for 11 years; ample opportunity for a step change. At least things stopped going back under Labour.

Because housing costs can vary widely, would we need a Regional Living Wage, rather than a National Living Wage?

But, otherwise, yes, agreed, the way out is to increase opportunity. I would expand that to mean, increasing skill sets AND employment opportunities, but, perhaps you already meant that?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

As somebody else said why to those of a Conservative bent think you can beat people out of being poor.

Where did I say that? Come on, no hiding or dodging, show me where I said that or apologise.

I said though that the amount needs looking at didn't I?

Once again, I agree the levels of benefits etc need looking at.

I have said endlessly that a proper review needs to take place

+ many other mentions like this. I haven't once suggested beating the poor.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Where did I say that? Come on, no hiding or dodging, show me where I said that or apologise.

Sorry @Craig the cyclist but I've nothing to apologise for.

You set out your stall at post #189. Rent direct to landlords, pay below possible earnings and conditionality for the sick/disabled to work at home are, metaphorically, beating claimants. Such proposals continue the thrust of the Cameron/Osborne measures with their divisive strivers v shirkers narrative.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I did ask for clarification of which posts on here suggested violence or beating the poor, but, so far "answer came there none".

See my response to @Craig the cyclist. Nobody has suggested literally beating the poor but the metaphorical thrust is there.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I did mention earlier on this that deliberate misreading was being used by a NACA member. Post #216.

 

[BoldonLad]

See my response to @Craig the cyclist. Nobody has suggested literally beating the poor but the metaphorical thrust is there.

Interesting.

Personally, I didn't agree with the "rent direct to landlord", and, said so.

But, I am aware (through voluntary work) that none payment of rent often leads to debt, further hardship and eventually homelessness, a downward spiral. Is every initiative to stop/reverse this downward spiral (other than shovelling more money in) to be considered "beating the poor"?

 

[fozy tornip]

There is hardly any contact more depressing to a young ardent creature than that of a mind in which years full of knowledge seem to have issued a blank absence of interest or sympathy.

George Eliot

 

[Rusty Nails]

Where did I say that? Come on, no hiding or dodging, show me where I said that or apologise.
+ many other mentions like this. I haven't once suggested beating the poor.

I don't think anyone meant that you advocate literally beating the poor, in the same was as I never implied you beat your wife, but I suspect you know all that and instead prefer to hide behind literal interpretations as part of your shtick of faux outrage and deflection.

For the record I believe that paying rents direct to the landlord for claimants is not a good idea unless those claimants have a continued and demonstrable history of non-payment. Good landlords also deserve support.