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

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Banderill

New Member
The £20 uplift, brought in to help people through lockdown, is due to end in October.

Anti-poverty campaigners and MPs have warned the cut could be devastating for millions of families facing a financial cliff-edge, especially with the furlough scheme also due to end.

Should it be extended?
 

mudsticks

Squire
The £20 uplift, brought in to help people through lockdown, is due to end in October.

Anti-poverty campaigners and MPs have warned the cut could be devastating for millions of families facing a financial cliff-edge, especially with the furlough scheme also due to end.

Should it be extended?
Yes.

Twenty quid a week makes a big difference to many household budgets.

Prices of essentials are rising.

Poverty is expensive, to the individual, and to our society.

Those units of £20 get recycled back into our economy.
 

Dolorous Edd

New Member
Ensure a living wage. Make sure these companies and their Directors pay tax. That's a good place to begin.

A great deal of UC expenditure depends on the personal circumstances of each claimant, including income from others in the household, housing costs, number of children, childcare costs, etc etc. Unless we are going to ask employers to vary wages in a similar manner, or pay everyone a lot more whether they need it or not, I'm not sure how a living wage is going to remove the need for that expenditure.
 
Last edited:
A great deal of UC expenditure depends on the personal circumstances of each claimant, including income from others in the household, housing costs, number of children, childcare costs, etc etc. Unless we are going to ask employers to vary wages in a similar manner, or pay everyone a lot more whether they need it or not, I'm not sure how a living wage is going to remove the need for that expenditure.

You cannot totally remove the need for a benefit which tops up low incomes.

For those obliged to rent privately there's a massive difference between the amounts paid for housing depending on where in the country you live. There will also be people who have family/care commitments or health issues that limit their working hours.

The efficacy of increased pay in lifting real life living standards would be greater if the taper rate for Universal Credit were better; claimants only see 37p of every £1.

It is also worth pointing out that the uplift raised the Standard Allowance in Universal Credit to that it matched the rate for Statutory Sick Pay; a benefit which is itself pretty miserly. When SSP was introduced in the eighties, transferring responsibility for sick pay to employers, its cash value was broadly similar to that of Unemployment Benefit. SSP was usually linked to RPI/CPI whereas benefits paid directly by the DWP have been subject to freezes and below cost of living increases.

In other words the uplift did nothing more than restore its purchasing power to an earlier level.

Yes it absolutely should be made permanent. That it is not shows how little actual commitment the government has levelling up real world experience.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
You cannot totally remove the need for a benefit which tops up low incomes.

For those obliged to rent privately there's a massive difference between the amounts paid for housing depending on where in the country you live. There will also be people who have family/care commitments or health issues that limit their working hours.

The efficacy of increased pay in lifting real life living standards would be greater if the taper rate for Universal Credit were better; claimants only see 37p of every £1.

It is also worth pointing out that the uplift raised the Standard Allowance in Universal Credit to that it matched the rate for Statutory Sick Pay; a benefit which is itself pretty miserly. When SSP was introduced in the eighties, transferring responsibility for sick pay to employers, its cash value was broadly similar to that of Unemployment Benefit. SSP was usually linked to RPI/CPI whereas benefits paid directly by the DWP have been subject to freezes and below cost of living increases.

In other words the uplift did nothing more than restore its purchasing power to an earlier level.

Yes it absolutely should be made permanent. That it is not shows how little actual commitment the government has levelling up real world experience.

It is this area of the benefit system (bold) which is most at fault (IMHO). Recently, during discussions relating to removing the £20 uplift, it was claimed (by Labour) that the claimant would have to "earn" an additional £200 to replace the £20 "lost". (I heard it on radio, I don't have link). If this is true, it is clearly ridiculous. I know from personal experience that such ridiculous situations do occur, mainly because of "dependant benefits" (eg, if you get a certain benefit, you also, automatically qualify for other benefits, including items like free prescriptions (England) etc.

Surely, in this age of computers for everything, it cannot be beyond the wit of our Politicians (all parties) and Civil Servants, to devise a system with a linear withdrawal of benefits, and application of deductions (tax/NHI) as income increases?
 
It is this area of the benefit system (bold) which is most at fault (IMHO). Recently, during discussions relating to removing the £20 uplift, it was claimed (by Labour) that the claimant would have to "earn" an additional £200 to replace the £20 "lost".

The statement by Therese Coffey that people would only need to work an additional two hours at £10/hr was either utterly disingenuous or betrayed an inability to understand her own brief.

The taper on Universal Credit, i.e. the amount by which benefit is reduced for earnings is 63%; the claimant keeps 37p of every £ of extra earnings. Some, those with families or a health condition, get a work allowance before the taper kicks in. If they're claiming for Housing Costs the work allowance is £293/month, £515 if they do not. Very few working claimants have 'spare' work allowance so they only keep 37p. Even before any effect of Tax/NI the claimant doing those 2 hours would keep £7.40 or approx £5.20 after Tax/NI.

Of course the taper rate could be reduced and the work allowances raised and, as IDS intended, they could be applied to all claimants.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
The statement by Therese Coffey that people would only need to work an additional two hours at £10/hr was either utterly disingenuous or betrayed an inability to understand her own brief.

The taper on Universal Credit, i.e. the amount by which benefit is reduced for earnings is 63%; the claimant keeps 37p of every £ of extra earnings. Some, those with families or a health condition, get a work allowance before the taper kicks in. If they're claiming for Housing Costs the work allowance is £293/month, £515 if they do not. Very few working claimants have 'spare' work allowance so they only keep 37p. Even before any effect of Tax/NI the claimant doing those 2 hours would keep £7.40 or approx £5.20 after Tax/NI.

Of course the taper rate could be reduced and the work allowances raised and, as IDS intended, they could be applied to all claimants.

So, Ms Coffey was talking rubbish, as was the Labour spokesperson who claimed they would have to earn £200 to keep £20 (I am assuming your £7.40 and £5.20 are per hour?).

As I said, the whole area of benefits taper is simply rubbish, and, has been for many years. That does not excuse the current shower for perpetuating it.
 
The £20 uplift, brought in to help people through lockdown, is due to end in October.

Anti-poverty campaigners and MPs have warned the cut could be devastating for millions of families facing a financial cliff-edge, especially with the furlough scheme also due to end.

Should it be extended?
Yes. Is there any other humane answer?
 
Top Bottom