FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
28-09-2019, 05:38 PM | #1 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
[The benefit cap and two-child limit
would be immediately ditched, which Labour says would bring 300,000 children out of poverty. Jeremy Corbyn has promised to scrap Universal Credit if Labour wins a general election, calling the much-criticised reforms an "unmitigated disaster". The Labour leader has outlined plans to move from a system designed to "punish and police" towards one which supports jobseekers with "dignity and respect". The benefit cap and two-child limit would be immediately ditched.] https://news.sky.com/story/labour-wo...redit-11821416 |
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 05:55 PM | #2 | ||
|
|||
Remembering Kerry
|
I've wanted to hear this for years from any Party.
So glad my Party has. Good time to stop it before it's rolled out totally too. The hardship this has caused to strong numbers, not all admittedly of claimants is staggering. Great too, that the hated bedroom tax would be scrapped at last too. Cons, will hate this policy. However good they do,they brought the atrocious thing in. Even when they admitted it was causing big problems, they still never really addressed any big concerns. So good for me, there's a chance to get this scrapped, while the cost of doing so, likely will be far less than the cost of chaos if it was fully rolled out Nationwide. |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:10 PM | #3 | |||
|
||||
I think I'm a banana tree
|
In what way is Universal Credit bad? I knkw so little about it, is it much lower than JSA or ESA?
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:29 PM | #4 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
It's also needlessly punitive in making people sign an 2agreement" and then keep in constant contact with the job centre to get ANY type of UC... which can lead to some ludicrous situations like full-time working professionals who are single parents and entitled to the child element, having to attend jobcentre meetings. It replaces tax credits so for example, a full time trained nurse, firefighter or police officer who is a single parent would be occasionally sat in JobCentre interviews justifying their right to claim alongside unemployed jobseekers which frankly is a disgrace. I've also heard of people being sanctioned for several YEARS for missing appointments for valid reasons, like being seriously ill, or having a family member die suddenly. Last edited by Toy Soldier; 28-09-2019 at 07:31 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:34 PM | #5 | ||
|
|||
-
|
In contrast, Tax Credits was based on annual income, and you applied once a year in April then had to notify of any significant changes (like increases in income). That was it, and it was a perfectly well functioning system.
In principle UC was a fine idea (if it worked better and was less punitive) for out-of-work benefits. In-work benefits should have been left out if it, though. |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:36 PM | #6 | |||
|
||||
I think I'm a banana tree
|
Interesting, thanks!
It's easy to say that new systems will have teething troibles, because of course they will, but when these problems go on and on and affect people's money, it obviously needs to be remedied.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:37 PM | #7 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Oh and I shouldn't forget to add... there's the issue of people being switched over from the old system to the new one being left with no money at all for 6 - 8 weeks and being told they'll "just have to get by", and then ending up in debt spirals because they have to borrow.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:38 PM | #8 | ||
|
|||
-
|
One of the main criticisms is that the issues were identified in early trials and they should have paused and solved them then, but they decided just to forge ahead regardless. Just recklessness really.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:42 PM | #9 | |||
|
||||
Iconic Symbolic Historic
|
They take into account any income earned but not any customer costs. So if you say work for 10 hours a week then that money will be deducted from your claim but your expenses in taking that job will not be paid. Its so bad that in many cases its better for the person to not declare any income because the deductions from their UC are far too severe. They end up better off not taking on any work or doing work on the side which I'm sure was not the intention of the scheme.
Its a disaster and its so bad I cannot for the life of me understand why it was implemented so rigorously knowing full well that people will clearly suffer hardship
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by GiRTh; 28-09-2019 at 07:43 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:43 PM | #10 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
We are on UC. Its a pretty good amount of money to be fair so if it gets scrapped I'd hope we would get more money and not less! That said having a two child cap needs to be changed. Got a newborn on the way that they won't give us benefits for. Seems a bit unfair
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:44 PM | #11 | |||
|
||||
Likes cars that go boom
|
It's the suicides, the turning to crime and prostitution that has proven it's failed. Yet they've ploughed so much money into the rollout there's no going back without looking more incompetent than they are!
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:45 PM | #12 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
But yeah the not having money for 6 to 8 weeks at the start was difficult! That needs to change for sure
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:46 PM | #13 | |||
|
||||
Iconic Symbolic Historic
|
And with that you can take out a loan from the UC but you pay it back over time. Its almost like they know you're going to be screwed but couldn't give a whatever.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by GiRTh; 28-09-2019 at 07:47 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:47 PM | #14 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Good, UC has failed completely and has put so many vulnerable people at risk.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:50 PM | #15 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
I found a job (as a li'l cashier at the bookies ) literally 10 days before my daughter was born and have probably never been so relieved before or since that I didn't have to navigate that system as a new dad. Then of course I ended up staying with the company for 9.5 years and going as high as store manager and despising the soul-sucking mess with a firey passion so... swings and roundabouts I guess . Odd remembering how elated I was to get that job offer, unware that it was going to wear me down to a stump over the following decade |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:53 PM | #16 | ||
|
|||
-
|
That's one of the worst parts really, it's a complicated system full of loopholes so it's the most vulnerable people who are most likely to fall into the (often quite deliberate, imo) traps.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 07:58 PM | #17 | |||
|
||||
Iconic Symbolic Historic
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 08:05 PM | #18 | ||
|
|||
Remembering Kerry
|
ToySoldier has detailed all superbly really.
It's the devastation it has caused and left to people really trying to live day to day. Also a good number of claimants actually ended up with less than on the previous system. Already in hardship, that made things massively worse. The Government has been warned repeatedly and they've admitted failings, bad ones with it. However it's lip service, they've done very little to alleviate the problems. It was a fair idea in theory. It has turned into a nightmare for many however. Had the government paused it and really looked at, and reformed it again. Fair enough. They didn't, they continued the slow roll out while things deteriorated further. For 2 years now, I've thought the only decent thing to do in my view, is scrap it now. Before the full roll out Nationwide is done. That's why I welcome this policy. It's been overall a disaster. Last edited by joeysteele; 28-09-2019 at 08:07 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 08:05 PM | #19 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 08:13 PM | #20 | |||
|
||||
I think I'm a banana tree
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 08:55 PM | #21 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
Again though, it's part of UC that looks good in theory but is full of glitches that make it not actually work as it should, and people are turning things down based on the sheer uncertainty of what will actually happen. Another "on paper improvement" of UC for example is monthly payments, rather than the weekly / four-weekly current system, which is in theory much better. Getting money in 4-weekly when your rent and bills come out monthly gets really messy. However, again, it's broken... some people end up getting their full payment for 2 months, every 2 months... so 6 lump sums a year. Who can budget with that? Just a mess. And there's no reason for it other than that the system is full of bugs that they haven't managed to fix. But I do honestly suspect it's deliberately messy to stop people from being able to easily access it. Like I said above though - that leads to the worst possible situation where the people who need it most - vulnerable people who are less likely to be able to get their head around the system - are the ones most likely to end up with no help. |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 08:59 PM | #22 | |||
|
||||
Iconic Symbolic Historic
|
Quote:
ITs like they think every one leaves a job with a final pay packet of a about 4 grand. The system is so stacked toward causing hardship that they clearly didnt think it thru properly
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
28-09-2019, 09:03 PM | #23 | ||
|
|||
-
|
The problem is that it's designed by Tories who, I think, genuinely believe that everyone "has savings to dip into" while they wait, or a family that can support them, because they've never known anything else.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|