Has anyone heard of the change to UK benefits/tax credits called Universal Credit?

[indy and lara]

To earn £500 a week after tax you need to earn around £33000 a year. For many people that is a salary they will never have to be able to earn. I can understand, with this in mind, why many people who are working FT and surviving on minimum wage would have an issue with benefits at this level.

 

[Lydiarose]

tbh I think some people should be going out and getting jobs if they can.

We got housing benefit after martin was made redundant, we were better off.

We didn't want to live like that so Martin got a better job, we lost all CTC etc. but hey we are better off now and not living off other people.

I know some people can't do this, I have family who struggle because if they work more than 16 hours a week they wont be able to afford their rent. But then I look at my brother and his gf who are abusing the system to get a house it makes me angry.

what do you mean by that?

Where do you think the money comes from? Taxes!


oh really i never knew that?


i thought you meant you felt like you were living off other while on wtc,were on wtc and i do not feel as though were "taking money of others" when my oh works 5am - 7pm

 

[Pink Flowers]

tbh I think some people should be going out and getting jobs if they can.

We got housing benefit after martin was made redundant, we were better off.

We didn't want to live like that so Martin got a better job, we lost all CTC etc. but hey we are better off now and not living off other people.

I know some people can't do this, I have family who struggle because if they work more than 16 hours a week they wont be able to afford their rent. But then I look at my brother and his gf who are abusing the system to get a house it makes me angry.

what do you mean by that?

Where do you think the money comes from? Taxes!


oh really i never knew that?


i thought you meant you felt like you were living off other while on wtc,were on wtc and i do not feel as though were "taking money of others" when my oh works 5am - 7pm

we dont even get wtc

 

[Lydiarose]

sorry i havnt slept!

 

[Pink Flowers]

its fine

I most prob worded it wrong, I meant people who can work that won't work because they get more money from not working, but would be able to live if they did work but have to tighten their belts a bit.

We lived of me on minimum wage for a while Martin was looking for a new job, we didn't know we could get help so just stopped buying anything we didn't need, some weeks I had to get parents to buy bread etc. But we managed.

 

[Emmy1987]

So does it mean they will be fairer on us in the middle? We earn 'too much' for help with anything, yet where we work it's too expensive to live so we live an hour away and pay over £400 in transport a month just to get to work! Just under a third of our combined wage after tax. Then add in the £250 a month childcare and that's over half our wages gone before we can even start thinking about bills!

Right now, we'd be better off if we both quit and lived off benefits. Does it mean it will now pay to work?!

 

[Pink Flowers]

So does it mean they will be fairer on us in the middle? We earn 'too much' for help with anything, yet where we work it's too expensive to live so we live an hour away and pay over £400 in transport a month just to get to work! Just under a third of our combined wage after tax. Then add in the £250 a month childcare and that's over half our wages gone before we can even start thinking about bills!

Right now, we'd be better off if we both quit and lived off benefits. Does it mean it will now pay to work?!

I think it will

Martin used to live an hour away from his work and it was a lot of our money gone for him to go there!

 

[Lydiarose]

sorry can i add what would happen to our situation?

dan works 50 hours a week on jus above minimumwage,i stay at home with oscar and louie we get wtc ctc and cb? xx

 

[highhopes19]

I read that if it's minimum wage, partner 1 has to work 35 hours and partner 2 has to work 20. If partner 1 earns above minimum wage to the amount that partner 2 would have earned doing their 20 hours, partner 2 doesn't have to work. If partner 2 chooses not work when partner 1 earns minimum wage, this would count as refusing to fulfil their part of the bargain (for lack of a better word) and the family would not be eligible for financial help.

So basically it seems we all must work but there are not enough jobs so we could all end up at a workfare programme from 9-5 every day?

But I can't find where in the official information that it explains this as I can't get my head around it all so I'm going off news articles, blog posts, forums etc. The fact I cant find a simple explanation is making me worry even more that this part of it could be true

Eta: thank you for looking Tasha

This worrys me a lot my partner works for just above minimum wage 45 hours a week and I only work 8- not really by choice but 1- because of childcare 2- because that's all my employer could offer me when I went back from maternity leave..... Some weeks I can get upto 40 hours overtime but then other weeks there will be none whatsoever ....so I wonder where people in these situations will stand.

Xx

 

[mummylove]

Think they need to look at the people that just spend the doll on drugs and booze

 

[Eternal]

To earn £500 a week after tax you need to earn around £33000 a year. For many people that is a salary they will never have to be able to earn. I can understand, with this in mind, why many people who are working FT and surviving on minimum wage would have an issue with benefits at this level.

Well my husband earns more than that and he brings home a huge amount less than that. He as better months though, but still can't rely on those.

 

[Pink Flowers]

We earn a lot more than the national average and we have a nice life style but we would have a better one on benefits. The system is so wrong

 

[indy and lara]

.

 

[Sarahwoo]

To be honest I wonder sometimes if people really would be better off, or if its just a myth? For example someone could say gosh I get a lot less than £500 a week, I'd be better off on benefits, when actually they wouldn't get the full £500, if you know what I mean?

I actually like a lot of the changes they are introducing. It's about time too. I used to work with a woman who worked 16 hours a week, her husband 'didn't work' (but did cash in hand gardening jobs), they had a new car, four kids, a lovely house (council but on a lovely estate with a massive garden). They went abroad on holiday once a year, had a really good standard of living - by working 16 hours a week. It's not fair, it's not a good example to set your kids, and it's not sustainable. If the government cracks down on cases like this then they have my vote.

 

[Eternal]

To earn £500 a week after tax you need to earn around £33000 a year. For many people that is a salary they will never have to be able to earn. I can understand, with this in mind, why many people who are working FT and surviving on minimum wage would have an issue with benefits at this level.

Well my husband earns more than that and he brings home a huge amount less than that. He as better months though, but still can't rely on those.

I know that is the top of the mainscale teaching salary in Scotland and that is what I was earning when I was on mainscale. This included my pension too. Does he have a particularly large pension payment?

Not really, about 150 ish I think, his wages depend a lot on overimes etc, so most basic months he brings home 1750 ish, but then he gets 1k Christmas bonus and things like that though.

 

[Eternal]

To be honest I wonder sometimes if people really would be better off, or if its just a myth? For example someone could say gosh I get a lot less than £500 a week, I'd be better off on benefits, when actually they wouldn't get the full £500, if you know what I mean?

I actually like a lot of the changes they are introducing. It's about time too. I used to work with a woman who worked 16 hours a week, her husband 'didn't work' (but did cash in hand gardening jobs), they had a new car, four kids, a lovely house (council but on a lovely estate with a massive garden). They went abroad on holiday once a year, had a really good standard of living - by working 16 hours a week. It's not fair, it's not a good example to set your kids, and it's not sustainable. If the government cracks down on cases like this then they have my vote.

I know a family pregnant with their 7th child, he is in his 60s, she in her 40s and they will keep going as each child increases their money, he does work, but the company pay his rent, so he can claim more money and housing benefit when it's already pad for him. I've got three kids and oh would love another in a few years and I love them twins, but feel a little cheated from experiencing two grow up at once rather than get more baby time, we love the baby stage, but we can afford to add more babies, and it makes me mad thinking that when she is on her 7th!

 

[Sarahwoo]

To be honest I wonder sometimes if people really would be better off, or if its just a myth? For example someone could say gosh I get a lot less than £500 a week, I'd be better off on benefits, when actually they wouldn't get the full £500, if you know what I mean?

I actually like a lot of the changes they are introducing. It's about time too. I used to work with a woman who worked 16 hours a week, her husband 'didn't work' (but did cash in hand gardening jobs), they had a new car, four kids, a lovely house (council but on a lovely estate with a massive garden). They went abroad on holiday once a year, had a really good standard of living - by working 16 hours a week. It's not fair, it's not a good example to set your kids, and it's not sustainable. If the government cracks down on cases like this then they have my vote.

I know a family pregnant with their 7th child, he is in his 60s, she in her 40s and they will keep going as each child increases their money, he does work, but the company pay his rent, so he can claim more money and housing benefit when it's already pad for him. I've got three kids and oh would love another in a few years and I love them twins, but feel a little cheated from experiencing two grow up at once rather than get more baby time, we love the baby stage, but we can afford to add more babies, and it makes me mad thinking that when she is on her 7th!

It is so wrong I really hope the government stick with this and do start making a lot of changes. I'd vote for them again if they do. Its not even just about saving money, its about changing attitudes and setting a good example. I mean I know we're lucky - my OH has a great job on a very good wage with good prospects, and I run my own business, the only thing we get is child benefit and that will stop. It annoys me that we're waiting to TTC again until we can move to a bigger house, and then there are others who don't work who don't have to worry about that. Of course I'd much sooner be in our position, but I'm glad the Conservatives are doing something to even things up.

 

[Eternal]

To be honest I wonder sometimes if people really would be better off, or if its just a myth? For example someone could say gosh I get a lot less than £500 a week, I'd be better off on benefits, when actually they wouldn't get the full £500, if you know what I mean?

I actually like a lot of the changes they are introducing. It's about time too. I used to work with a woman who worked 16 hours a week, her husband 'didn't work' (but did cash in hand gardening jobs), they had a new car, four kids, a lovely house (council but on a lovely estate with a massive garden). They went abroad on holiday once a year, had a really good standard of living - by working 16 hours a week. It's not fair, it's not a good example to set your kids, and it's not sustainable. If the government cracks down on cases like this then they have my vote.

I know a family pregnant with their 7th child, he is in his 60s, she in her 40s and they will keep going as each child increases their money, he does work, but the company pay his rent, so he can claim more money and housing benefit when it's already pad for him. I've got three kids and oh would love another in a few years and I love them twins, but feel a little cheated from experiencing two grow up at once rather than get more baby time, we love the baby stage, but we can afford to add more babies, and it makes me mad thinking that when she is on her 7th!

It is so wrong I really hope the government stick with this and do start making a lot of changes. I'd vote for them again if they do. Its not even just about saving money, its about changing attitudes and setting a good example. I mean I know we're lucky - my OH has a great job on a very good wage with good prospects, and I run my own business, the only thing we get is child benefit and that will stop. It annoys me that we're waiting to TTC again until we can move to a bigger house, and then there are others who don't work who don't have to worry about that. Of course I'd much sooner be in our position, but I'm glad the Conservatives are doing something to even things up.

Sucks right now for is as its hard money wise, he is actually in the process of accepting a relocation package 550 miles away, as he need the money and even that gets taxed! We wanted to move but not right now, which is causing so many problems with family here and I can't find work right now with three under three, I am prepared to do nights but not much around, and it's sucks! Then others don't need to worry at all. We take okay cut after pay cut while benefits go up at the rate of inflation!

 

[Tasha]

To be honest I wonder sometimes if people really would be better off, or if its just a myth? For example someone could say gosh I get a lot less than £500 a week, I'd be better off on benefits, when actually they wouldn't get the full £500, if you know what I mean?

I actually like a lot of the changes they are introducing. It's about time too. I used to work with a woman who worked 16 hours a week, her husband 'didn't work' (but did cash in hand gardening jobs), they had a new car, four kids, a lovely house (council but on a lovely estate with a massive garden). They went abroad on holiday once a year, had a really good standard of living - by working 16 hours a week. It's not fair, it's not a good example to set your kids, and it's not sustainable. If the government cracks down on cases like this then they have my vote.

This. As I keep saying hardly anyone outside of London will actually get the full £500, as those that do their LHA will be high.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I really dont think people are better of on the usual benefits in all honesty! The people you see with loads of money must have loans or something as you really dont get "loads" of money. JSA is like 71 a week according to website?? Thats not alot!