strichener Posted October 5, 2022 Share Posted October 5, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said: Yeah we've had a few of these situations, also folk who were sanctioned during the qualifying period, worryingly including sanctions which were subsequently successfully appealed. Another one is where the person is unlucky enough to have a five week pay in the qualifying period also leading to a nil award and no payment. The government should have just left it at the criteria being on UC rather than a paid award during a very specific time. It isn't many people that go from UC to millionaires in the space of a month. The harm done by the stupidity of the criteria outweighs the overarching aim of the payment. Edited October 5, 2022 by strichener 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted October 5, 2022 Share Posted October 5, 2022 12 minutes ago, strichener said: Another one is where the person is unlucky enough to have a five week pay in the qualifying period also leading to a nil award and no payment. The government should have just left it at the criteria being on UC rather than a paid award during a very specific time. It isn't many people that go from UC to millionaires in the space of a month. The harm done by the stupidity of the criteria outweighs the overarching aim of the payment. Spot on. Also factor in the time of UC case managers who are already carrying double the workloads they were originally supposed to be will be spending dealing with challenges to this nonsense from welfare rights, CAB etc, esp where sanctions were overturned at appeal. They are absolutely their own worst enemies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 5, 2022 Share Posted October 5, 2022 Surely we can agree by now that doing harm has been the primary concern when it comes to changes in the benefits system over the past twelve years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 (edited) What I can't get my head around is that the Tories seem to want everyone on benefits to work more hours. Now, without generalising, I'd suggest that most folk claiming UC are in low paid, possibly zero hours contract jobs. Should everyone claiming UC go from working say 16hrs a week to working 32hrs a week then suddenly there is no need for a company to employ 2x16 hrs a week staff and just hire 1x32 hr person. Thus meaning that unemployment balloons. This at a time when many businesses relying on low paid zero hour contract staff are already struggling to make ends meet and aren't likely to be hiring as many people. Edited October 6, 2022 by 10menwent2mow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 5 hours ago, 10menwent2mow said: What I can't get my head around is that the Tories seem to want everyone on benefits to work more hours. Now, without generalising, I'd suggest that most folk claiming UC are in low paid, possibly zero hours contract jobs. Should everyone claiming UC go from working say 16hrs a week to working 32hrs a week then suddenly there is no need for a company to employ 2x16 hrs a week staff and just hire 1x32 hr person. Thus meaning that unemployment balloons. This at a time when many businesses relying on low paid zero hour contract staff are already struggling to make ends meet and aren't likely to be hiring as many people. It's not meant to make sense. Their ideal is to keep the underclass constantly busy, and to use the benefits system to pay a minimal stipend, saving business even more money on wages. They got slapped down for trying that under Cameron, but without the EU's protection that's going to become a priority for low-paid workers. You can also expect to see "humanitarian" moves towards modern workhouses in the near future; big business and government working together to provide housing for their "family" of workers. Bless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 13 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said: If someone tells me something I believe them until they’re proved wrong. There's a magic unicorn trapped in Earth's orbit, flying around in circles about 10 million miles away. Feel free to wow your workmates with that one later on today. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said: A fat lot of use you are. If someone tells me something I believe them until they’re proved wrong. Wasn't sufficiently interested to research it. And there, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of why religions, conspiracy theories, faith healers and psychics are still with us. There's hope for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed be his Noodly Appendages) and Celestial Teapot yet. Edited October 6, 2022 by Salt n Vinegar 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said: And there, ladies and gentlemen, is an example if why religions, conspiracy theories, faith healers and psychics are still with us. There's hope for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed be his Noodly Appendages) and Celestial Teapot yet. R’amen. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 51 minutes ago, BFTD said: R’amen. Underrated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specsaver Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 18 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Okay. This is your area. So, if you work more hours, say from 14(2days) to 21(3days) it doesn’t affect benefits? I’d like to know. Have a read of this, since you couldn'y use google for yourself! There are several "better off" calculators to be able to play about with numbers. Interesting that for the scenario given, an annual increase in pay of £2500, allied with the increased NI cost to the employer £345, the Government actually ends up with 72% of the total increase. So it is the Government that benefits better from the employee earning more! Spend less or earn more – Government Policy. – Benefits in the Future 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 14 hours ago, BFTD said: Surely we can agree by now that doing harm has been the primary concern when it comes to changes in the benefits system over the past twelve years. I don't agree with this tbh. I think the implementation of UC and the operation of it is criminal. The concept of UC I am very much in favour of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 1 minute ago, strichener said: I don't agree with this tbh. I think the implementation of UC and the operation of it is criminal. The concept of UC I am very much in favour of. We didn't believe you then, IDS, and we don't believe you now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 19 minutes ago, BFTD said: We didn't believe you then, IDS, and we don't believe you now. OK Kier, what exactly about UC don't you like? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 1 hour ago, specsaver said: Have a read of this, since you couldn'y use google for yourself! There are several "better off" calculators to be able to play about with numbers. Interesting that for the scenario given, an annual increase in pay of £2500, allied with the increased NI cost to the employer £345, the Government actually ends up with 72% of the total increase. So it is the Government that benefits better from the employee earning more! Spend less or earn more – Government Policy. – Benefits in the Future It’s not my place to enquire into an employees personal circumstances. First point. They say they don’t want more more hours as it’s not worth the effort. Their choice. There should be a system in place that incentivises people to do more hours rather than them feelI got, rightly or wrongly, they’re worse off. That seems to be what you’re saying. As an employer we just try to accommodate our employees wishes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 20 minutes ago, strichener said: I don't agree with this tbh. I think the implementation of UC and the operation of it is criminal. The concept of UC I am very much in favour of. I agree with this tbh. UC in theory should have simplified what is a fairly complex benefits system. Unfortunately the UC Regs simply imported most of the existing regs for legacy benefits cramming them into a single bureaucratic nightmare which is often misunderstood (often wilfully) by case managers and work coaches. The sanctions regime is also an utter disgrace. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 I agree with this tbh. UC in theory should have simplified what is a fairly complex benefits system. Unfortunately the UC Regs simply imported most of the existing regs for legacy benefits cramming them into a single bureaucratic nightmare which is often misunderstood (often wilfully) by case managers and work coaches. The sanctions regime is also an utter disgrace. A huge source of the issues stem from legislative change being drafted then presented by civil servants with absolutely no consultation or thought about it's knock on consequences. The sheer level of legislative change is beyond a joke and the knock on effects of every change are never thought through beforehand. The quality of the legislative draughting by the Scottish Govt is particularly poor. Most changes see umpteen amendments to correct issues but only after being passed in Holyrood. Some are picked up on by the software designers but many are only discovered at testing in situ and that then results in the whole process needing to be repeated.ETA I referring mostly to HB and CTR here but it's all connected. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specsaver Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said: It’s not my place to enquire into an employees personal circumstances. First point. They say they don’t want more more hours as it’s not worth the effort. Their choice. There should be a system in place that incentivises people to do more hours rather than them feelI got, rightly or wrongly, they’re worse off. That seems to be what you’re saying. As an employer we just try to accommodate our employees wishes. Maybe they don't want more hours due to caring/health needs etc rather than I just can't be arsed which is what you imply! It is simple to understand that someone would not work more if there is little or no financial gain for them, maybe they have already put their figures through an on-line better off calculator that you haven't found yet. I'll succumb and mention "turn2us" and "entitled to" for you to use in the future. No comment from you on the fact that it would be the Government that would benefit more from them working more, no wonder they push for this! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 23 minutes ago, specsaver said: Maybe they don't want more hours due to caring/health needs etc rather than I just can't be arsed which is what you imply! It is simple to understand that someone would not work more if there is little or no financial gain for them, maybe they have already put their figures through an on-line better off calculator that you haven't found yet. I'll succumb and mention "turn2us" and "entitled to" for you to use in the future. No comment from you on the fact that it would be the Government that would benefit more from them working more, no wonder they push for this! If that’s the case, then it’s wrong. Someone doing more hours is helping the economy by increasing GDP and it’s just good for society in general. Obviously, at some point , there needs to be a cut in state benefits but where that should kick in is a matter for debate. Ultimately, we should be looking for people to be working, earning a good wage and supporting themselves out with the state benefits system. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specsaver Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 5 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: If that’s the case, then it’s wrong. Someone doing more hours is helping the economy by increasing GDP and it’s just good for society in general. Obviously, at some point , there needs to be a cut in state benefits but where that should kick in is a matter for debate. Ultimately, we should be looking for people to be working, earning a good wage and supporting themselves out with the state benefits system. So no consideration to health or care needs they should be working more, nice! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiGi Posted October 6, 2022 Share Posted October 6, 2022 Just now, specsaver said: So no consideration to health or care needs they should be working more, nice! His consideration is 'what's the most deplorable thing I can post that will make people notice me'. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.