Universal Credit

[MrSmith 10]

They're called 'workhouses'....

 

No it isn't, it’s called free food and accommodation for those people that can’t manage on their own.

[Anna B 1,401]

Maybe some cope, maybe some don't.

 

I work in debt and some people just cannot manage their money - fundamentally. I'm not defending them, they reap what they sow, but there isn't an easy answer of just letting them suffer and throwing them out of their house. That just brings other problems.

 

 

However it does suffer in that the money still has to be there to leave the account.

 

 

Some will not have a bank account. If they have, and the money isn't in it, they will then incur bank charges which will lead to more problems, (and knowing how often payments are delayed by the benefits department that will happen quite often.)

 

They used to employ rent collectors to make sure people paid up on time, so this isn't a new problem, people who are short of money have always robbed Peter to pay Paul.

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2013 at 16:54 ----------

 

No it isn't, it’s called free food and accommodation for those people that can’t manage on their own.

 

In that case they shouldn't have closed the assylums for 'care in the community' then.

[MrSmith 10]

In that case they shouldn't have closed the assylums for 'care in the community' then.

 

What I’m suggesting is somewhere between the two.

[Ghostrider 11]

The universal credit system was due to be tested in Sheffield tomorrow, I was one of the people who volunteered to do this.

 

They rang me yesterday to say the test had been cancelled due to "technical problems"

[Anna B 1,401]

Minister Steve Webb said: "We currently pay housing benefit directly to one million people in the private sector and that works pretty well.

 

"We are trying to treat people in council houses the same way, but we want to get it right."

 

 

So people in council houses aren’t as smart as people in private sector houses.

 

It works pretty well? They don't have the evidence to say such a thing. What they mean is, 'it doesn't affect us so we don't care.'

 

A perfect example happened to a friend of mine, a private Landlord. His tennant kept saying his benefits had been stopped due to a glitch and he was waiting for them to start again and he would get all his back money as a lump sum, when he would pay him the rent he owed.

 

He told a good tale, was very respectable and convincing and my friend believed him. It was all b******s of course, and when he was discovered my friend threw him out, but never recovered his £300. The money had gone to some hard line moneylender apparently.

 

He had no one to blame but himself so feels daft as well as broke. The point is this is not going to appear on any government statistics is it?

[MrSmith 10]

It works pretty well? They don't have the evidence to say such a thing. What they mean is, 'it doesn't affect us so we don't care.'

 

A perfect example happened to a friend of mine, a private Landlord. His tennant kept saying his benefits had been stopped due to a glitch and he was waiting for them to start again and he would get all his back money as a lump sum, when he would pay him the rent he owed.

 

He told a good tale, was very respectable and convincing and my friend believed him. It was all b******s of course, and when he was discovered my friend threw him out, but never recovered his £300. The money had gone to some hard line moneylender apparently.

 

He had no one to blame but himself so feels daft as well as broke. The point is this is not going to appear on any government statistics is it?

 

So would you agree that it would be better not to give money to people on benefits and just pay the supplier directly for everything they need?

[onewheeldave 22]

So because people in receipt of benefits are incapable(in these cases) of managing money, it's the Governments fault.

 

Yes. Prior to their policy change there wasn't a problem (as the money, sensibly, went straight to the landlords)- now there is a problem. Why make a problem where there didn't need to be one?

[NorthernStar 11]

Yes. Prior to their policy change there wasn't a problem (as the money, sensibly, went straight to the landlords)- now there is a problem. Why make a problem where there didn't need to be one?

 

They knew it would cause problems, nothing gives a Tory more pleasure than the sight of a bailiff banging on his neighbours door.

[andygardener 10]

Yes. Prior to their policy change there wasn't a problem (as the money, sensibly, went straight to the landlords)- now there is a problem. Why make a problem where there didn't need to be one?

 

Which makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why paying money meant for housing direct is progressive but paying money meant for food and utilities in vouchers is regressive. A more sensible system would be to ask claimants if they want to be responsible for their money or not. If not then direct hb payments and vouchers, if they do then zero recourse to public funds if they fail to manage their money and get evicted/cut off/starve etc as a result.

[iansheff 86]

The next step is to build huge complexes for those people incapable of managing their free money, a bit like army barracks in which everything is provided leaving them with no need for money.

 

Didn't they use to call them workhouses?

[onewheeldave 22]

Which makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why paying money meant for housing direct is progressive but paying money meant for food and utilities in vouchers is regressive. A more sensible system would be to ask claimants if they want to be responsible for their money or not. If not then direct hb payments and vouchers, if they do then zero recourse to public funds if they fail to manage their money and get evicted/cut off/starve etc as a result.

 

Housing payments direct to the landlord are a well established system.

 

Food vouchers/utlities is new, so an issue there. And, there is a stigma attached to it. Then the genuine issues concerning where the vouchers can be used- people want to get their food from the establishments they choose (as opposed to 'participating stores'), whether it's cos it's cheaper, or, in their eyes, more ethical etc, etc.

 

IMO, they should leave things alone- direct payments for rent work well, so don't change what works for something that doesn't, and, let people get their food from where they want.

[andygardener 10]

Housing payments direct to the landlord are a well established system.

 

Food vouchers/utlities is new, so an issue there. And, there is a stigma attached to it. Then the genuine issues concerning where the vouchers can be used- people want to get their food from the establishments they choose (as opposed to 'participating stores'), whether it's cos it's cheaper, or, in their eyes, more ethical etc, etc.

 

IMO, they should leave things alone- direct payments for rent work well, so don't change what works for something that doesn't, and, let people get their food from where they want.

 

Why is there no stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you will use money provided to keep a roof over your head on other things, but there is a stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs?

 

Either they can manage the money we give them or not, they can't have it both ways.