living in poverty

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 minute ago, CaptainSwing said:

Do they?

 

I notice you haven't contradicted my observation that you would appear to prefer it if the long term unemployed were living in poverty.

The long term unemployed should be handled by the welfare safety net and helped into getting back into work. I wouldn't prefer them to be living in poverty, but people who are able to work but don't should always be poorer than those who do.

 

I'm still waiting to see where all these people in poverty are, now that we've had examples showing that they do not include single mothers, jobless parent families, single childless unemployed, and pensioners. Who are the people in true poverty?

[WiseOwl182 10]

4 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

"To each according to his contribution", you mean?

I mean - if you can work, then work. If you genuinely can't, you should be properly supported. If you temporarily don't, then you should have a safety net, but not one that is generous enough to diminish the motivation to return to employment.

[Cyclone 10]

UC was supposed to ensure that working always meant you got more than if you didn't work.

 

A marginal tax rate due to the reduction of benefits of >100% is a disincentive to do any work and creates the benefit trap.  It's not a situation that should exist, but you don't solve it by reducing benefits to subsistence levels, you solve it by tapering benefits reduction as people work more, and you have to have a system that allows for fluctuating small amounts of work without punishing the claimant.  UC was supposed to be that system, but isn't.

 

So would you take work this week, knowing that it will mean that for the next 4 your benefits will be reduced.  It's just a short bit of work, no guarantee of more, but there is a guarantee that getting your benefits back will take much longer and cost you much more than the work itself pays...  That's a benefits trap and a disincentive to work.

12 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

The long term unemployed should be handled by the welfare safety net and helped into getting back into work. I wouldn't prefer them to be living in poverty, but people who are able to work but don't should always be poorer than those who do.

 

I'm still waiting to see where all these people in poverty are, now that we've had examples showing that they do not include single mothers, jobless parent families, single childless unemployed, and pensioners. Who are the people in true poverty?

In order to reject that these people are in poverty you've had to make up an undefined new state that is "true poverty".

[Robin-H 11]

7 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

UC was supposed to ensure that working always meant you got more than if you didn't work.

 

A marginal tax rate due to the reduction of benefits of >100% is a disincentive to do any work and creates the benefit trap.  It's not a situation that should exist, but you don't solve it by reducing benefits to subsistence levels, you solve it by tapering benefits reduction as people work more, and you have to have a system that allows for fluctuating small amounts of work without punishing the claimant.  UC was supposed to be that system, but isn't.

 

So would you take work this week, knowing that it will mean that for the next 4 your benefits will be reduced.  It's just a short bit of work, no guarantee of more, but there is a guarantee that getting your benefits back will take much longer and cost you much more than the work itself pays...  That's a benefits trap and a disincentive to work.

In order to reject that these people are in poverty you've had to make up an undefined new state that is "true poverty".

Is that what happens? Genuine question. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-work-allowances/universal-credit-work-allowances

 

"Your claim continues when you start work, so you can take temporary or seasonal jobs without worrying about making a brand new claim or any gaps between paydays as you move in and out of work."

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, I know what's supposed to happen, but we also know that it doesn't.  The system is currently broken.

[Robin-H 11]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Yes, I know what's supposed to happen, but we also know that it doesn't.  The system is currently broken.

I wonder what the mechanism are that mean that that doesn't happen? I understand that every system is going to have errors now and again, but for this to be a noteworthy cause of poverty the problem must be systematic and entrenched. 

 

It seems like it would be an extra cost and complication for the system to not work as it is described, rather than it making the process easier. 

[Cyclone 10]

Yeah, the system is broken.  Hugely broken.  Almost not fit for use.  As an IT project it has been mismanaged from day one and the product that was delivered simply didn't work.

[Robin-H 11]

11 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Yeah, the system is broken.  Hugely broken.  Almost not fit for use.  As an IT project it has been mismanaged from day one and the product that was delivered simply didn't work.

Knowing government's track record with IT systems I don't find that hard to believe. 

[Voice of reason 0]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

UC was supposed to ensure that working always meant you got more than if you didn't work.

 

A marginal tax rate due to the reduction of benefits of >100% is a disincentive to do any work and creates the benefit trap.  It's not a situation that should exist, but you don't solve it by reducing benefits to subsistence levels, you solve it by tapering benefits reduction as people work more, and you have to have a system that allows for fluctuating small amounts of work without punishing the claimant.  UC was supposed to be that system, but isn't.

 

So would you take work this week, knowing that it will mean that for the next 4 your benefits will be reduced.  It's just a short bit of work, no guarantee of more, but there is a guarantee that getting your benefits back will take much longer and cost you much more than the work itself pays...  That's a benefits trap and a disincentive to work.

 

This, for me, is getting to the true heart of a genuine problem.

If that is the case in practice, then it is obviously very wrong and needs fixing immediately. I think the comments made earlier about the level of benefits (** when received) are still valid, in that they are low but adequate.

However, being on low levels of income, it's critical that work can be taken when it's available, and when it dries up, that benefit payments resume immediately. If they don't those people are going to be in trouble nearly straight away.

So, if the current UC system is in that state, somebody needs taking to task to ensure that it (or any other alternative) works properly, and that that's done double quick.

[willman 10]

Being short of money for 4-12 weeks for a claim assessment isn't living in poverty.  Its being short of money for 4 -12 weeks.

The unfortunate ones like my sister who have had to wait 12 weeks, probably wouldn't even make the statistical analysis that is used to illustrate relative poverty.

[Voice of reason 0]

4 minutes ago, willman said:

Being short of money for 4-12 weeks for a claim assessment isn't living in poverty.  Its being short of money for 4 -12 weeks.

The unfortunate ones like my sister who have had to wait 12 weeks, probably wouldn't even make the statistical analysis that is used to illustrate relative poverty.

It could also mean having no money for 4-12 weeks though couldn't it.

[the_bloke 17]

9 minutes ago, willman said:

Being short of money for 4-12 weeks for a claim assessment isn't living in poverty.  Its being short of money for 4 -12 weeks.

The unfortunate ones like my sister who have had to wait 12 weeks, probably wouldn't even make the statistical analysis that is used to illustrate relative poverty.

If her income in that time was less than 60% of the median income in the UK, then yes she would have been considered being in poverty.

 

Question for this thread; how do you take everyone out of relative poverty? If you arbitrarily make sure that the lowest wage or benefit amount is above that 60% threshold, what happens to the median income in the UK in response?