Universal Credit is madness

[SirGalahad]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...credit-workers-low-income-financial-penalties

People on Zero Hours contracts will be punished through no fault of their own. Many employers won't accept you if you already have one Zero Hour contract so how can they increase their hours?

 

[Safety First]

Madness indeed. Orwellian chants; 'Make work pay'.

Reminds me of ATOS,......who were declared by the BMA to be not fit for purpose.

But what can you do? Other than getagoodjobwithmorepayandyouro.k?

 

[^woody^]

The social security budget out of control, and the endemic attitude that it's a way of life needs to be changed.

There is no money tree.

 

[SirGalahad]

The social security budget out of control, and the endemic attitude that it's a way of life needs to be changed.

There is no money tree.

There is to another £10bn to line the pockets of the house builders on top of the £10bn already spent on the Help to Buy fiasco. The money tree giveth in abundance.

 

[^woody^]

There is to another £10bn to line the pockets of the house builders on top of the £10bn already spent on the Help to Buy fiasco. The money tree giveth in abundance.

Does that include all the Champagne Socialists buying up social housing and affordable properties to then rent out for profit? Such decadence.

 

[SirGalahad]

Does that include all the Champagne Socialists buying up social housing and affordable properties to then rent out for profit? Such decadence.

So you defend one bad policy with another and then fail to include other groups who also bought up affordable properties. Please continue, you really don't think as much are regurgitate what you have been told.

 

[JohnD]

Does that include all the Champagne Socialists buying up social housing and affordable properties to then rent out for profit? Such decadence.

I don't believe the average retired plumber and BTL landlord is a socialist, champagne or otherwise.

 

[Brigadier]

There is to another £10bn to line the pockets of the house builders on top of the £10bn already spent on the Help to Buy fiasco. The money tree giveth in abundance.

Build social housing. Then what?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

People on Zero Hours contracts will be punished through no fault of their own. Many employers won't accept you if you already have one Zero Hour contract so how can they increase their hours?

The gaping flaw in this policy -and un/employment benefit in general- is that people are not allowed simply to quit their job. If they do, they are disqualified from receiving the benefits, and this therefore coerces them into and then traps them in non-ideal work like ZHCs. i.e it distorts the otherwise voluntary nature of work contracts.
If people could quit the job at will, safe in the knowledge that they will receive full benefits [or some other kind of state support] until finding a job more suitable, then ZHCs would only be taken by people who are perfectly happy with them (or else ZHCs would vanish naturally). Indeed, I suppose this is another argument for the universal basic income!

 

[SirGalahad]

The gaping flaw in this policy -and un/employment benefit in general- is that people are not allowed simply to quit their job. If they do, they are disqualified from receiving the benefits, and this therefore coerces them into and then traps them in non-ideal work like ZHCs. i.e it distorts the otherwise voluntary nature of work contracts.
If people could quit the job at will, safe in the knowledge that they will receive full benefits until finding a job more suitable, then ZHCs would only be taken by people who are perfectly happy with them (or else ZHCs would vanish naturally). Indeed, I suppose this is another argument for the universal basic income!

Which is punishing the lower income earners. No one wants to be a low earner out of choice, yes there are people who would rather sit and not work but there numbers are less than those in work and receiving benefits.

The government policy is not to help people get into work or help them when times are hard but to vilify and demonise them.

I was in Sainsburys and I was chatting to one of the store staff - an old man, he explained how as an engineer he lost his job and signed on, he felt so humiliated by the experience he found any job - now he is in pain doing more physical work but he felt like he had no option other than to get into work asap. The system has clearly failed this guy because its hell bent on making those less well off as parasites.

 

[SirGalahad]

Build social housing. Then what?

Social housing is only part of the solution.

 

[Lower]

The gaping flaw in this policy -and un/employment benefit in general- is that people are not allowed simply to quit their job. If they do, they are disqualified from receiving the benefits, and this therefore coerces them into and then traps them in non-ideal work like ZHCs. i.e it distorts the otherwise voluntary nature of work contracts.
If people could quit the job at will, safe in the knowledge that they will receive full benefits until finding a job more suitable, then ZHCs would only be taken by people who are perfectly happy with them (or else ZHCs would vanish naturally). Indeed, I suppose this is another argument for the universal basic income!

Most of the people that apply for jobs at my company are already in work. It always raises questions if a person applies for a job that has resigned from a previous position without having another one to go to. Having been made redundant would a perfectly reasonable reason, but as an employer you would be concerned about the reliability, dedication and judgement levels of someone who just resigned from a job because they didn't like it without some other form of financial support, eg savings or a partner that earned enough to support them.

Why should the state support you while you're between jobs if leaving your job was your choice? Its perfectly possible to look for another job whilst in a job.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Why should the state support you while you're between jobs if leaving your job was your choice?

Because a moral (and I suppose legal!) case can be brought that the state should support you no matter what your circumstances. Moreover, there is the practical matter that it would create a free market of employment where employers are forced to compete with one another for better pay and workers perks without the need for any costly and cumbersome state intervention. No minimum wage laws, no maximum hours laws etc... i.e. less bereaucracy, less complexity, less state resources and therefore less tax needed, and greater personal freedom for everyone.

Its perfectly possible to look for another job whilst in a job.

Indeed, and most people will always do exactly that. Sure, some people won't. Some people would rather never work at all and live off the modest largesse of the state. But they would be in the minorty. And the greater freedom and smaller tax burden afforded to everyone else would more than offset the feckless.

Unfortunately the state is not in the business of making less bereaucracy, less complexity, and using fewer resources...

 

[JohnD]

Why should the state support you while you're between jobs if leaving your job was your choice? .

What do the words "intentionally unemployed" mean to you?

 

[Lower]

Because a moral (and I suppose legal!) case can be brought that the state should support you no matter what your circumstances.

That is the bit i fundamentally disagree with. The state should support those who need support, not those who could support themselves but chose not to.