The professed aim of the introduction of Universal Credit is to boost the personal responsibility of claimants, smooth the passage to work and prepare out-of-work claimants for their next job. There are a number of problems with Universal Credit, however - problems which haven't been given anywhere near the amount of coverage by the press that they warrant.
The Universal Credit scheme officially goes live today with a ‘Pathfinder’ version in the north of England – Ashton-under-Lyne – and the scheme is expected to be rolled out nationwide from October 2013.
Universal credit will merge several benefits and tax credits into one monthly payout.
There are a number of problems with Universal Credit, however – problems which haven’t been given anywhere near the amount of coverage by the press that they warrant.
-
The benefit changes will “reinforce the traditional male breadwinner model”, in the words of the Women’s Budget Group. The new universal credit will mean that whereas previously certain benefits like tax credits were paid directly to mothers, the universal credit will be claimed and owned by couples jointly and usually paid in full to one partner. Incentives for second earners (usually women) will also be weakened according to independent evaluations; and even more worryingly, the government believes ‘that any such risk of decreased work incentives for women in couples is justified.’
-
Households that earn £247 or less a week will see a fall in real income in 2015 because of the changes to benefits, and lone parents will be worse off, whatever their circumstances, according to the Chartered Institute of Housing.
-
Research suggests that a monthly payment will make it harder for claimants to budget. A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) survey asked benefit and tax credit recipients the following question: “If payments of benefits and tax credits are made monthly, would you find it easier or harder to budget, or would it make no difference at all?” Four in ten said it would be harder to budget after the changes and just one in ten said it would be easier. Four in ten said it would make no difference. The fear most commonly cited by claimants was that they would run out of money before the end of the month.
-
The proposal that social tenants should have to manage their rental payments, as opposed to the money going direct to their social landlord, is overwhelmingly opposed by most social tenants. 86 per cent of social tenants believe “strongly” that it is better for housing benefit to be paid directly to the landlord. A third of claimants are not confident they will be able to keep up rental payments if they have to manage benefits paid to them for their rent.
-
The reforms are bad for those who are in work and looking to work more, especially those who previously received Working Tax Credits. According to an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), “Low earners who do have a working partner will tend to see their marginal effective tax rate (the fraction of a small rise in earnings lost to income tax, national insurance, withdrawn benefits or tax credits) increase, because Universal Credit will have a higher withdrawal rate than tax credits do.” (p4) The marginal tax rate for this group will be 76.2 per cent, up from 73 per cent as it is now.” As well as reducing incentives for second earners (see point one), so-called “strivers” will effectively be penalised for working harder.
39 Responses to “Five things the coalition won’t tell you about Universal Credit”
Anne Selby
A lot of the problem with changing from fortnightly to monthly pay is that everything you pay out is set up for a fortnightly payment and what happens is that you end up having to live virtually on nothing while you catch up with monthly payments for things. You just aren’t geared up for it. My son changed from weekly pay for his job to monthly and he struggled because he had to live for a month without money. Once he reached the second month of a montly salary it was a bit easier, but he was just one person. How do you explain to kids that they will have to do without for a month while you play catch up? And the DWP are assuming that people will be able to manage monthly payments.
As for it all going into one bank account, bad idea, whoever holds the account has the rest of the family all beholden to them for everything and if it’s the husband’s bank account and he likes to have a drink, then the family are screwed.
Daniel Linger
Spoken like a true blinkered fool.
As others have said, moving costs et al? And what about finding a place to live? How do you assess the markets in different areas? Where’s this money magically come from to do so?
Plus, you’re assuming that there’s going to be a cheaper option. Usually, there aren’t. If you’re in private rent, you may be lucky, but you may not. The cheap ones get snapped up for a simple reason. Also, if you’re in housing association, or council, what do you think would be cheaper?
Do you have the slightest clue of what goes on outside your front door, nay past the end of your nose?
Daniel Linger
Spoken like a true blinkered fool.
As others have said, moving costs et al? And what about finding a place to live? How do you assess the markets in different areas? Where’s this money magically come from to do so?
Plus, you’re assuming that there’s going to be a cheaper option. Usually, there aren’t. If you’re in private rent, you may be lucky, but you may not. The cheap ones get snapped up for a simple reason. Also, if you’re in housing association, or council, what do you think would be cheaper?
Do you have the slightest clue of what goes on outside your front door, nay past the end of your nose?
friend
Here’s a question! Is it easier to take away one benefit than several? And think of this: If I get four benefits out of five and the 5th one I do not qualify for, if all benefits are combined I now qualify for none! Do you get it? The Universal Benefit is a CON! Its an easy way to take benefits off people and disqualify them. WATCH AND WEEP
HD2
How else would YOU suggest saving the £200 billion pa that’s needed to bring our nation’s finances back into order?
That’s £125 billion pa to clear the deficit – and £75 billion to start to make a reduction in the (completely unsustainable and unaffordable) level of national debt. Interest payments at <2% cost £35 billion pa, so what will they be at the higher debt levels and at normal interest rates – £80 billion? £100 billion?
Unless and until we abolish universal benefits (ending Child Benefit altogether would be a start) then return the NHS to the compulsory insurance-based scheme used everywhere else in the world (outside Cuba, NK and the USA), then return the State Pension age to its 1906 age (that's 80!) can we be close to achieving sanity.
As for the much-vaunted 'growth' – let's be clear here – we've had nothing greater than 0.5% pa growth in GDP since 2001 that has not been fully accounted for by population growth and increase in debt. So let's assume no growth greater than 0.5% pa for the next, say, 50 years.
Then, and ONLY then, can we start to have an economy which is managed sensibly and taxation and State spending at the level which that renowned socialist David Laws thinks is sustainable – under 30% of GDP.
Personally, if he thinks 30% is OK, I'd suspect the reality is nearer 20% than 25%, which is such a radical change from where we are now that it will take a decade to implement, but implement it we will – see Greece, Spain, Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic for what happens if you don't tackle the problem early enough……..