benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,597 
Likes: 1,736
|
Post by benaj on Jun 13, 2024 15:48:53 GMT
Let imagine the unlikely scenario, the new government suddenly stop paying benefits, how many people would be homeless, dead? or our human nature would find a way to survive?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,680
Likes: 2,974
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 13, 2024 15:56:23 GMT
Let imagine the unlikely scenario, the new government suddenly stop paying benefits, how many people would be homeless, dead? or our human nature would find a way to survive? You could just look at the 3rd world to find the answer. Personally, I'd much rather live in somewhere like Norway, Sweden or here in the UK than I would somewhere like Bangladesh or Mozambique.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Jun 13, 2024 16:44:17 GMT
The truth is down here in Dorset a lot of the employers in the holiday trade like the benefit / 18 working hrs rules. When the minimum wage is the near only wage, provided you can get enough people to cover, there is no national insurance costs and if you get bad one it is easier to manage them out . Simply cut the hrs to 3 a day, unsocial split shifts and let the transport costs/time and other going to work costs make it unviable and they just disappear and go get another one.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,985
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 14, 2024 10:51:55 GMT
I don't think anybody's ever denied there's a "benefits trap" for those working and earning *just* enough to be around the limit for UC. Quite the opposite, it seems to be just about universally acknowledged. This can really only be through deliberate government design choices, making the cut-off hard so if you earn £1 more you lose a big chunk, and making signing on and off far harder and slower than it needs to be. But surely it isn't just UC. Pretty much all the prior systems also had benefits traps. I thought that one of the explicit objectives of UC was to remove/reduce such traps to support and encourage people to work more. Or maybe I just dreamed that. Yes, the previous systems were also broken. That's what UC was meant to fix... One single system to cover all the main working-age benefits. But remember it was IDS in charge of implementing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mostlywrong on Jun 14, 2024 17:45:23 GMT
But surely it isn't just UC. Pretty much all the prior systems also had benefits traps. I thought that one of the explicit objectives of UC was to remove/reduce such traps to support and encourage people to work more. Or maybe I just dreamed that. Yes, the previous systems were also broken. That's what UC was meant to fix... One single system to cover all the main working-age benefits. But remember it was IDS in charge of implementing it. IIRC, the system that IDS wanted did not match the Treasury's wishes, and the Chancellor of the day (George Osborne?) imposed a significant cut in IDS's budget.
And I think that UC does not yet cover the whole population needing benefits.
MW
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 14, 2024 19:49:44 GMT
Yes, the previous systems were also broken. That's what UC was meant to fix... One single system to cover all the main working-age benefits. But remember it was IDS in charge of implementing it. IIRC, the system that IDS wanted did not match the Treasury's wishes, and the Chancellor of the day (George Osborne?) imposed a significant cut in IDS's budget.
... I think you may be right. I'm pretty sure that when IDS was first pushing for UC, gradation, removing traps and thereby encouraging people to work was a major objective of his. I never really liked the guy, but I recall feeling that he had got this right.
|
|
