Universal Credit

Thread starter #301
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
26,251
As has been previously posted, you cant expect a Government to have a system then change it to suit odd and differing situations. Money owed for wages is not savings and in your son's case i doubt it would have ever ended up so even if paid promptly.

People with no savings, in a desperate situation can, as far as I understand , take a loan from the Government system.
Yes you can. Of course you can. And the government has changed many systems over the last few months to help others. So maybe a little tweak to the initial assessment wouldn't have been that difficult. But of course it would be for the poorest - those becoming dependent upon the state.

As it happens my lad will be fine. His situation has simply highlighted to me some the issues that many less fortunate than he - the poorest in our society - are likely to be facing.

But by all means, tell the many 'down' there - that it is only their lack of prudence, their fecklessness, their inability to understand things properly - that it is up to them. Do that if you will. I wont.
 

Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
5,665
Location
Lincolnshire
Indeed - it makes sense - I know it does - you know it makes sense - to you, I and everyone on this forum it makes absolute sense - but we are not the person on a phone call with a UC assessor having had all our income disappear overnight - and might not take in what is said - if anything - about the impact of income due...

Clarity of thought is a marvellous thing and so easy to have when you are not under severe pressure and facing penury.
Yet again you haven't read what's actually been written only the bits you want to discuss..

I have been that person and totally understand what it feels like to lose my entire income overnight, I also had 6 kids to provide for as well. I very much know the pressures it causes and what the implications of having to rely on it are. But again you're avoiding discussing something with someone of actual experience of everything you're going on about and focusing on what you think should be allowed because of your sons situation.

As I've said I've been there and if I'd taken that loan I'd have been a fool, you assume because people disagree they don't understand. But I do understand I've been there, but it doesn't suit what you want to hear so you blindly avoid fact and continue in your one man crusade of ignorance to fact as you prefer the fiction you want it to be.

Even if your son had received his income at the start it would have counted as income and his UC payment would have been delayed, he hasn't lost out here its just balanced at a different time due to his delayed income. You refuse accept the truth though because you're only willing to see your side. Income is Income not savings to claim any other way would simply be benefit fraud.

As with every thread you create with your son as the focal point it always goes round in circles as you cannot and will not accept others views that don't agree with yours, instead you call them names or just repeat yourself.
 
Last edited:

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,042
Location
Espana
I am not talking specifically about my son. Savings is what you have built up out of earnings - yes? If your earnings are delayed you can't add to your savings? My point all along has been that in the current circumstances and the immediate shut-down on their work that happened to many - that rule specifically around delayed income could have been relaxed just the once. And you suggest that an inability to save when you are earning very little is a 'lifestyle choice' - a lack of prudence - come on Bri...
If you're not talking about your son's case and his late payment of earnings, just what have you been talking about? He has been the example you've used for rule changes/relaxing of rules all the way through this debate.

Where did I say it was a lifestyle choice? And where did I say he lacked prudence? His inability to save is, based on your previous posts, that he works in an industry that in the lower echelons doesn't pay well. And as for savings, bearing in mind he might have a tax bill to reconcile, I would hope he has been saving. If he was earning, for example, £1,000 and spending £1,000 where are his NI and Income Tax pot for payment later.

And why relax the rules? As was pointed out by LT, non-payment of what he was due was almost certainly down to those companies choosing not to pay him. Other bills and salaries will have been paid. But at the end of the day he received the UC he was due, and he had access to bridging loans with a generous deferred payment schedule.
 

chrisd

Major Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
23,147
Location
Kent
Yes you can. Of course you can. And the government has changed many systems over the last few months to help others. So maybe a little tweak to the initial assessment wouldn't have been that difficult. But of course it would be for the poorest - those becoming dependent upon the state.

As it happens my lad will be fine. His situation has simply highlighted to me some the issues that many less fortunate than he - the poorest in our society - are likely to be facing.

But by all means, tell the many 'down' there - that it is only their lack of prudence, their fecklessness, their inability to understand things properly - that it is up to them. Do that if you will. I wont.
You really dont get it, and the last sentence is an insult along the lines of your Brexit rubbish - I'm not prepared to try and discuss with you when all you do is insult people who disagree with you

I'm stunned that the mods dont stop this baiting/trolling
 
Thread starter #305
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
26,251
Yet again you haven't read what's actually been written only the bits you want to discuss..

I have been that person and totally understand what it feels like to lose my entire income overnight, I also had 6 kids to provide for as well. I very much know the pressures it causes and what the implications of having to rely on it are. But again you're avoiding discussing something with someone of actual experience of everything you're going on about and focusing on what you think should be allowed because of your sons situation.

As I've said I've been there and if I'd taken that loan I'd have been a fool, you assume because people disagree they don't understand. But I do understand I've been there, but it doesn't suit what you want to hear so you blindly avoid fact and continue in your one man crusade of ignorance to fact as you prefer the fiction you want it to be.

Even if your son had received his income at the start it would have counted as income and his UC payment would have been delayed, he hasn't lost out here its just balanced at a different time due to his delayed income. You refuse accept the truth though because you're only willing to see your side. Income is Income not savings to claim any other way would simply be benefit fraud.

As with every thread you create with your son as the focal point it always goes round in circles as you cannot and will not accept others views that don't agree with yours, instead you call them names or just repeat yourself.
Apologies - I misunderstood. I do understand what you say about income.

My point has only ever been that income due counting as income no matter when it came in could have been waived in the current circumstances. Or in the current circumstances the government could have allowed one months income due up to an amount of say £2k to be waived in the initial assessment. I know that the system doesn't allow for that at the moment. I just thought it would be something the government could have done to help those - who through no fault of their own - were forced to register for UC.

But as I have also said. My lad will be OK. But his experience has only highlighted to me the issues that claimants have to deal with.
 

Foxholer

Major Champion
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
20,878
Location
Wasting away again in Margaritaville
You really dont get it, and the last sentence is an insult along the lines of your Brexit rubbish - I'm not prepared to try and discuss with you when all you do is insult people who disagree with you

I'm stunned that the mods dont stop this baiting/trolling
I'm afraid you are just as culpable!

While not defending SILH's pov (and I don't believe he's looking for defence, nor, particularly, changes to 'the system') I do believe there's a few 'flaws' in the system that could be addressed. And late payment of SILH Jr's pay/invoice is likely one of them. To me, it seems 'fair' for some sort of review to be conducted about such late payments. IMO...If this was 'standard', then 'budgeting' should be Jr's responsibility. However, if payment regular and was normally prompt - and there delay was because the 'debtor's' planning for their own cashflow for the pandemic, I believe the due payment should be treated as if it was it had been paid on time.

I'm pretty certain there are/will be loads of subtle issues such as this, and, i believe, there should be some sort of (independent) Appeals authority that rules on 'fairness' for such cases. Those (bludgers imo) who abuse the system should be named/shamed too, but those who, for whatever circumstances, are 'caught by circumstances', need, imo, help, not criticism.
 
Thread starter #307
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
26,251
You really dont get it, and the last sentence is an insult along the lines of your Brexit rubbish - I'm not prepared to try and discuss with you when all you do is insult people who disagree with you

I'm stunned that the mods dont stop this baiting/trolling
Oh I get it fine. Thing is - if you read some comments from a certain viewpoint they can unfortunately seem that way. And that's just how it is. BTW - Brexit is done - it's over.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,042
Location
Espana
Apologies - I misunderstood. I do understand what you say about income.

My point has only ever been that income due counting as income no matter when it came in could have been waived in the current circumstances. Or in the current circumstances the government could have allowed one months income due up to an amount of say £2k to be waived in the initial assessment. I know that the system doesn't allow for that at the moment. I just thought it would be something the government could have done to help those - who through no fault of their own - were forced to register for UC.

But as I have also said. My lad will be OK. But his experience has only highlighted to me the issues that claimants have to deal with.
I just don't agree with waived in the current circumstances. Lockdown; the number of people I've been in conversation with who have said they actually didn't spend as much as they normally do because they were stuck inside the majority of the time. They weren't putting fuel in their car, they weren't going to restaurants or pubs, they were making the meals more cheaply because they were buying decent produce rather than buying convenience foods and ready meals.

How much do you think the govt has spent through the crisis on furlough etc? How much Treasury debt have you seen the media tell us the govt has created to try and get the country through the crisis? How much of a nanny state do you want?

And just because people don't agree with your point on this doesn't make them nasty people. That point could actually be flipped and you could be asked why you want to turn UC into a favourable lifestyle choice...
 

chrisd

Major Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
23,147
Location
Kent
I'm afraid you are just as culpable!

While not defending SILH's pov (and I don't believe he's looking for defence, nor, particularly, changes to 'the system') I do believe there's a few 'flaws' in the system that could be addressed. And late payment of SILH Jr's pay/invoice is likely one of them. To me, it seems 'fair' for some sort of review to be conducted about such late payments. IMO...If this was 'standard', then 'budgeting' should be Jr's responsibility. However, if payment regular and was normally prompt - and there delay was because the 'debtor's' planning for their own cashflow for the pandemic, I believe the due payment should be treated as if it was it had been paid on time.

I'm pretty certain there are/will be loads of subtle issues such as this, and, i believe, there should be some sort of (independent) Appeals authority that rules on 'fairness' for such cases. Those (bludgers imo) who abuse the system should be named/shamed too, but those who, for whatever circumstances, are 'caught by circumstances', need, imo, help, not criticism.
Total rubbish
 

Old Skier

Tour Winner
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
9,108
Location
Instow - play in North Devon
Apologies - I misunderstood. I do understand what you say about income.

My point has only ever been that income due counting as income no matter when it came in could have been waived in the current circumstances. Or in the current circumstances the government could have allowed one months income due up to an amount of say £2k to be waived in the initial assessment. I know that the system doesn't allow for that at the moment. I just thought it would be something the government could have done to help those - who through no fault of their own - were forced to register for UC.

But as I have also said. My lad will be OK. But his experience has only highlighted to me the issues that claimants have to deal with.
If your waive one rule then surely it’s only fair that you remove another rule, and then another, at what point do you stop and who gives the authority. It’s like pensions and DOB, some are lucky some are not.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
16,901
I'm afraid you are just as culpable!

While not defending SILH's pov (and I don't believe he's looking for defence, nor, particularly, changes to 'the system') I do believe there's a few 'flaws' in the system that could be addressed. And late payment of SILH Jr's pay/invoice is likely one of them. To me, it seems 'fair' for some sort of review to be conducted about such late payments. IMO...If this was 'standard', then 'budgeting' should be Jr's responsibility. However, if payment regular and was normally prompt - and there delay was because the 'debtor's' planning for their own cashflow for the pandemic, I believe the due payment should be treated as if it was it had been paid on time.

I'm pretty certain there are/will be loads of subtle issues such as this, and, i believe, there should be some sort of (independent) Appeals authority that rules on 'fairness' for such cases. Those (bludgers imo) who abuse the system should be named/shamed too, but those who, for whatever circumstances, are 'caught by circumstances', need, imo, help, not criticism.
Twaddle!
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
16,901
Opinions, by definition, cannot be 'twaddle'! Convince that my opinion is wrong and I might well change it!
Erroneous assertions (of supposed 'facts'), on the other hand, CAN be so described!
Your alter-ego wont allow you to accept it's wrong.
 

drdel

Tour Rookie
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
4,078
UC is a method designed for the vast majority. There will be flaws, as there always is.

IMO the tread is going around in circles.
 
Thread starter #319
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
26,251
I just don't agree with waived in the current circumstances. Lockdown; the number of people I've been in conversation with who have said they actually didn't spend as much as they normally do because they were stuck inside the majority of the time. They weren't putting fuel in their car, they weren't going to restaurants or pubs, they were making the meals more cheaply because they were buying decent produce rather than buying convenience foods and ready meals.

How much do you think the govt has spent through the crisis on furlough etc? How much Treasury debt have you seen the media tell us the govt has created to try and get the country through the crisis? How much of a nanny state do you want?

And just because people don't agree with your point on this doesn't make them nasty people. That point could actually be flipped and you could be asked why you want to turn UC into a favourable lifestyle choice...
But Bri I don't. Surely by now I have made that 100% clear :(
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,042
Location
Espana
But Bri I don't. Surely by now I have made that 100% clear :(
I said "you could be asked..." The point I was trying to make was you appear to think that people who disagree with you are nasty tight fisted Tories, and that could be flipped to asking why you want to make UC so comfortable. Neither opinion is necessarily right.
 
Top