What the Budget Means for the Unemployed.
Osborne: I don’t Care, My Family’s Doing Quite Nicely Thank You.
Some effects of the Budget on the out of work. (Guardian)
Single, no children. Unemployed
Base income: £3,801 2015-16 Jobseeker’s allowance rose to £73.10 (£57.90 if aged 16-24) in April, an increase of 70p a week or £36.40 a year compared with 2014-15. Housing benefit eligibility will depend on his property size and, if he rents, where he lives.
2016-17 His benefits are frozen, meaning his overall income neither increases nor decreases.
Except that with the price of basics unlikely to stay still until 2017 this means a cut in benefits.
A single person aged 24 with no children. He previously worked but is now receiving sickness benefits. He rents a housing association flat in Manchester for £70 per week
Base income: £8,952 2015-16 He receives £5,312 in employment and support allowance and housing benefit of £3,640. This gives a total income of £8,952.
2016-17 The 1% reduction in social housing rents means he now has to pay rent of £69.30. Housing benefit reduces to cover this amount. Other benefits are frozen meaning that he is no better or worse off.
Couple, both unemployed, three children, renting in Bristol £800pcm
Base income: £26,000 2015-16 They get combined total benefits of £26,000 – made up of jobseeker’s allowance, child tax credit, housing and child benefit. They would get £26,502 but this is over the maximum benefit cap of £26,000. In the case that one child is disabled, they get £32,507 and are unaffected by the cap.
2016-17 Lowering the maximum benefit cap means their benefits are limited to £20,000. Overall they will be £6,000 worse off. Where one of the children is disabled they are neither better or worse off due to the freeze in benefit rates.
18-21-year-olds to lose jobless benefits under ‘earn or learn’ scheme.
This is a real blow to the young unemployed: either do workfare or “learn” .
This does not mean going to college, unless you take out a loan:
University maintenance grants for lower income students in England and Wales are to be scrapped from September 2016, Chancellor George Osborne has said.
In his budget, Mr Osborne said the grants had become “unaffordable”. Mr Osborne also said tuition fees could rise with inflation, above £9,000, for those institutions which offer high-quality teaching from 2017-18. BBC.
As the Guardian says,
The tone of the chancellor’s strict carrot-and-stick approach was established by his planned “youth obligation” for 18 to 21-year-olds on universal credit, which he said would provide them with “an intensive regime of support from day one of their benefit claim”, from April 2017. At the same time, Osborne said housing benefit would no longer be automatically available for 18 to 21-year-olds.
There is also this:
Ipswich Unemployed Action. 
Reblogged this on sdbast.
sdbast
July 9, 2015 at 1:33 pm
Amazing how University maintenance grants have become unaffordable for government yet mysteriously affordable for those that need them. If the government have to advocate loans its demonstrates they are well aware of this.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the example the Tories are setting our country let alone youth is one where there expected to live beyond there means by way of loans, funny how it seems a far cry from there speech about pulling your belt in, got to save. Save for what though, all those massive debts your incur before you even have the qualifications for a job let alone the experience employers command before even entertaining the notion of employment.
This governments only answer to anything is take a loan, get insurance, all things the Tories know will sky rocket in the future. Did we not learn how it was debt from loans that crashed the planet in the first place, yet here are again inflating more bubbles.
gaia
July 9, 2015 at 2:02 pm
How long before the Open university goes? I remember rumblings of that early this year. So young – can’t afford college/university lets try Open University – OOopps – that’s now closed.
How about a person no longer young? doesn’t want to go to college/university lets try Open University – OOopps – that’s now closed.
Basically you’re outta luck and stuck where you are.
Gazza
July 9, 2015 at 4:28 pm
Yes, most of the young will no doubt be working for life on very little, no chance of buying a house, car or much else, the days of being able to do what they want to do in their lives is over – their lives as we know are being monitored.
enigma
July 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm
Pray do tell, Mr Coates, is one given a copy of the Budget Speech in advance in order to prepare a response a la Harriet Harman?
Rupert & Tamsin
July 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
Ipswich Unemployed Action is Mystic Meg’s older brother.
We predicted that there would be a freeze on JSA, and…hey presto….
Andrew Coates
July 9, 2015 at 3:31 pm
This is just how degraded the government is:
Andrew Coates
July 9, 2015 at 3:48 pm
What’s this, IFS have it wrong again, what you mean the very IFS that won an award 2 years in a row for best think tank (a feat never achieved before) ?
http://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget/505
Yep as usual the Tories claim they know everything while everyone else knows nothing as they fight off the first study of I suspect of many to come made on there latest budget.
Yep, Osborne has been called out as a trickster as they point out people stand to lose more than they gain when all cuts and raises are put into play.
To further destabilise the Tories bold claims, employers are already hitting back on having to pay more (ie expect employers to pass on costs to customers instead of investors and thereby making the public pay for there own raise). If speculation is correct the taxpayer will lose even more than IFS recently reported.
gaia
July 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Hmmm, I also wonder if this has anything to do with the IFS stating the country needs more tax reforms than benefit ones if its people are to ever see the light.
gaia
July 9, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Yep – rich to get richer off our backs and te poor to get poorer.
All legal like tax dodging – Remember this is the same charlton who on BBC Business advised people on how to dodge paying tax so he has form.
Its called trickle down. We all know how well thats worked in America.
Wait and see
Gazza
July 9, 2015 at 4:32 pm
We don’t have to wait Gazza, Just look at the gulf in gap already between the poorest and the richest.
The rich if anything have found a way to put a tap and meter on that trickle or as they probably put it, a leak in need of urgent repair.
gaia
July 9, 2015 at 4:40 pm
You know too Gaia regarding the so called living wage, the employers will just lay off most of their paid employees and replace them with unemployed people.
A café I have being going to for the last 3 years has now laid off most of their paid employees and now in their place is the young, aged 18 to 21.
enigma
July 10, 2015 at 1:00 am
But nobody stays 18-21 for ever. Unless they are the like the ‘children on the hill’. So, what happens when they reach 21+? Obviously the café is going to replace them with another 18-21 year old. But who is going to employ the 21+ then?
Logan's Run
July 10, 2015 at 6:35 am
Osborne’s final solution: “In the world of 2020, a person’s maximum age is strictly legislated: twenty one years, to the day. When people reach this Lastday they report to a Sleepshop in which they are willingly executed via a pleasure-inducing toxic gas.”
Logan's Run
July 10, 2015 at 6:40 am
Well, well then,
The government said recipients of tax credits “should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work”.
So already they split and pitted the unemployed with employed and are now embarking on separating and pitting workers on benefits against workers on no benefits.
See this common tory theme here again where everytime they need to something unpleasant that they first cause division in hope of achieving it.
I wonder what the excuse will be when its the middle classes turn ?
gaia
July 9, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Hey, in Polskiif you make children you get fuck all from our Government. Why you think we take money from your stupid government for our make believe children?
Pawel & Kamila
July 9, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Hey, in Polski if you make children you get fuck all from our Government. Why you think we take money from your stupid government for our make believe children?
Pawel & Kamila
July 9, 2015 at 4:56 pm
fucking
Pawel & Kamila
July 9, 2015 at 4:55 pm
Hey, our beautiful country is a naughty work 😉
Pawel & Kamila
July 9, 2015 at 4:57 pm
word – fuck you! cholera!
Pawel & Kamila
July 9, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Well well well, truth will out eventually with the Nasti ConParty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
“Tax credit changes
From April 2016, anyone earning more than £3,850 a year will have their Working Tax Credit reduced more steeply. Previously they could earn up to £6,420.”
My read of that statement is if earning £6.4K dont go past Go, go straight to jail – tapering up to the full Tax Credit the closer one gets to earningjust £3.8K
Everyone remember about the Tax Credit changes coming in April 2016? You know the one where if you’re a part-timer its bend over here I come again from the ConParty?
Well this is the icing on the cake and the reasoning behind it – they are almost halving what can be earned, which is why they’ll be insisting on a increase in hours.
Question: As there will be at least hundreds of thousands of peole effected [I suspect a lot lot more – this lot don’t do things by halves do they?] Where are these Jobs going to magically come from?
Gazza
July 9, 2015 at 11:42 pm
You have a government that doesn’t want to raise taxes so it stands to reason that they need every worker to work more hours instead.
If this government cant heighten that you can expect higher taxes in the future what with the amount on min wage being around one third and expanding of all work force.
It will be interesting to see what inflation does to this when it starts to kick in again what with our flatline export looking to go no where anytime soon.
gaia
July 10, 2015 at 10:10 am
If consumer spending drops and personal debt shrinks (less household borrowing), the outlook will be very bleak as these are the only 2 things keeping our picture looking the way it does what with export flat lining month or month.
gaia
July 10, 2015 at 10:14 am
Yet another benefit death – this time over the loss of ESA:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3154760/Mentally-ill-musician-killed-taken-disability-benefits-ruled-fit-work.html
Expect many more such cases after the recent budget changes to ESA.
Tobanem
July 10, 2015 at 9:02 am
Their ignoring the likelihood of people finding work also.theres no time limit on claiming jsa and its possible that someone could remain on it indefinitely.
That decision should never have been made.The governments apparent willingness to let these tragedies keep happening shows what it is really about.
ken
July 10, 2015 at 11:03 pm
Now watch TEN HOURS become full time work. 10 Hours Will Replace 16 Hours (!)
PJ
July 10, 2015 at 9:10 am
The 16 hour rule if we are talking JSA only, provides a safety net so people working less than (15 hours, 59 mins, 59 secs) don’t have to sign off.
Under UC that wouldn’t be the case while the claimant is taking any benefit/s covered by the new credit. They would still be subjected to conditionality right up till either they withdrew from benefits themselves or had it reduced pound for pound to mark zero.
The days of working less than 16 and still claiming housing without conditionality will change as it will for couples working less than 24 in regards to housing, tax credit and family tax credit.
gaia
July 10, 2015 at 9:48 am
Face of employers post 2016
If there’s one new addition besides death and taxes in the certainty stakes, its companies not allowing there profits to be chiselled away by wages.
Theres been much talk about how they will deal with this with one obvious one being getting rid of staff. While that may work for the larger groups, SMEs will be hit if productivity lowers anymore than it already has.
The second banded about idea is pass on the cost, now that maybe possible if you deal in essentials like food but will stand you in no good stead if say you sold electrical goods. Higher costing items produce more VAT per sale so if people reduce consummation in this area, VAT revenue will fall and thus require more drastic action from Osborne.
With tax on insurance hiked, if again insurance take up drops like say for contents insurance, building insurance, etc, than again the revenue the government makes drops.
If you like its a case of extortion as workers either pay and play along with the new ideology or expect higher more direct taxing such as income tax or VAT or even both.
Lets also remember inflation hasn’t kicked in yet either.
gaia
July 10, 2015 at 10:43 am
Yes, the choice that employers have.
enigma
July 10, 2015 at 11:35 am
“In order to reimburse your travel expenses to a job interview, a recent bank statement needs to be brought in to a JC” – new? or has this been the case for a while?
enigma
July 10, 2015 at 1:20 pm
DWP wants to know what benefit claimants spend their benefit on. then ………………..
enigma
July 10, 2015 at 1:36 pm
they wanted to see my bank statements a while ago but as i use on line banking wanted 25 quid for them and would not pay for them so just took a photo of it on my phone.
super ted
July 10, 2015 at 2:12 pm
Total Twaddle Methinks.
Simple test Question for DWP is the request reasonable? [Maladministration – Gross Misconduct]
Can the twit at DWP supply the regulation specifiying that Bank statement must be supplied? [Maladministration – Gross Misconduct]
Is DWP saying the supply of verbal confirmation from yourself is unacceptable? [Slander – Gross Misconduct]]
Is DWP saying they are unable to call prospective employer to confirm attendance? [Slander/Maladministration – Gross Misconduct]
Pick one and apply
Gazza
July 10, 2015 at 2:26 pm
if ur stupid they will try anything to try trip you up tho not that you cant have more than 1 bank account is it 😉
they have even asked for my dentists phone number to confirm that i had an appointment on said day but they never got it.
not that they whould tell them anything anyway the twats 😉
super ted
July 10, 2015 at 2:47 pm
The travel ticket was paid by cash not by bank card so why the need of a bank statement to claim it back, yes, it’s total nonsense, the idea behind it being my first thought was as above.
enigma
July 10, 2015 at 3:21 pm
“supply the regulation specifiying that Bank statement must be supplied” This one will be told about to the person who came into the food bank in need of food because he had to spend his last bit of cash to get to an interview.
enigma
July 10, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Its been that way for a while enigma or at least in my local area for around a year now.
They stopped the travel credit passes they use to give out and swapped over to the one you mention now.
Its best the claimant goes to see DWP prior to an interview as this new scheme doesn’t mean there be granted it. Take a letter from the potential employer detailing date, time and location of said interview and cost of travel (via printouts) and DWP will decide along with making note of it.
After the interview simply take DWP the receipts and NOT bank statements. Receipts are tax deductible but if you didn’t have them could use if paid by debit card, a bank statement.
(Always keep receipts and never use bank statements but if you do redact address, a/c number, sort code and every other payment be it money in or out but this is only any good if the debit details the company name of the bus or train you purchased the tickets from).
Many claimants don’t know this but we are all tax payers by default even when only taking benefit which itself is tax accountable which your find out when you get your anniversary tax sheet. This means the door swings both ways meaning the ticket to an interview is tax deductible.
gaia
July 11, 2015 at 10:03 am
Thanks for that information Gaia
enigma
July 13, 2015 at 12:25 pm
The poor, the sick, the scrounging workshy. Now it’s the turn of children to be scapegoated.
Tongue-in-cheek commentary about the budget from The Independent:
“astrologers have informed the Department of Work and Pensions that babies born from 2018 onwards will have Venus descending through their Taurus, making them claim disability benefit forever and eat trifle all day, paid for by hard-working Sagittarians, and that simply can’t be allowed to continue”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/thank-god-george-osborne-is-finally-making-young-people-pay-for-the-crash–they-caused-it-after-all-10379270.html
Tobanem
July 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm
Third child seen as part of “cactus family”!
Tobanem
July 10, 2015 at 2:03 pm
“Perhaps the Government can take further steps to prevent the birth of new claimants by introducing a compulsory coil for all women who can’t prove they’ve got enough money to raise a child.
To make it fair, once a woman could produce three bank statements and proof of earnings to show she could feed a child without claiming benefits, she could apply to have it removed, which could be done personally by Iain Duncan Smith rather than a doctor to save even more money.”
Class. Just the Job for him…
Gazza
July 10, 2015 at 3:14 pm
New appointment in Child Benefit Office, a certain Mr Herod,
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”
Matthew 2:16.
Andrew Coates
July 10, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Government begins attack on charities
The Tories are introducing a law that makes charities accountable for there fund raising attempts. The Tories main premise behind this was the suicide of Olive Cooke which is a joke considering there own attempts to block data on benefit related suicides, I mean surely her suicide is more complex than just being targeted for fund raising (same line used by DWP regarding benefit suicide rates).
According to the BBC she took her own life because “she had been exhausted by requests for money from charities”, according to a friend. Worthy of note her own family goddaughter disagreed stating, “the letters seeking money were not a factor in her death”.
So we have letters left by benefit suicide victims and according to the Tories its nonsense to suggest benefits had anything to do with it yet here in the same breath use such a premise to justify bringing in a law attacking charities, hint, hint.
Also do we see such zeal when it comes to other nuisance calls that happen far more frequently ?
This all reminds me of the Theresa May comment about an asylum seeker stating he needed to stay in the country so as to look after his cat.
Just goes to show yet again what’s good for the goose isn’t allowed for the gander.
gaia
July 11, 2015 at 10:22 am
Within days of the announcement of Camila Batmanghelidjh, the chief executive of charity Kids Company(july 2015) stepping down after the government refused to issue anymore funds to the charity unless she did, comes this attempt to introduce a law that to an uninterested or unintelligent eye would appear to label charities as some sort of scam trick to fleece the working public out of there hard earned money.
Interestingly like a lot of things welfare related, the government ignored and refused countless demands for information via the freedom of information act from the BBCS very own Newsnight and BuzzFeed.
Charities present a very significant threat to this government as does religion when it comes to all matters relating to welfare and poverty, especially considering they have there own valid statistics that the government despite attempts cant quite extinguish from the public eye.
I think its plain to see that this tory government is trying to wipe all traces of poverty from the public eye before the real damage of there changes, cuts and abolitions comes to pass. Damages I believe they engineered so as to drive home total privatisation of the rest of the public sector that still remains untouched.
No export equals no wealth, the working public no matter how many jobs are created consuming and getting into debt will only see that money circle long enough before government, business and foreign investors take it all up and there’s no more to go about.
When people loan money, they allow for it to be printed out of thin air, it doesn’t come from a actual vault with real money in it. This has impacts, impacts that can even excel the 2007/8 global crash.
People should twig that there government wants them in debt and having costly insurance which if they don’t will see this governments chances of borrowing from the likes of the IMF all but disappear when GDP goes out of whack considering the whole country is held up purely on bubbles and debt IOUs.
Work in the real physical world is drying up, if it wasn’t already bad enough that technology with each passing day was taking away jobs, there are no new ventures or opportunities besides the internet, even banks are now forced to consider bit coin before it accomplishes its goal of wiping out the banking sector entirely (they tried to sabotage it but failed).
So unless you happen to be an I.T know it all with an idea no one else has thought about and patterned, any chances of a better life are to be short lived if next to none.
gaia
July 11, 2015 at 1:36 pm
Money is finite. There is only enough money in the world to paper a tennis court. Once it runs out it has run out. End off!
Wimble Dumb
July 12, 2015 at 5:32 am
“do we see such zeal when it comes to other nuisance calls that happen far more frequently ?”
Precisely.
I do not think I’ve had more than two Charity calls in the last years, while I sometimes get a whole swarm of other nuisance calls from companies.
Unlike Charities most try to present themselves as something ‘official’ to boot.
That is saying, clearly, something about “government” “grant” “your” and then, mumble mumble.
There is then a rapid switch to pressure….
I simply say: “I do not take nuisance calls”.
Now if we were kids phoning up people at random with “funny” jokes for people with funny names – eg. Mr Dick… – we’d probably get sentenced these days.
But this lot get away with it.
Andrew Coates
July 11, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Has anybody noticed that outside Tower Ramparts in Ipswich, the charity muggers {CHUGGERS} are still out and about. I thought the local council had reined them in.?
NO
July 12, 2015 at 9:10 am
Like the Tories comments to cause division between workers on benefits and workers without benefits, its now the division on who and who can have kids.
First it was the benefits, now its the charities that support the vulnerable and poverty stricken by casting them in such a light that the public think there tricksters so stop giving.
How long before charities join the list on peoples front window stickers saying NO SALESMEN, NO HAWKERS ?
gaia
July 11, 2015 at 4:11 pm
As we lord it up on €60 a WEEK let us spare a thought for the poor Greeks having to struggle by on €60 per DAY per PERSON per ACCOUNT per CARD.
Grexit
July 12, 2015 at 8:44 am
Has anybody else had trouble with the charity muggers at tower ramparts ipswich ?
NO
July 12, 2015 at 9:12 am
No – I swerve to avoid them!
Andrew Coates
July 12, 2015 at 11:03 am
OT. PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY OF YOU THAT USE UJM. THE PASSWORD FACILITY IS STILL NOT CASE SENSITIVE. I TRIED VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS AND EVERYONE LET ME LOG IN. IE XXXXXXXXXX xxxxxxxxxx XXXXXxxxxx xxxxXXXxxx.
password
July 23, 2015 at 10:09 am