Farmers and Universal Credit
- Thread starter unlacedgecko
- Start date
Chae1
Member
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
The point is that if a person worked 60-80 hours a week on multiple minimum wage jobs he'd be earning close to £40k/yr. With farmer type skills very possibly more. With holidays off and sick pay to boot. So the question has to be why should the tax payer (ie everyone else) have to support someone who chooses to work at something so unprofitable. Not only that but someone who also may very possibly own an asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, as UC does not take business assets (ie land) into account.
I can see why a person who lives in a town and (say) works on a building site might be a bit hacked off that their taxes are going to someone who could easily earn what they are earning, and pay their own way, but chooses not to. While choosing to work at something unprofitable for very long hours is far more admirable than someone who chooses to sit on their backside and collect benefits, the point remains it is a choice. Not only is there an alternative, there's an alternative that pays them more.
So the question is - should society support people who choose to work at something that is so unprofitable? I mean, if someone worked 80 hours a week at growing veg on an allotment, and selling it, and made tuppence ha'penny in profit, should they be able to claim UC? Or spent 80 hours a week knitting woolly hats for sale? Or any number of hobby activities that could be called businesses? A line has to be drawn somewhere, surely?
- Location
- north Wales
Hill farms for example will have the vast majority of their sales in the autumn, draft ewes, breeding ewes/lambs and store lambs, probably store cattle too, it's the nature of the buisness, they can't stick them in storage and sell a portion every month
Chae1
Member
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
Something they need to speak to bank manager about then,?Hill farms for example will have the vast majority of their sales in the autumn, draft ewes, breeding ewes/lambs and store lambs, probably store cattle too, it's the nature of the buisness, they can't stick them in storage and sell a portion every month
It’s not the tax payers job to cashflow that business model though is it? That’s what banks are forHill farms for example will have the vast majority of their sales in the autumn, draft ewes, breeding ewes/lambs and store lambs, probably store cattle too, it's the nature of the buisness, they can't stick them in storage and sell a portion every month
- Location
- Near Derby
Hill farms for example will have the vast majority of their sales in the autumn, draft ewes, breeding ewes/lambs and store lambs, probably store cattle too, it's the nature of the buisness, they can't stick them in storage and sell a portion every month
You can always stick the money into a bank and draw it out later when you have not got much to sell.
There are millions of perfectly able people who are too lazy to work and they get benefits to keep them in idleness. So I think the family ought to be able to get some money if their income is low. Maybe pop round to the benefits office after you've swept the chimney and mention mental health problems.
Hilly
Member
- Location
- Scottish Borders.
I don’t claim it never have . Hope i never have to but things can change .
- Location
- north Wales
We could also ask why our taxes (or the person who works on the building site) go as support to people working in say Tesco for example, especially considering the profits Tesco make. They should pay their workers more
- Location
- north Wales
It is their job to support lower income families, if a builder and a farmer get the same yearly income averaged out, why should the farmer be penalised just because the nature of his business means high income for 3 months and low for the other 9?
- Location
- north Wales
I imagine that's what they do, but that model bars them from claiming support that another buisness with the same amount but more linear income can access
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
We have to face it that some farms are marginally viable for any number of reasons. Some years they will make a real loss, not just a cashflow loss. If either cashflow or profit is insufficient to sustain a family then hard decisions need to be made. I know of one bloke in his forties who works at home for no wage and the place is a shambles with father and mother in the house and his main income being his wife’s small wage and her father and mother’s extra support. He is unlikely to inherit the unviable business and will possibly be an old man before the farm is split between him and two siblings. He is quite capable and could turn his hand to a relatively well paying job to support his wife and two children, but he just doesn’t. Ours is not to wonder why but we can wonder whether the State and taxpayer’s money should really support this family.
There’s a whole lot of such ‘hobby farmers that aren’t really competent’ about.
There’s a whole lot of such ‘hobby farmers that aren’t really competent’ about.
- Location
- north Wales
Why? What does he have to do with claiming universal credit?
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
If you call the food production 'charity work' then it might get a knighthood.
Accountant said we could apply for old income support but I wasn't keen on the questions.
Accountant said we could apply for old income support but I wasn't keen on the questions.
Last edited:
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
On the other hand, if a farm business isn’t making enough money to support the family then it’s because there’s more going out than the sales (& subsidy) income. Those outgoings are being spent somewhere, keeping others in work. It doesn’t just disappear.
Like subsidies, that money supports multiple others, not just the recipient.
I agree though that poor cashflow management shouldn’t be a reason receiving income support, IF the business is otherwise profitable enough.
Isn’t that what this article is about though? UC works on monthly income cycles, whereas WTC was based on annual income.
Like subsidies, that money supports multiple others, not just the recipient.
I agree though that poor cashflow management shouldn’t be a reason receiving income support, IF the business is otherwise profitable enough.
Isn’t that what this article is about though? UC works on monthly income cycles, whereas WTC was based on annual income.
Someone who owns a building firm would experience just as many ups and downs as someone who owns a farm
ollie989898
Member
I'm not arguing whether it is morally correct that the tax payer supports such a business or lifestyle, rather, I'm saying that you wouldn't catch me working any job requiring 60-80 hours per week but still left me with an income meaning I was claiming universal credit. Fudge that. On an individual level, surely that makes no sense?
What are people doing with their time I wonder? I know a lot of dairy farmers -surely one of the most time intensive enterprises- who wouldn't work 80 hours a week regularly and that would only be at peak times I.e. power harrowing or ploughing which would happen for a few days at a time at a few points in the year.
Your point that they could pocket 40K per annum and have none of this grief strikes me as a very real one. There isn't much farming that can't be relegated to a part time job at the end of the day. Loads of dairy farmers in Europe have main job and only farm mornings and evenings.
- Location
- East Sussex
Some harsh comments here. A bit unfair without knowing the true story.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
I guess because the DWP or whichever department would struggle to administrate an irregular income
- Location
- north Wales
Then it's not fair on that person either