gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
Quite clear that the Gov do not want people working for themselves thus why they are introducing things like UC/ 3 monthly full tax returns etc etc.
Farmers and Universal Credit
- Thread starter unlacedgecko
- Start date
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
^this. Most farmer’s complaint, in every article I’ve read, isn’t about the payment particularly, but the way it’s worked out not being much use when income isn’t regular.
say this is a tenant farmer, I spose some of the Gits saying the farmer shouldn't get anything would rather they be slung out so some big knob farmer with already to much land could rent it sow it with flowers and claim off the fecking government for it FFS
- Location
- High Weald AONB
The Gov don't want people running unprofitable businesses which don't earn them a living wage and relying on benefits to top up their income. Unemployment levels are quite low at the moment so it is easy for them to argue that someone in that situation should stop what they're doing and go and get a minimum wage job if it pays more than they can earn from their business.
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
Yes it is quite funny that the ones on here that seem so vocal about this familly struggling to get UC and saying that their business is a hobby farm if he is working 80 hours a week are people who have either retired/ still farming but getting state pension or very large arable farmers who's parents etc built up the business and they just walked into it that are getting massive sub payments now under SFI for things that they were already doing/ putting large areas of their land into high paying non food producing options who are saying everyone else should not get any help from the taxpayer!
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Lots around here what with relief milkers, contractors, herds people and so on. A proportion do get accommodation but these are mainly, though not always, foreign migrant workers. Mostly on dairy farms but also sheep handlers and shepherds. Farmers themselves commute more and more between their farms… what I call ‘tarmac farmers’.
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
So where does that leave Tesco etc who's staff have to claim UC due to such low wages that they pay??
MIn wage is far too low anyway in the real world even at £11.42 hour!
For example in the SW you could easily be paying 12k a year in rent then 3.5k a year in CT just for starters!
Why do they pay UC then ?
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
That is indeed the reality. Always has been. Always will be. Some do and some are too lazy or incapable of doing so.
For unrelated reasons [because I wanted freedom from the cow’s tail while young enough essentially], I took a flexible job as well as farm for a decade. Still did the management and worked at peak periods and a few hours most days at home but hired a skilled cowman, who I paid give or take as much as I earned sometimes, rather than cheaper less skilled part time reliefs.
The problem with employing someone, apart from the cost, is that they are forever having days off, Bank Holidays and holidays. Not like family
Thats cos tesco are running an unprofitable busness hidden by the fact they pay folk feck all
Jameshampstead
Member
This seems to be a very loaded article, for the purpose of discussing/clouding judgement on a specific topic that has always been controversial - it’s no secret that people have very opposing views on the benefits system and it’s claimants - Yet, I don’t believe enough clarity is given on the topic. I also think vitriol and outdated opinions help even less; especially for those who claim. Frankly, it is a legal and human right in this country, we have a welfare state that allows it’s citizens to claim what the state deems acceptable, it is an entitlement and it goes to every person in this country.
The main issue discussed in this article is the ‘minimum income floor’ and that has recently been increased. This means that monthly earnings need to be over and above a certain amount (national minimum wage in relation to hours working) before the government work out the subsidies. So, if the farmer is working 60 hours a week and still isn’t meeting the national minimum wage, the minimum income floor comes into play. The government have a base rate (35 hours) and that is used in order to calculate the farmers claim, yet, if his earnings are over and above the minimum wage in relation to the minimum income floor then they work out his entitlement from those earnings instead. This means the amount of benefits the farmers is entitled will change throughout his time of need, reflecting the peaks and troff’s of his business.
What it seems to me is that this family have had a bad experience when it comes to discussing their claim with an overworked and incompetent advisor at the job centre and instead of this being reflected in this individuals situation, instead someone has complained and this article has then set about bowing up this situation and casting a light on something that isn’t actually there. It’s emotive language and daft title is essentially saying the benefits systems is entirely against farmers, when It is not! It’s just unfortunate that on this occasion, the gentleman and his family have had a somewhat bad experience and the issues within his business aren’t allowing for him to claim the amount he believes he should be entitled to. The benefit system has never been appealing to it’s claimants, it is deliberately evoking, frustrating and demeaning in it’s nature, it’s designed that way, with a vast amount of demands and sanctions, so to come up a cropper with some jumped up advisor who doesn’t care about this farmer situation and is only repeating what it says on the screen then it makes sense. When you have to become reliant on benefits to help your situation, it’s no different to hour balls being clenched and only slightly squeezed, just enough for the belly ache to set in but not enough to actually cause you any detriment. Frankly it’s crippling, but that’s the very point.
This outdated idea that people claiming are just taking from the tax payer and living a lavish lifestyle is wrong. Especially when you consider that the UK has one of the lowest paid welfare systems throughout all high income countries.
Suffolk Serf
Member
- Location
- Bury/Thetford
Speak for yourself. I have to get in my van and drive a whole mile.
- Location
- Scottish Borders
- Location
- Scottish Borders
A point that I have not seen raised yet is that in one years time after the changeover from WTC to UC if you have more than £16000 in assets you will not be eligible for any payment!
- Location
- Devon
It's a strange one.
It is the most well payed that commute the furthest.
And studies have shown many are happy/expect to commute for at least about 1.5 hours [each way].
Improved transport links and reduced journey times just leads people to live further from their work.
Except the lowest paid, who need to live as close as possible to work to avoid the commuting cost taking a large proportion of their wage.
A manager that lives on site of a business deserves a lot higher wage to reward/ compensate always being the first point of call.
Aspiring Peasants
Member
- Location
- North Pennines
No, I said benefits should be a safety net for the genuinely needy
- Location
- Devon
It is quite funny to read the SFI thread and the many posts about how they can screw it for every penny they can and then see the same posters on here chastising people claiming UC to replace tax credits or child benefit.
It is all from the same tax payers pot.
It is all from the same tax payers pot.
I am unfamiliar with the minute details of the UTC, but 20 odd yrs ago, we claimed WFTC with 3 kids here.
It took some work by the accountant to get the business details right for a successful application, no funny business, just structured correctly as you @Aspiring Peasants suggest.
We claimed for a few years, and at the end, were left owing a bit back which was paid of off the following tax year.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
The government has no money: it's all your money: it's tax money.
Ever seen a diesel runaway, the idea is to block the inlet. Money from the government is as good as ether to a runaway
The hope here is to possess one of those calculators that says more turnover is better than a healthier or more prosperous entity as the other gimmick is the more you get the more everything can cost.
Jack the minimum wage and you can increase minimum costs of things across the board and increase the VAT take.
The key here is that if you're in a position to better support your monthly costs but then have very very important but unprofitable other things to do for 11 hours a day ... then, removing the need to choose differently gives a lot of control for very little extra money (remembering it's your money, like the covid loan was)
So you can either please have a little more less money thanks to an irregular income or you can please have a little more less money doing nothing much differently or you can have a nice wee hobby where you make a mint growing flowers and birdfood and still keep all the nice things.. until that quarter dries off.
If you need the money you'll do what has to be done to get the money and that's a bloody great game if you think about it. Some players even pretend they like it
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
Thats assets as in cash, property (excluding your own house) and stock and shares etc. UC disregards business assets, so its is entirely possible that a person who owns their own farm lock stock and barrel, worth millions, can claim UC, because the farm, the farmhouse and all the machinery would count as business assets, not financial ones. That is wrong IMO. I think there was someone on here on the last thread on this issue that stated he had done exactly that - run the business at a loss or small profit by ploughing everything back into the business, buying machinery etc etc, and used UC to provide living expenses. We all know how easy it is for a farm to declare no accounting profits, just go out and buy a new tractor, or reroof a barn, or refence the farm.
IMO there should be an upper limit to the disregard of business assets, above which you don't qualify for welfare payments. The welfare system is not (or rather should not be) there to pay the living expenses of people who are asset rich but cash poor.