Free money for the Yoof!

[TheDude]

I must be going soft in my old age, but I like the idea of the Welsh giving out free money. I don't mean that sarcastically.

Welsh Government slammed over £20million basic income pilot scheme handing teenagers £1,600-a-MONTH | Daily Mail Online

The comments section in the DM is a fun read, I mean that sarcastically.

Disgusting waste of public money when there are pensioners out there that haven't been on a cruise for the last two years.

[vetran]

So what? He can't claim it failed and that it went well. Well, apparently he can, but it makes little sense.

He can and did.

The Operation went well, the patient died is a perfectly valid sentence.

The Project went well, it achieved its plan it is as good if not better than the previous system.

The number of people moved from multiple benefits one is one of the largest benefit changes in UK history. They where they met the criteria according to the data the government held got paid on time according to the plan from Dunkers. That is the main issue.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...iversal-credit

Under the old system, the goal was to pay benefits within two weeks of a claim. Under Universal Credit, there is a formal waiting period of one week with no money, with the benefit then being paid monthly in arrears – the intention being that this more closely mirrors what it is like to be in a job. In practice, many of those earning less than £10,000 a year are in fact paid weekly.

The effect of this 'discipline' in practice has led to an in-built wait of six weeks before people get their cash - three times as long as the old system – and the Department for Work and Pensions admits that in around a fifth of cases it is failing to meet even that target, partly because of the information demands it places on the claimants.

Waits of ten or twelve weeks are not uncommon.

The overall effect has been to plunge people already on low incomes into rent arrears and debt and in some cases homelessness. In others cases, it has caused job losses - the very opposite of what Universal Credit is intended to achieve.

It would have been simple to convert it to an easier transition but the government discussed it and refused to do so. I agree this is foolish, unfair and unpleasant. This has nothing to do with the project implementation.

If you note there that additional information is required by design and that is not being received in time either.

Note this is from 2017 right at the start when UC was halted and redesigned slightly. The figures are better.

[d000hg]

The "project" was not simply to end up able to say "it's a good system now". The project was implementing the new system in a way that involved a smooth transition and that demonstrably was not achieved.

I suppose from your perspective - that people don't matter and those on benefits doubly so - it went well because intermediary pain and suffering doesn't matter when it's not you affected. Someone not receiving benefits for weeks and having to visit a food-bank is just the equivalent of having to go to the dentist to get your sore tooth fixed.
To use your analogy, if they waited for all the people on benefits to starve then that would be a huge win because there'd be a huge reduction in people on benefits, as far as you're concerned.

[vetran]

The "project" was not simply to end up able to say "it's a good system now". The project was implementing the new system in a way that involved a smooth transition and that demonstrably was not achieved.

I suppose from your perspective - that people don't matter and those on benefits doubly so - it went well because intermediary pain and suffering doesn't matter when it's not you affected. Someone not receiving benefits for weeks and having to visit a food-bank is just the equivalent of having to go to the dentist to get your sore tooth fixed.
To use your analogy, if they waited for all the people on benefits to starve then that would be a huge win because there'd be a huge reduction in people on benefits, as far as you're concerned.

You really aren't understanding are you?

The two things are separate, the project to implement was actually quite good, the problem was that the requirements and mitigations were rubbish.

Do you say oh I was mugged by a chap in puffy jacket so puffy jackets should be jailed?

[WTFH]

The two things are separate, the project to implement was actually quite good, the problem was that the requirements and mitigations were rubbish.

You must be a poor project manager if that's your logic.

A project is not just an implementation, but gathering the requirements and benefits, confirming them as appropriate and delivering to meet them. If the requirements and benefits were not gathered or scrutinised correctly as part of the overall project, then it is a failure. Individual tasks might be deemed successful, but the project is not.

Do you think that AtW's car accident was a success because he walked away from it?
No, it isn't He could walk before hand, he could walk after. The accident wrote off a car, damaged a wall, cost time and money to sort out.
A car crash in not a success.

Universal Credit was a car crash.

[SueEllen]

Universal Credit was a car crash.

I wonder who worked on the project....

[vetran]

You must be a poor project manager if that's your logic.

A project is not just an implementation, but gathering the requirements and benefits, confirming them as appropriate and delivering to meet them. If the requirements and benefits were not gathered or scrutinised correctly as part of the overall project, then it is a failure. Individual tasks might be deemed successful, but the project is not.

Do you think that AtW's car accident was a success because he walked away from it?
No, it isn't He could walk before hand, he could walk after. The accident wrote off a car, damaged a wall, cost time and money to sort out.
A car crash in not a success.

Universal Credit was a car crash.

Done a lot of projects?

If the customer or stakeholder want to shoot themselves in the foot there is little the PM can do.

Again the project team did a good job.

[d000hg]

Again the project team did a good job.

Consumers disagreed.

Anyway we seem to have taken a tangent. Enough on vetran's desire for a final solution to poverty, let's get back to UBI...

So the question I asked before... if UBI actually worked out cheaper to the tax payer, should we do it? In other words, if just giving the "feckless scroungers" free dosh with no requirement to look for work was more than offset by the savings from not having to run a vast and complicated benefits system, would it be better to do that?
I think a lot of people automatically say no because they feel aggrieved someone gets a free ride but if your tax bill went down as a result...?

[vetran]

Consumers disagreed.

Anyway we seem to have taken a tangent. Enough on vetran's desire for a final solution to poverty, let's get back to UBI...

So the question I asked before... if UBI actually worked out cheaper to the tax payer, should we do it? In other words, if just giving the "feckless scroungers" free dosh with no requirement to look for work was more than offset by the savings from not having to run a vast and complicated benefits system, would it be better to do that?
I think a lot of people automatically say no because they feel aggrieved someone gets a free ride but if your tax bill went down as a result...?

Oh nice a bit of subtle fascist accusing and onwards to your lakeside Dacha. I'm sorry if you find separating the charter from the implementation confusing.

As I said the costs of people being available to commit crime is significant.

UC is a simpler system meant to cost less to administrate and easier to escape.

Many workers don't earn anywhere near £20k where the UBI is set so you have kitchen porters working 50-60 hour weeks to earn £15k how long will it take them to figure out they are better on UBI? If you make UBI a comfortable amount then people will actively choose to stop working. If you own your own home £40k per couple is enough for most people to live in comfort or start an illicit eBay business, better than a pension.

It will of course be heavily abused and claimed fraudulently. Just look at Furlough.

As we are near full employment we have only those unfit and unwilling to work on JSA etc. If we can keep the criminal and lazy ones busy it will be a case of helping the less able bodied into work if they want it.

Of course the real question is who will pay for it, don't expect Bezos etc to empty their pockets.

[d000hg]

Oh nice a bit of subtle fascist accusing and onwards to your lakeside Dacha. I'm sorry if you find separating the charter from the implementation confusing.

I see a lot of big words there, I wonder what they mean?

Many workers don't earn anywhere near £20k where the UBI is set so you have kitchen porters working 50-60 hour weeks to earn £15k how long will it take them to figure out they are better on UBI? If you make UBI a comfortable amount then people will actively choose to stop working. If you own your own home £40k per couple is enough for most people to live in comfort or start an illicit eBay business, better than a pension.

Nobody mentioned specific figures. I asked a general question of principle and you seem to be trying to avoid it by pulling out specific scenarios.

It will of course be heavily abused and claimed fraudulently. Just look at Furlough.

You don't claim UBI, that's one of the fundamental changes it brings. I think you should perhaps read a bit more before you reply, or we're arguing at cross-purposes. The simplicity "everyone gets UBI, it's clawed back from earners via tax" means there's not much to abuse. Kind of the point.

Of course the real question is who will pay for it, don't expect Bezos etc to empty their pockets.

Well no, he's not a UK tax payer. Not sure why you think American billionaires should fund UK projects. But again, the question being asked is predicated that it represents a net saving (or break-even) so there is no "paying for it". You're arguing a different point.