Coffee House

Brits are not idle – they’re just taxed to death

4 December 2013

Today’s Times has a headline designed, I suspect, to make the blood boil. “Idle Britons are allowing Romanians to take jobs,” it says – paraphrasing the conclusion of Mariana Câmpeanu, Romania’s labour minister. This echoes a widespread idea repeated even by some British politicians. Especially those who argue that we need mass immigration to grow the economy because our own people won’t do the jobs.

It’s true that many Brits don’t work: the number on out-of-work benefits never fell below four million during the Labour boom years and 99.9 per cent of the rise in employment during 1997-2010 can be accounted for by extra immigration. The same is also true under the Tories: most of the employment rise that George Osborne will boast about tomorrow is accounted for by more foreign-born workers (see below).

Screen Shot 2013-12-04 at 08.40.03

Buy how many members of parliament – in Romania or Britain – would work at an 84 per cent tax rate? I certainly wouldn’t. It’s sad to see that even Romania’s ministers are making this point: Brits are giving up on their own people. The ‘idle Brit’ slur is widespread, even amongst some British employers – locals just won’t work, runs the argument, so can they complain about immigrants? The question is why they are reluctant to work. The answer is because they many would not really be paid. Here’s what Ms Câmpeanu says:-

“I do not know in depth the British social welfare system, this is an internal issue of the British Government how generous it can be in its welfare system towards its citizens,” Mrs Campeanu said in an interview in Bucharest. “This should maybe be a reason why many British people do not access the vacancies on the labour market for which Romanian citizens, for example, are going to apply. If there are any vacancies, somebody will fill them, whether they are from Romania, Italy, Spain or wherever.”


There certainly is a reason. The below explains the mismatch between British jobs and British workers – an unreformed welfare state robs work of its economic function. And who would slog their guts out on the minimum wage for fun?


So the same low-paid job will be worth far, far more to a Romanian than a Brit on benefits. That explains why so many foreign workers are happier, keener, more likely to apply – they actually get to keep all of the extra money they earn, while Brits have to sacrifice up to 84 per cent of it. Again, who’d be all zip-a-dee-doo-dah turning up at work when you keep just 16p in every pound you earn? Certainly not me.

So there is nothing lazy about Brits. The problem lies not with our people, but an still-unreformed  welfare system. Iain Duncan Smith’s revolutionary Universal Credit would lower the top rate of effective tax to 65 per cent – still too high, but a vast improvement. When it’s up an running, the Chancellor should say in every budget what this top rate would be, and aim to lower it to 40 per cent.

The top rates of tax in this country are not paid by millionaires. They’re paid by the millions who are caught in a welfare trap. That’s why the Romanians spot such an opportunity here. And that’s why IDS’s Universal Credit cannot come fast enough.

CORRECTION Since posting this blog, I checked and update the figures on employment. The last data series shows a surge in the number of non-immigrants in work – so immigrants now account for a minority of the rise in employment. Rather than swap the graphs, I thought I’d run both (the updated version below). It  looks like this is linked to the robust Work Programme which the government is undertaking. Of course, the Q3 data could be a blip. But if it’s the start of a trend that continues until the election, then that will be a substantial economic accomplishment.

Screen Shot 2013-12-04 at 10.20.29


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Britisher pals, how far do you have to be pushed to the periphery of society before you “hate it and leave it”?
    Jack, Japan Alps

  • Swanky

    Yes, I’ve been saying this for ages and my fellow commenters apparently don’t care. 20% VAT has to come down, for starters. I cannot foresee a return to England on a permanent basis (for myself) unless the HMSS Britain turns around (one S is for Statist and the other S is for Socialist).

  • cyllan

    it is time for the spectator to reveal the real names and occupation of all that despise common sense in this board….shame on you faser nelson… are invaded by anarchistics and radicals and you give voice to them….shame on you

  • paulus

    Your absolutely right Fraser, people on high incomes pay less tax than th poor. And if you know what you are doing you’ll pay nothing.

    The £10,000 threshold was a start, as we all argued, but in future any thresholds should be restricted to the low paid. As income tax is only peripheral to the Governments income.

    If we build social rented housing with restricted rents the social benefits as well as the economic ones will be immense. I say this as a conservative not a liberal conservative, but there is still a sound Liberal argument for a cohesive fully employed society.People with money spend money.

  • sarahsmith232

    If we lived in a society with a free media this would be old news. Females claiming to be single mums work 16hrs, after that they can claim a £35,000 a year existence from the taxpayer. If they work longer hours their benefit money is cut, so what’s the point.
    Labour gets to limit peoples understanding of the issue with their ‘they’re cutting tax credits of the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society’ cue an accompanying BBC ‘report’ on sympathetic looking ‘poor & vulnerable’ mother & frozen/hungry/food bank attending child.
    Something that doesn’t get remarked on is the fact that also, this really holds females down. I’ve seen it. In their 20s it’s an appealing cushdy existence, money coming at them from everywhere and no responsibilities. They don’t want promotion ’cause that involves longer hours. Then they’re still at that level into their 30s, before they know where they are they’ve got even older and they’re still doing just above minimum wage, 16hrs pw jobs. That cushdy existence isn’t anywhere near as appealing then but they’re stuck in a rut.
    If we lived in a society w/ a free media this all would have been shown, Labour’s attacks on the cuts would have been aligned with all of this. Instead the BBC gets free reign. Surely there’s some potential money to be made from a Spectator Internet TV station? Please?

  • Mynydd

    When the difference between out-of-work benefits and wages is considered a disincentive to work, a number of corrections are possible. You could reduce out-of-work benefits, the government’s policy, increase wages, Labours living wage policy, and increase in-work-benefits. Reducing benefits has not worked, it only moves payment from one pot to another, increasing in-work-benefits will increase taxes and subsidies to companies profits that’s shipped overseas, this leaves increasing wages. Of course a cup of coffee may cost a 1p more, a burger 2p more , so what. If a company cannot provide full time work, with a reasonable wage, they should not be in business.

    • rubyduck

      The problem, Daniel, is that, no matter how good your plan for fairness, there’s not enough to go round. Someone has to take the hit, and so far, it’s been the quietly frugal who have suffered to the benefit of the idle and the profligate. In due course the public sector and those on benefits, including the genuinely disabled, are going to have to tighten their belts too.

  • Daniel Maris

    This could be resolved by having:

    A. A flat rate income tax of 20% on ALL income (wrapping up NI as well).

    B. A Citizen’s Income of about £2500 per person.

    C. A graduated property tax set at around 3% for a £600K property.

    D. Child benefit of about £1250 per child (but declining after two children).

    On that basis a two adult two child family living in a £100k flat (paying say 0.5% under a graduated scheme) and with an income of £12000 would receive net £16,600.

    A two adult two child family living in a £600K house (paying 3% property tax) and with an income of £80,000 would receive net £48,500.

    That feels about right to me but you could adjust rates as necessary.

    The beauty of such a system would be of course that you would give people at all income levels, full incentive to work and to better themselves through work. Whatever additional income they earned they would always receive 80% of it.

  • Patricia

    “Idle Britons are allowing Romanians to take jobs,” it says – paraphrasing the conclusion of Mariana Câmpeanu, Romania’s labour minister. ”

    A racial stereotyping if ever I heard one – but it seems they only work one way. If Romanians are so brilliant, M. Campeanu, why can’t they make a decent fist of their own country’s economics ?

    • Ibi

      If Romanians and Bulgarians have had work restrictions, how could they benefit from welfare? How is it possible that no Brit gets benefits only after a thorough screening, as other immigrants without restrictions too, and these Romanians and Bulgarians are being handed benefits on a plate right after they land here? It’s quite fishy.

  • saffrin

    Do something about the poverty trap before you even think about letting these immigrants in.

  • Denis_Cooper

    I see that Hookeslaw has accused me of being an idiot for pointing out:

    “It has long been clear that many British politicians secretly loath and despise the British people, and especially the English.”

    Well, let’s just consider the evidence accumulated over the decades, and ask a few basic questions.

    Do British politicians, elected by the British people to be their representatives, have so much respect for their constituents that they always instinctively shy away from telling them lies or knowingly seeking to deceive them?

    Has it ever occurred to those British politicians that they should ask the British people before they arrange to flood our national homeland with immigrants?

    Are those elected representatives of the British people in Parliament fiercely protective of the legal supremacy of that Parliament, and determined not to see it disempowered and their constituents effectively disenfranchised?

    Do those British representatives of the British people have such respect for their constituents that they will always be ready to refer particularly contentious issues back to the people for their direct decision?

    Are those British politicians always acutely conscious that that when they are taking their salaries and claiming their expenses the money is being taken from the British people, and so they have developed a strong habit of frugality?

    And, finally, does it seem perfectly obvious to those British politicians that the English deserve their own parliament just as much as the Scots?

    Six questions, and the answer to every single one is “no”.

  • Ibi

    The problem lies with Brits being dissempowered in making decisions about their own lives, where personal responsibility is close to nill and this is the result : blame the government for not reforming the welfare system. I have been to many countries and never seen such dependency on institutions like in Britain. Decisions are made in Parliament and the ordinary Brit reaps the outcomes. When everything turns out bad (no money pouring from the state), he or she points the finger to them, the elected commons. It’s a pathetic vicious circle and it looks like the UK government ran out of patches. Instead, it started biting its own tail running around in circles.

  • Danny Stone

    How about reforming the whole system, including the non’elected using their government expertise to succeed in personal affairs, mainly financial frauds? The British economy can’t create well paid opportunities for its citizens when a big slice of it it’s in the personal hands of certain dynasties. I’d like to get why people refuse to look the problem in its real depth and avoid a certain part of our class system involved in this problem. The Brits are squeezed like lemons to make other peoples’ lemonade right in our court yard. The EU certainly has its faults, but why don;t we start looking right here first?

  • Derek

    I love the fact the middle classes can’t have less of their money expropriated until the government stops overspending. What is a Brasenose 1st worth if it teaches you so little?

  • Tom Tom

    Fraser, show us a chart revealing how many times Average Earnings before anyone paid Income Tax in 1960 vs 1980 vs 2012. Show us what proportion of the working population paid any Income Tax over that period

  • bwims

    The only jobs they will be stealing will be in the burglary and pickpocketing area.

  • Smithersjones2013

    That the Spectator has not dismissed such facile bigoted racism out of hand instead of this mealy mouthed semi-acceptance based on a specious and dishonest use of inappropriate statistics is an indictment of how engulfed in the freakery and malevolence of the Westminster mindset Nelson has become. If the British are so idle how is it there are also regular reports that British workers work longer hours than almost any other workers in Europe including scumbag Rumanian bigots!

    Putting aside the likelihood that those out of work benefits referred to probably include those too disabled to work, any level of benefit claimants doesn’t mean that those receiving the benefits are not hard working. A high turnover in jobs and a high turnover in claimants (indicating a somewhat unhealthy business environment) could lead to high levels of claimants whilst not necessarily indicating anywhere near all those people are idle. The key to this is not the number on these benefits but the average length of time that people were on benefits.

    Nelson should hang his head in shame. Either he’s fallen for some vile William Joyce style propaganda or he’s guilty of lazy or malevolent journalism or both.


  • Pedro

    I think you are confusing tax rate (average) with marginal tax rate. They are completely different. When you turn in for work you only get 16p on any “extra” pound you earn. The diferences are subtitle but important. Obviously there is a problem with the marginal tax rates but they shouldn’t be blamed for everything. When a worker is thinking about working he not only takes into account how much he will earn but also the cost of working. Obviously it is better to receive 800 pounds per month with zero hours of work then 1000 pounds with 35 hours of work independent of the marginal tax. It will be very difficult to fix the marginal tax rate problem when people receive such a high income without working.

    • Alexsandr

      you exclude from your argument the costs of working. Travel, suitable clothing, lunches etc.

      • Pedro

        You can include in the costs anything you want. The cost of the bus, clothing, waking up at 7 a.m. and being stuck in the office all day, childcare, etc…

        The idea is that we shouldn’t focus just in the income part and tax rates. The cost part is also very important.

      • Daniel Maris

        Another factor is the cost of the loss of time. If you have 16 hours a day to yourself you can take the time to think about what you are going to eat and when…you can leisurely stroll around the supermarket looking for the bargains…you can take the time to make a nutritious soup out of leftovers.

        If you are working you don’t have the time and when you do have some time you are too knackered to do that sort of planning. You end up paying a lot more for your food.

      • Swanky

        To say nothing of the fact that bosses these days think they own you. Remember “9 to 5″? Ha! Not any more, baby. And now that wi-fi can be wherever you are, there is no real holiday from it, either.

    • HookesLaw

      Totally correct

      • Daniel Maris

        Totally wrong. If you have a flat rate income tax, a citizen’s income payment and a graduated property tax the problem is solved.

  • Crumbs

    Does not compute. If I don’t put a pound in the charity tin, am I taxing the charity by £1?

  • Nkaplan

    While it is both ludicrous and outrageous that it is so expensive to move from unemployment into work, what would also be useful is if we could re-introduce some notion of shame about claiming unneeded benefits – that way even if people earned no more in work than out of it, they could at least derive a sense of pride from being employed.

    Before any leftists respond that this would ‘stigmatise’ the unemployed, please note that I have specifically said the notion of shame should only be linked to ‘unneeded’ benefits – if one accepts benefits because one cannot work (due to illness of lack of jobs) there should be no shame. On the other hand, if one accepts benefits when one could be working then any stigma associated with this is fully appropriate – one should feel ashamed of acting thusly, even if it would not make you any better off financially to take a job.

    • rubyduck

      Nothing wrong with shame – even if it is for reasons beyond your control such as disability. The human animal is designed to feel shame. A disability is a defect, and defects naturally give rise to shame.

  • Horatiu Mihalache

    “So the same low-paid job will be worth far, far more to a Romanian than a Brit on benefits. That explains why so many foreign workers are happier, keener, more likely to apply – they actually get to keep all of the extra money they earn, while Brits have to sacrifice up to 84 per cent of it”

    Are you actually suggesting the immigrants pay less tax? Really??

    They pay the same amount of tax in the UK, plus some other taxes in their own countries, if they don’t reside in the UK.

  • HookesLaw

    This is yet another piece of rubbish from Mr Nelson. Benefits are too generous which is why people are idle. We would all like lower taxes and a successful economy and control of public spending is needed before we can get it.

    This govt have raised the tax threshold significantly and this has been at the expense of the well paid not the low paid.
    It stands to reason that if you are on benefits paying no tax then the job you might acquire would have to be exceptionally well paid to match that after tax and NI. This does not negate the benefit of the work experience and the prospect of furthering ones career. Mr Nelsons 84% – if it has any validity in the first place (since it is of course at the margin) – will come down as someone in work improves his/her prospects.

    Mr Nelson seems to throw out of the window the notion that those in work should contribute through the tax system for those less better off and towards their own needs in the future.

    Benefits the benefits culture the paucity of education and ambition are the culprits. Overall, Mr Nelson again exposes himself to the unfitness for the job he holds.

    • John Lea

      Ah, I see, work is it’s own reward. And those in work – let’s say a cleaner, for example, earning £12k a year – should consider it their moral duty to fund, through their taxes, some long-term unemployed waster to sit around watching tv all day whilst picking up an annual cheque for twice as much? Not forgetting to ensure that his council tax, electricity and gas bills, optometry and dental care are all provided gratis. Lovely.

    • Daniel Maris

      Get off your high horse, Hooky…you look ridiculous. Mr Nelson has made an intelligent contribution to debate on an important subject.

  • Magnolia

    I was with you until the last paragraph.
    Withdrawal of benefit might be a financial penalty but it is not a tax.
    I argued that the withdrawal of CB for single income families would feel like a tax rise because it was in effect the withdrawal of a relief.
    In the case of the low paid British workers the withdrawal of their essential standard of living benefits feels like a massive tax.
    We need to ask ourselves why there are so many jobs which pay a wage on which it is not possible to live in this country?
    We need to acknowledge that the benefit structure is preventing slums because the economy is not really functioning properly for the majority of the population.
    That is the real issue.

    • Alexsandr

      why are we taxing people on very low incomes. I refer you to my comment on this topic re NI. This insidious tax kicks in at a very low wage.
      We used to pretend its insurance. It is no such thing, its a tax.

      • HookesLaw

        Lets be clear – despite Mr Nelsons rubbish.
        The tax allowance is 10k and the bottom rate of tax is 20%. We would all like one to be bigger and one to be smaller but it is hardly extortionate.
        National Insurance contributes to your pension – you get something back. Otherwise you would still have to save for your pension, no matter what your income, even if no NI

        • Alexsandr

          and osbourne has stolen my SERPS and graduated pension.
          And I don’t trust the government to wriggle out from paying me state pension

          • HookesLaw

            Your a hysteric. Its easier to live in your fantasy world than frame a rational argument

        • Seth_the_pig_farmer

          NI doesn’t go towards your pension. It just goes into the big pot to pay for current expenditure. Lets hope our children are willing to do the same.

      • Magnolia

        I would prefer that NI was some form of proper insurance and that everyone who wanted to benefit from it contributed to it even if only in a very small token way.

        • HookesLaw

          Well yes, and in the sense that the costs of pensions were rising then the NI should rise. We should not lose the link between the benefit of a pension and its cost.

  • Rhoda Klapp8

    The welfare state is supposed to be compassionate, but the way it works out is to rob its victims of their dignity as it purports to help them. You wouldn’t do that to anybody you really cared about, so one has to conclude that Denis Cooper is right. Our masters despise us. They in fact welcome immigrants because they are not tainted with the indigenous.

  • HD2

    I agree. Add no benefits paid until you’ve paid NI for 5 years and Min wage (£13k pa) pensions from 80 (90 from 2040 – both phased over 10yrs, so you get an additional 10% of your final total pension each year over 70/80. At present it’s 0% >100% over 24hrs) and you’ve got the job done.

  • Alexsandr

    the elephant in the room is NI. This is the bog disincentive to employing people and is a big hit in low paid peoples wage packets.
    But no one talks about NI when discussing taxes do they?
    Roll it into income tax.

    • HookesLaw

      This would I believe affect the self employed quite significantly so not a real vote winner certainly for tories.

      • Alexsandr

        more it would hit non employment income, i.e investment income.

        but why should investment income get a better tax deal than employment income?

        (OK you would need to protect the elderly)

        • HookesLaw

          You can get a certain amount of investment income tax free via TESSAs . Another word for investment income is ‘savings’.

          • Alexsandr

            or you can do peer to peer and get the whole fruit of your investment without some bank stealing most of your interest.

  • Andy

    We need radical reform of the tax and benefits systems. And we need a radical reform of the State, how it works, what it does and how much dosh it spends. Pity is we wont get any of this. Politicians love spending money, even if they have to borrow it.

    • John Lea

      The political class are too afraid to reform the welfare system, for fear of being seen as heartless, cruel and picking on the (so-called) poorest and most vulnerable in society. Ditto: the NHS. They’re in thrall to the BBC and left-wing press. That’s why you have idiots like Sara Teather (sic) resigning over welfare cuts. Can you imagine her – or any other politician for that matter – resigning over the tax burden currently placed on low and middle-income earners? No, course not. But as soon as they cut welfare benefits in line with average earnings, the left-wing idiots go mad.

      • HookesLaw

        The NHS is being reformed.
        But basically when you say ‘reform’ the NHS you mean charge people more for it – which is hardly a vote winner.

        • John Lea

          No, I mean stop treating it as if it’s perfect and beyond criticism, and spreading the destructive notion that everyone who works within its hallowed corridors is some sort of modern-day Florence Nightingale. But, like the welfare system, as soon as you give voice to the idea that the NHS is flawed and needs to be reformed, you are immediately jumped on by the usual left-wing idiots and accused of wishing to see it destroyed completely. No politician will ever come out and say the NHS is a mess and needs to be fundamentally overhauled – they’d be sacked the same day. We need someone like Gove, who regularly and bravely tells the teaching unions how utterly useless most of their membership are, to step forward and commit career hari-kari for the greater good of the nation.

          • Andy

            I agree that Gove is a brave man, but look at the thanks he gets for it. The test results reported yesterday are a reminder of how the Fascist Labour Party has destroyed the lives of a generation of our children. When is the criminal organisation going to be liquidated ?

            • John Lea

              I agree, Andy, Gove is brave and vilified by the left for telling it how it is. I suspect the silent majority are on his side, but as usual the vocal minority loathe him and use media outlets to broadcast their anger, thereby manufacturing ‘news’. Not sure when the Labour Party are going to be liquidated, but hopefully the British public are not so stupid as to elect them again any time soon.

              • Andy

                By ‘media outlets’ you mean the BBC, which never misses an opportunity to slag off a Conservative.

      • Ibi

        You need also a reform at the personal level, Stop transferring responsibility to the state. By nature, the humans should take responsibility and not pass it to institutions.Crying babies!

        • Andy

          Yes but to do that you need to take an axe to the Welfare State, and no Party will do that. The Middle Classes are as much sucked into it as the poor (look at the agro re child benefit for God’s sake), and actually it seems to be designed to keep the poor.

          • Ibi

            You hit the nail in the head: “designed to keep the poor” . Well said. The question that follows is “why?”. Is it just for political gain or there are also other reasons the Brits are educated not to look at in depth? I’m boldly referring to the nonelected people who seem to take no responsibility, they are actually presented in the ‘nonresponsible, naive package’ to the public. And the public is left with the commons and themselves or, why not outsiders/immigrants?, to pick and choose the guilty.

            • Andy

              I missed off a word. Should have read ‘designed to keep the poor poor’.

    • Tom Tom

      If The People do not control The State they do not control its appetite

  • Seth_the_pig_farmer

    To make worse, we then take educated and employable people out of the productive sector and employ them in the state sector to administer the redistribution of money in taxes and benefits – often to the same people!

    • HookesLaw

      Jobs in the public sector are being lost under this government. All countries have a public sector

  • Denis_Cooper

    It has long been clear that many British politicians secretly loath and despise the British people, and especially the English.

    • HookesLaw

      What an idiot you are

      • Denis_Cooper

        OK chum, when do you think that your hero Cameron is going to come out and say:

        “The English deserve their own parliament as much as the Scots, and they should have one”?

        • Andy

          Well more chance of him saying it that Ed the Pole. After all the Fascists need the 40+ Scottish seats they hold and the 20+ seats in Wales to gain control in England. Devolution was only ever about the Fascist Labour Party.

          • Denis_Cooper

            Since he became Tory leader he’s had eight years during which he could have said it, but he’s said the opposite; if he said it now then that would not be because he meant it but only because he thought he might be able to dupe some voters in England to vote for his rotten useless party.

      • cyllan

        you are the idiot when common facts stare you on the face….who are you working for?????????

    • telemachus

      You find these politicians in UKIP and the Tory Parties


      This is why I continue to emphasise the importance of reasonableness and caring

      Our greatest asset cares
      Ed Balls: has a sensitive, caring side : Photograph: Murdo Macleod

      • Colonel Mustard
      • bwims

        What a complete and utter w’nker you are, you pathetic troll

        • Alexsandr

          he is from Newark :)

          • Smithersjones2013

            My sympathies to Newark!

        • Neotelemachus

          He is Idiot #1 and a mental defective labtard troll. He only posts here and is Balls’s catamite, sent to spread his leftard filth amongst the true believers. He is a waste of space but very funny.

          • Graeme S

            Catamite — you hit the nail right on the head !!

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Ed Balls cares sensitively and passionately about his own self-interest and absolutely nothing and nobody else. Balls is also the most emetic human being in Britain. With 16 years of complete and unremitting failure behind him, it is a wonder of the age that he aspires to be Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than a minor functionary in a sewage plant (a post for which he is massively underqualified).

        • telemachus

          Ed makes us all smile
          Which one of the coalition has that attribute?

          • Nicholas chuzzlewit

            Michael Gove makes me smile as he scours the filth of socialism and its doctrine of mediocrity and failure from the British education system.

      • cyllan

        you r a labour traitor y will rather see a non english england……you disgust me……say your real name and who you r working for ….. traitor

    • Ibi

      what a victim you are! they don’t love us, we are so good and there is probably a conspiracy too! “Mommy I’m a little child” , for crying out loud.

      • Denis_Cooper

        If you think that I’m wrong then you should be easily able to provide good reasons for answering “yes” to the six questions I have posted above; so over to you to do that.

    • Austin Barry

      “Secretly loath and despise”?

      There’s no secret about it – look around as “Operation Replacement” continues its implacable advance.

    • London Calling

      I don’t believe that many British politicians loath and despise the British people………I do believe however many wouldn’t work for the low wages on offer and wouldn’t apply for them…………………………………………………………… Fraser : ‘And that’s why IDS’s Universal Credit cannot come fast enough’ I can see all kinds of problems with Universal Credit, letting claimants take control of their money means the rent wont get paid in many cases and all kinds of debt problems arising………………..

Can't find your Web ID? Click here