To think UC's new AET is fucking ridiculous?

It's different for everyone depending how many kids people have, when the kids were born, whether they pay rent, whether people on the claim have disabilities, whether they are carers etc or have childcare costs. The payments can run into thousands a month for some people if they have high rent and high childcare costs.

How much is this UC payment? On top of £892 income a month. I am just curious.

I'm a single parent of 3 kids, and I earn the equivalent of about 24 hrs a week at min wage, so well above the AET. Got migrated to UC a year ago and it's been straight forward so far. But now UC have given me an appointment for a Work Search Review. Not sure why, or what they're expecting? But wondering if they're now going to start harassing people earn between the AET and CET to find more employment?

I also work full time, granted I am blessed to work from home so I have a bit of flexibility, but I do not begrudge people making sensible decisions which suit their life, especially while their DC are young.

Not everybody has the support network around them to be able to work FT all of their DC's lives.

Not everything should be measured solely in financial cost, and when finances are considered, you need to look at the big picture and include all of the associated costs for each model. There is no sense in making a woman of 2 young DC under 5 go from a MW job which fits around her children's schedule to FT, if the result is that the extra earnings she makes will also be entitled to claim hundreds of extra £'s a month to cover that childcare. It's great that that is a choice for parents, but it shouldn't me mandated.

IMO the 18 hour system is a fair and reasonable compromise. My issue is with this "tax payer funded easy lifestyle". It doesn't make economic nor moral sense to condemn people for taking jobs which make their lives more manageable.

Did I say I had a problem with the additional 2 hours required, or was I replying to somebody who said generally that people should not work (any reduced hours at all) to fit around their lives?

Oh yeah, fuck people doing jobs that fit around their lives, they should all be down at the work houses doing 12 hours a day while the government pay their £2k childcare bill instead, much more economically sound

There is a difference between working 12 hour days, 5 days a week, 47 weeks a year (2820 hours) and working 20 hour weeks term time only (780 hours). I don’t think there is much wrong with expecting people who claim benefits to attempt to up their hours and increase their earnings when they are only working 780 hours a year. She’s being asked to work less than 2 extra hours a month - you’re making out she’s being asked to almost quadruple her hours and work around 1000 hours a year more than a standard full time worker. She’s not.

Im in Scotland so maybe different here but it’s £796 earnings limit a month. *12/52/11.44 works out to 16.05 hours a week.

Also incorrect.

I think if you work 16 hours you are still entitled to fsm/ uniform grants and things.

This is insane. You cannot MAKE an employer give you more hours, pay you more if the resources aren't there. You may very well get a P45 if your employer feels you are being a pest and they decide to employ someone younger and cheaper and less of a nuisance.

Plus, if you are on zero hours contract you cannot do much about it.

JobCentres do not operate in the real world. I sometimes think the staff should be made to live on UC for say, six months. I think it would make them a little bit more compassionate to be on the clients side of the desk.

Hi, that's what my post says. Some people won't work more than 16 hours because that will impact on their UC. If they stay at 16 hours, their benefits aren't impacted. This is info I have received from people who are receipt of UC

This is insane. You cannot MAKE an employer give you more hours, pay you more if the resources aren't there. You may very well get a P45 if your employer feels you are being a pest and they decide to employ someone younger and cheaper and less of a nuisance.

Plus, if you are on zero hours contract you cannot do much about it.

JobCentres do not operate in the real world. I sometimes think the staff should be made to live on UC for say, six months. I think it would make them a little bit more compassionate to be on the clients side of the desk.

hi, can someone explain the £892 calculation. 18 hours x £11.44 is 205 per week and £823 per month, where does £892 come from? Thanks

I'm quite lucky that I have an extremely understanding manager who has said I can do an extra hour a month if need be.

But what about people who don't have that option? What if they are contracted to earn a certain amount a month and can't get the hours to meet the AET threshold? They would be expected to find another job, but what if they love the job they are in, & it fits around their family? What if they can't work anymore hours because of childcare or an illness? I would be livid if I was expected to find another employer, my work fits in so perfectly with school pick up/drop off.

It's the taking time off work to attend a work coach meeting that really gets my blood boiling, who in the fuck decided on that? What if your boss will not let you have the time off and you get sanctioned? Then you can't feed your family because you rely on UC?

The whole system infuriates me & I think it's so so bloody unfair.

Hi, that's what my post says. Some people won't work more than 16 hours because that will impact on their UC. If they stay at 16 hours, their benefits aren't impacted. This is info I have received from people who are receipt of UC

Exactly. You work half a normal week but can't afford to live off that so the tax payer tops you up? You need a different job that fully funds your lifestyle.

It's infuriating to think people opt to work part time and then expect domeone elsecto may it up to a full wage without doing anything for it.

You can't expect to stay in a job with limited earnings just because you like it and fits in with your lifestyle whilst expecting the taxpayers to pick up the bill though. Fair enough if you absolutely can't make it work any other way.

Precisely, I mean the minimum is just that, a minimum amount that must be earned in order to access top up benefits. Too many people look at the minimum as a maximum that they will work in order to get as much as they can which is fine to a point but to be bitching and moaning about having to go to a meeting or work a little bit more is ridiculous. I mean the amount earned is not enough to even pay income tax. I wonder if the OP has ever stopped to think about where the funds would come from to pay UC if all working parents just decided that course of action.

This is insane. You cannot MAKE an employer give you more hours, pay you more if the resources aren't there. You may very well get a P45 if your employer feels you are being a pest and they decide to employ someone younger and cheaper and less of a nuisance.

Plus, if you are on zero hours contract you cannot do much about it.

JobCentres do not operate in the real world. I sometimes think the staff should be made to live on UC for say, six months. I think it would make them a little bit more compassionate to be on the clients side of the desk.