Working families £18k worse off than benefits claimants after budget

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS

What people are failing to grasp is that it would cost the taxpayer even MORE if we forced Mums back into work. A mother with two kids pre school-age in my area, paying £1000 a month in private rent would get £1580.76 a month UC. I think we can all agree that would be a pitiful existence raising two children on £500 a month after rental costs for all bills, food and living costs.

If the same Mum worked 16 hours a week, she’d pay no tax. Assuming p/t childcare for both children was £600 for each, she would earn £880 a month in wages and get £2342.23 in UC. Total income after rent and childcare is £1022, so over £500 better off than not working.

If she worked full time, and the children were in full time nursery (£1200 a month each) she’d earn £2037 and pay £270 tax/NI. She’d get £2607.70 in UC and take home £1760 in wages. After rent and childcare she’d have £967 left to live on.

So not only is she worse off after childcare is paid than working part-time, it also costs the taxpayer more for her to go to work full-time.

I think we’d be cutting our noses off to spite our faces if we were to force mothers with young children into full time work. She would suffer, her children would suffer, and the taxpayer would suffer. But maybe some pps would be happy to pay extra taxes to support it just out of jealousy. And if they think someone is getting something they’re not, they can always stop work and try and run a home and raise 2 children on £500 a month.

I’m sorry but that’s laughable. You have a duty to try to support yourself and your family it’s not up to the Taxpayer to pay you to stay at home. . Most taxpayers would not have an issue with helping to support those in full time work and on a low wage. I certainly have no problem with it. They are contributing. And once the children are in school that wage becomes their own apart from taxes. But there’s a common thread again running through this it’s mums, mums, mums. Where are the FATHERS who should be supporting their children? It may not be a popular fact but the reason why children live in poverty is because the FATHERS don’t contribute to their children l’a upbringing This is the real problem and that is not the fault of the taxpayer

The government should test it. Half benefits in April and watch the vacancies disappear. We used to be a nation of shop keepers now we are a nation of piss takers.

Ah, OK. The good old 'thoughts and lived experience.'

It is my thoughts and lived experience. I have come across lots of people who would take a job if the government didn't give them a comfortable enough live.

Sources?

A few posters have said that part time working should not be allowed, but your point proves that part time is sometimes all there is available, be it due to caring responsibilities or the nature of the job.

If you are in a job where you don't know what hours you are doing week to week, you can't get another that slots around your non-existent rota. So you end up doing less hours (but still have to put your life on hold in case more hours are offered), get a UC top up, and then get berated on here for being lazy and not working more.

I don't think it's a terms and conditions issue. People have used the analogy of hospitality and I think it's fair in terms of zero hour contracts, antisocial hours and low pay. There are still lots of people willing to work in the sector because it's intrinsically more desirable work. I would choose a job in a restaurant over a care home any day of the week. Most people would. That's the problem we have. The work is undesirable yet hugely in demand. We do need to effectively push people into the sector.

It was easy to sponsor someone from abroad to come and work in care in the UK. You didn't need any evidence that they were particularly good at the role or had a specific skillset. Since July rules have been tightened though so we will see where that takes us when we can no longer import our carers and need to rely on our own population to care for our vulnerable people. I still stand by the fact that nobody will do these undesirable jobs unless they are incentivised sufficiently. This will involve some carrot but also a lot of stick. It's too easy now just to choose to stay on benefits and not work.

They should be forced to do any work that is going. Too many people take the piss out of their fellow citizens coming up with reason why they can't work. Half benefits and I bet these roles would be filled within a month.

The young men who could aren't doing it because it is easy to collect the dole and play on a X box.

So is childcare so surely if its ok to put the elderly at risk by forcing ppl to do the job who really dont want to do it then its ok to do that to other groups no? Why should it only be the elderly who should be potential collateral damage?

Yep, that's about the measure of it or of course they could do the caring themselves. I can hear the arguments about why they couldn't possibly do this already but of course they expect some stranger to willingly do it. Someone somewhere has to do the care work. It's either often unwilling and reluctant family members or people that we can push into the sector who can't find alternative employment. There aren't really any other options.

Except they can't because, as was pointed out, if you live in social housing or get help towards your rent, you're not allowed to pootle off somewhere else to live for X weeks of the year, unless we change those rules.

The caravans and tents they sleep in are also not suitable for families, nor are the sites anywhere near most schools.

There are reasons Brits don't work as fruit pickers, and it's not because they prefer living on £400 a month, which is the going rate for UC for a single person.

What people are failing to grasp is that it would cost the taxpayer even MORE if we forced Mums back into work. A mother with two kids pre school-age in my area, paying £1000 a month in private rent would get £1580.76 a month UC. I think we can all agree that would be a pitiful existence raising two children on £500 a month after rental costs for all bills, food and living costs.

If the same Mum worked 16 hours a week, she’d pay no tax. Assuming p/t childcare for both children was £600 for each, she would earn £880 a month in wages and get £2342.23 in UC. Total income after rent and childcare is £1022, so over £500 better off than not working.

If she worked full time, and the children were in full time nursery (£1200 a month each) she’d earn £2037 and pay £270 tax/NI. She’d get £2607.70 in UC and take home £1760 in wages. After rent and childcare she’d have £967 left to live on.

So not only is she worse off after childcare is paid than working part-time, it also costs the taxpayer more for her to go to work full-time.

I think we’d be cutting our noses off to spite our faces if we were to force mothers with young children into full time work. She would suffer, her children would suffer, and the taxpayer would suffer. But maybe some pps would be happy to pay extra taxes to support it just out of jealousy. And if they think someone is getting something they’re not, they can always stop work and try and run a home and raise 2 children on £500 a month.

You are obviously not looking hard enough. The care sector for instance is crying out for people

Brits could live on site too. They complain enough about the cost of housing. Win win. Highly skilled people generally understand that you move to where the work is, lowly skilled people seem to expect people to bring the work to them. It is all about mentality.

Brits could live on site too. They complain enough about the cost of housing. Win win. Highly skilled people generally understand that you move to where the work is, lowly skilled people seem to expect people to bring the work to them. It is all about mentality.

@Bumblebee72

No one should be allowed to sit at home on their Xbox when there are veg to be picked.

I imagine it's this bit. It's been a while since I last visited London, but I don't remember seeing many veg farms last time I was there. Fruit pickers tend to live on site; that's why it is a popular job for migrants; they travel here to pick fruit for our season, then move on to the next country when our season ends.

Yep, that's about the measure of it or of course they could do the caring themselves. I can hear the arguments about why they couldn't possibly do this already but of course they expect some stranger to willingly do it. Someone somewhere has to do the care work. It's either often unwilling and reluctant family members or people that we can push into the sector who can't find alternative employment. There aren't really any other options.

@Bumblebee72

No one should be allowed to sit at home on their Xbox when there are veg to be picked.

I imagine it's this bit. It's been a while since I last visited London, but I don't remember seeing many veg farms last time I was there. Fruit pickers tend to live on site; that's why it is a popular job for migrants; they travel here to pick fruit for our season, then move on to the next country when our season ends.

People are going to have to start contributing more to the cost of their parents care if they want to subcontract caring for family to the state.

What people are failing to grasp is that it would cost the taxpayer even MORE if we forced Mums back into work. A mother with two kids pre school-age in my area, paying £1000 a month in private rent would get £1580.76 a month UC. I think we can all agree that would be a pitiful existence raising two children on £500 a month after rental costs for all bills, food and living costs.

If the same Mum worked 16 hours a week, she’d pay no tax. Assuming p/t childcare for both children was £600 for each, she would earn £880 a month in wages and get £2342.23 in UC. Total income after rent and childcare is £1022, so over £500 better off than not working.

If she worked full time, and the children were in full time nursery (£1200 a month each) she’d earn £2037 and pay £270 tax/NI. She’d get £2607.70 in UC and take home £1760 in wages. After rent and childcare she’d have £967 left to live on.

So not only is she worse off after childcare is paid than working part-time, it also costs the taxpayer more for her to go to work full-time.

I think we’d be cutting our noses off to spite our faces if we were to force mothers with young children into full time work. She would suffer, her children would suffer, and the taxpayer would suffer. But maybe some pps would be happy to pay extra taxes to support it just out of jealousy. And if they think someone is getting something they’re not, they can always stop work and try and run a home and raise 2 children on £500 a month.

With the rapid development in AI we fewer but more highly skilled people in the country. Lots of entry level jobs are going. There will be a two classes as a result - those who do manual/unautomatable jobs and those in skilled work.

This is why many people are moving to vote for Reform - they see the bigger picture. We need tightly controlled bordered and we need unskilled Brits to do the unskilled work. No one should be allowed to sit at home on their Xbox when there are veg to be picked.

These days many Labour voter vote "labour" to be ironic. They don't know what a days labour actually is.

I didn't say there were loads of good carers, sadly the opposite seems to be the case. But I tell you what, the sums we are now forking over for a measly 2 hours' care a day for my mum, I'd be interested to know how much care company owners and senior staff generally are taking home. It's hard to believe they can only afford to pay carers NMW, that's all I'm going to say.