New UC rules to force both partners to work ??

[Citrusmuffin]

I can’t find anything online about this but have heard it’s being changed as previously there had to be a certain number of hours worked but this could be by just one partner but now it’s being changed to make both work even though the total household hours don’t change??

This seems very unfair and taking away choice for some families in difficult circumstances. I just can’t find the official guidance is anyone able to link to it ? Thanks

Exactly.

i think employers are going to have to think hard about flexibility of hours and job sharing etc . But we need those 100000 in the workforce .

the first rule of economics is as full employment as you can manage . Then those taxes and NI can pay for those in need.

I know someone who could work , but does not and to be fair her benefits are low . But every person like that adds up .

I also have a family member who really really struggles to work because of health problems and her childrens health problems . But she does , every single day .

if your SEN child is in school then I can’t see why a parent cant work at least part time. I’m a single parent, have a serious health condition, an SEN child and work 4 days a week. Yes, my work is flexible so i leave early to ensure i am home for his taxi, but make up those hours in the evening. And having DLA does mean i can afford to have 1 day off during the week, to catch up on all the broken nights sleep, or take DS to appointments etc.
I am working to try and put as much money away as possible for DS’s future, as he will need lifelong support and I want to make sure there are at least some funds there to help with that.

Can you claim dla and carers ? It might take the pressure off so you don’t have to do that ? Long term for your health that could be damaging and depending on your job or if you drive or operate machinery could be dangerous for you and others ?

DLA I probably could. Wouldn't be enough to make a difference though, a few hundred pounds per month. Carers no, I believe it is means tested?

What would make a difference would be if as a lone parent I wasn't being taxed way more than a couple with the same household income. And that money used to pay other people not to work when they could so taxes didn't have to be sky high!

@Citrusmuffin If your child has a diagnosis then it's very simple to get DLA. My 8yr old was awarded after I filled out the form and included her diagnosis report. Yeah it was a long wait but I didn't need to do anything else. The process was very simple. She now gets middle rate care & standard rate mobility

Because you don’t know my diagnosis, my childs or how much or what type of home education we are able to do daily. You don’t have any of the facts so to say ‘ if you can do this you can then do this as well’ is from a place of total ignorance

I’m hoping we get awarded we are just waiting for a decision 🤞

I also have a family member who really really struggles to work because of health problems and her childrens health problems . But she does , every single day .

This is me. I do it because I just about can, so I should. I think many (NOT all, but many) who say they "can't" mean "it would be really hard", which is not the same.

You just get on with it. So many excuses from people when in reality many people COULD, they just don't want to.

Lots of us would like more time with our children, or more sleep, etc. But in reality for society to function and there to be sufficient money to fund decent education and healthcare, everybody who can work needs to work, as much as they can. When a large proportion of people decide not to it impoverishes everyone and makes life even harder for the small proportion of the population of only 20% (40% of 50%) who are the net contributors and are expected to pay more and more for others to do less and less.

Yet any comments on these basic economic facts are usually met with accusations of being heartless. I think it's pretty heartless to force others to pay such high taxes to fund you not working at all that they can have no work life balance and their families suffer for that. You can't have a society where some people only take and then gaslight those providing everything as being "heartless" for objecting to it.

I read a post on the thread the other day that I referred to saying it was fine to give up your job out of choice simply because you'd calculated that you'd get more in benefits. And that it was nobody else's business to comment on it. So unbelievably entitled and selfish and these types of people are the ones who will destroy the welfare state for everyone. They are the ones that have led to such awful conditions being imposed on the disabled, for example. There would be much more money to help those genuinely in need and improve public services for everyone if people were decent and honest and genuinely only took money from the state when there was no other option, rather than just because they are "entitled" to and not working would be nicer.

OP I don't know why you're arguing against something that won't affect you or people in a similar position. The setup that ensures those who can't work don't have to might not be perfect but it is fair to try to ensure those who can work do.

This is a sensible change in policy. My BIL wouldn’t let my SIL work (because he wanted someone at home looking after him with his tea on the table when he returned from work and couldn’t manage two well behaved neuro typical children on his own in the evenings or weekends). However, he was quite happy to claim tax credits because his salary couldn’t cover everything. Utter bullshit.

It is far better to keep women in work and cover childcare costs for a period of time than it is to allow them to drop out of work. They will be building up their pensions and are less likely to be financially abused. Also, we have an ageing population and a skills shortage. It is crazy to import more people to do jobs when we have SAHP that could be doing them.

But of that 25%:

• Roughly a third report being long term sick.
• A quarter are students.
• Some are older workers who have taken early retirement on private pensions.
• Less than 5% are unemployed, and some frictional unemployment is inevitable in a flexible labour market.

We're broke that is why they are squeezing more people out to work. As my mother used to say I can't afford you and now the DWP can't afford you.

How is it unfair? If you're in a household where one partner can afford not to work then you have that choice. If one of you is only affording it by the household claiming UC, that's expecting the taxpayer to prop up your lifestyle choices - not ok. Two lots of wages means two lots of NI being paid, which helps the government, more tax being paid too maybe and probably will result in less UC claimants overall. I'm all for benefits and the welfare state but it shouldn't be available as a lifestyle choice. If you can get paid X amount on benefits and you can earn the same amount working, you should be working (as long as fit for work). If both partners work it helps in the cases of relationship breakdown too, after the split there's not one working and one on full UC while they try to find an employer to take them on despite not having worked for ages.

It is happening. Lots of people are already getting called in for meetings with their work coaches. If you are a carer or have kids under 3 you have no work commitments. I think it's fair enough. you claim UC in return for agreeing to look for work, they want everyone back to work and there is no benefit to people being out of work long term. I do think it's a little unfair in some cases, like there was a thread on here the other day where the partner was working 50+ hours a week and the sahp was moaning about not wanting to work, but at the end of the day the earnings thresholds are still ridiculously low anyway so I'm not sure what there is to complain about ?

👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻

• Roughly a third report being long term sick.
• A quarter are students.
• Some are older workers who have taken early retirement on private pensions.
• Less than 5% are unemployed, and some frictional unemployment is inevitable in a flexible labour market.

A lot of students work so they won't be included in that figure. Some older workers have retired early but that would account for only ~2m of the 15m working age people not working at all.

And many of the 30m people who do work clearly don't work full time.

It really isn't sustainable economically.

True. Lone parents who are still on the old tax credits system and allowed to still work 16 hours even when their kids are teenagers and couples just 24 hours between them to claim working tax credits . It has been crazy rules for a long time and things needed to change.

If you are a carer or have kids under 3 you have no work commitments. I think it's fair enough.

Why? Why should somebody be subsidised by the state to be able to stay with their child until they are 3 when most mothers have to go back to work when their child is 9-12 months old?

Yes the government don't have enough tax revenue coming in, we have an ageing population to support and increasing levels of illness and a lot more people making claims for disability benefits. It has to be paid for somehow.

They haven't bought the changes in yet, that both partners have to work and single parents have to do 30 hours but it was in the budget just haven't implemented it yet. I imagine it will be scheduled for when the childcare changes come in

I totally agree, I do think, if you have no health conditions or caring responsibility’s benefits should only be payable for 12 weeks, it would stop so many people working cash in hand and still claiming full benefits. Or bring in some sort of mandatory voluntary work so individuals gain the experience and skills they need to be get employment. It’s not rocket science. Benefits should not be used as “free wages” you want something out of the system you should put something in

for society to function we actually need to have a jobs market that pays people enough to live in our society dont we? the vast majority of people claiming benefits are actually IN work but do not have enough to feed, house and clothe themselves without the state propping up the system. The government would be better looking towards all that they are needing to do in terms of providing enough social, secure housing, adequate healthcare & care provision to allow those on long term sick to be in work and a decent education to allow children to leave school with the skills to plug the gapping skills gaps in our workforce . You're describing into the typical Tory thinking about people "not doing their bit" when their own policies have left many people even less able to contribute.

Is there a job that you can do around your child? Something in the evenings or weekend if your partner if off? Obviously difficult to say without knowing your partners hours? Are you caring for your child 24/7?

Do we not have a national minimum wage?

OP says not well enough to work

Yes I think once the childcare funding for babies from 9 months comes in then it's reasonable.