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

It's not to help with the benefit bill. Basically since BREXIT and the cost if living rising the amount of people available to work shitty minimum wage jobs has gone down because no one can live in those and this is pissing off shitty employers who don't want to pay a living wage.

So the solution to this is to force people to work those jobs - even if this makes no financial sense for their family because they would actually make more from one person working overtime.

The ones who are working ARE paying for it. It's not "right wing" to say that people who could work or work more shouldn't be claiming income-based benefits on the premise that their income is not sufficient.

So the solution to this is to force people to work those jobs - even if this makes no financial sense for their family because they would actually make more from one person working overtime.

If the other person could work overtime to increase their income then why aren't they doing that already? Rather than claiming UC from the taxpayer?

If people maximised their possible earnings like this then new measures to stop people taking advantage probably wouldn't have been introduced.

Wait, people are arguing about couple having to do a combined number of 29 hours a week work! I thought we were talking about 60-70 hours a week plus!

So one person can work full time and the other a couple of hours in the evening or one day a weekend? I don't see the issue, no childcare issues.

And I know people will come up with all the excuses in the world but you just have to make it work and many of us have and do.

The following is proposed from Sept 2023

The AET is rising to 29 hours a week for a couple. They can do this between them, or one person in the couple can do all of the hours. However, there is a catch meaning for most couples both will have to work.

The couple’s CET used to be £567. That was doable for one working person. It rose to £782 last September. Still doable for one person. In January, it went up to £988…getting tricky. The proposed change for September 2023 is for a couple’s CET to be £1309. Can be done with one person working full time on NLW. However, they are making Light Touch no longer voluntary engagement, so the non working parent will need to do work searches even if the couple’s CET is met.

29 hours between two people?! And no childcare cost. And people are complaining? Bloody hell. What a joke.

Shift work is your friend here. Tag team. Dh can work whilst you are at home and switch over evenings and weekends. Millions of families do it. Why should the state prop anyone up? Either that or your dh finds well paid employment to fund your family - or you - depending on the person most capable of earning the most so the second person stays at home.
I also feel for the majority of SEN children (extreme cases excluded) mixing with the rest of society. Learning social rules and etiquette is key to their future! The aim for most will be independence and paid employment, a family of their own etc which all hangs on their ability to navigate the world - not locking them away.

Yes it’s 29 hours. If one person earns £1309 a month (NLW x35 x4) is above that they have met the CET also. However the non working person does need to engage now with UC when before they didn’t. They basically need to earn 1309 between them working 29 hours between them

It still seems too soft, agreed.

A taxpayer earning £40k a year on a standard tax code and contributing 6% into a pension pays just over £5,000 in tax, so it takes nearly 4 of them to just support that non working couple!

What, won't save any money by having a person contribute towards their own pension

I thought the NI being paid now pays for todays pensioners. Which is it?

Plenty of jobs in care or children's homes can offer those hours or Tesco has a night shift or Amazon warehouse if one is close by. Loads of options out there for you and now we have Brexit even more jobs.

I think it's changed again. I think it's 18 x nmw each at least.

Okay let me see if I can do this with maths:

Person A gets paid 10 an hour with overtime paid at 12. Overtime is easily and readily available.

Person B can only find a job which pays 9 an hour.

Their options are:

Person A works a 40 hour week and then 15 hours overtime. This works out to around (10x40 = 400, 12x15= 180) 580 gross per week. They pay for one lot of travel, and one lot of work clothes. There is one commute.

Person A works a 40 hour week. Person B works a 15 hour week. This works out to around (10x40 = 400, 15x9 = 135) 535 gross per week although this is raised slightly in take home due to tax allowances. However there are now two lots of travel to pay for, two lots of work clothes and you lose an extra 1-2 hours per day due to tge second commute.

Both couple still need UC because wages are low.

Why don't you work opposite shifts? Supermarkets are 24 hours, bar work is evenings etc etc. I also love how your mindset is "how can we do bare minimum and still claim". In your mind you are thinking well I do x hours a week so he would just need to work the hours I drop. Not well if I do days and he does nights we would have 2 full time wages and probably no need to claim, you'd also be paying more into the system via our taxes. You just don't think like this though because you are happy to claim and work bare minimum.

My parents worked opposite shifts for years as they couldn't afford to pay childcare. Having a sahp is a luxury many people just can't afford anymore. We have 3 children and both have full on jobs, we have to pay for childcare like many families. The cost of childcare coupled with the amount that is taken out our wages in tax and ni for both of us is depressing to be quite Frank, add our pensions and student loans we see a large proportion of our earnings gone (yes a pension is an investment, but we still have to pay those high contributions). We work our socks off in what would be considered decent paid jobs but I can bet our take home pay isn't much more than someone sat doing bare min with a benefit top up.

It just amazes me how people aren't embarassed to say they are relying on benefits to top them up when not working is a lifestyle choice, in reality they could work opposite shifts and juggle like many hard working people do. I would applaud getting these people who are able to work (who arent disabled or caring for a disabled child around the clock) back into the workforce and contributing through their taxes rather than taking out the system when there's no real reason to.

It is grotesquely unfair to expect other hard working families - also with sen children and more serious illness in some cases to prop up a minority of entitled families that think work is a free optio. It is totally unjust. It’s not about party politics it’s about fairness. We are paying the bills, we expert to be heard.

Benefits should be a last resort for the desperately ill not a free option.

*expect

• option

Okay let me see if I can do this with maths:

Person A gets paid 10 an hour with overtime paid at 12. Overtime is easily and readily available.

Person B can only find a job which pays 9 an hour.

Their options are:

Person A works a 40 hour week and then 15 hours overtime. This works out to around (10x40 = 400, 12x15= 180) 580 gross per week. They pay for one lot of travel, and one lot of work clothes. There is one commute.

Person A works a 40 hour week. Person B works a 15 hour week. This works out to around (10x40 = 400, 15x9 = 135) 535 gross per week although this is raised slightly in take home due to tax allowances. However there are now two lots of travel to pay for, two lots of work clothes and you lose an extra 1-2 hours per day due to tge second commute.

Both couple still need UC because wages are low.

£9 an hour is less than NMW isn't it?

Regardless, you're missing the point. If it would be preferable for the person working already to do overtime rather than the other person work part time, why are they not doing this already, before this rule change? Their income would be higher and they'd need to claim less in benefits. They have therefore been deliberately choosing to work at less than capacity and have others top up their income more than is necessary.

Work should be the default and it's great your family can cope be thankful for that. Fir other families two working parents is just not an option. Be proud your taxes can support families even more vulnerable than your own. We don't claim UC but am happy my dh taxes supports those that need to.

Until Sept 2022, the required earnings for a couple was £567 between them.

To add to this:

Bear in mind that some of those couples will have one person doing inconsistent shift work. Nurses spring to mind here: low paid enough that UC would be needed, lots of overtime available, but with inconsistent hours that make it very hard for a partner to plan their hours around them being home. Abd with a lot of pressure not to take time off to care for a sick child.

If a child is going through something which means they are at home a lot but not yet qualified for disability, and one parent is a nurse, it therefore makes more sense for that parent to pick up overtime for extra hours than for the second parent to look for work

You could skill yourself up and work for yourself start up a business working from home. There is opportunities out there but it will mean going back to education. You can then work around your disability and your child's sen. It's better than the DWP looking down on you.

Yes. I rounded numbers because it's a lot easier to multiply whole numbers than decimals! Numbers should be taken as illustration and not real life figures.

But you're missing the point. Our example couple might well already be doing this, picking up the overtime and thus maximising their income. The new system will push them to stop doing that and split into two jobs whether or not it is financially sensible for them.

Either way they need UC - our current low wage system means a lot of people are going to continue needing in work benefits, and this is going to make that worse not better.

T f I didn't know children homes would offer work til half way through the night, the few people I know who worked in residential care seemed to work all night til the morning. Supermarkets etc have night shifts but supermarket jobs seem increasingly hard to get into, and if I'm walking 45 minutes each way to get to the 24 hour one I'm now sleeping a few hours whilst they're at school excluding all the holidays and hospital appt days when I won't sleep at all. I've looked at weekend work but they all want flexibility, and I'm in a trap between earning too much on Carers and losing it or not earning enough to completely cover what I lose in carers and Tax Credits to make it worth it. Childcare bill for 1 7 yo and two 3 yo is crazy.

How many hours does a single parent have to do?

Two relatives save so much that one has got their parents to keep it in their account so that they still get benefits, despite having over 16000 in savings. The other just bought a new car so that they don't go over the savings bracket.