Fuck it, I'm going to re-post something I added to a thread las week here, since it's relevant:
----------
marycorporate said If you have 1, or possibly 2, children in childcare and work 16 hours a week in a low paid job, you will actually take home the equivilent of a 24k salary.
Georgimama When I was earning 17K per year out of interest I looked into what I would be entitled to by way of benefits if I were a single parent on that income (on the entitledto website). I would have got a smidge off a thousand pounds a month in WTC, CTC, CB and HB. My net income would have been pretty what it is now, on 32K gross.
And that's pretty much why the country is fucked - the government has subsidised private company wage bills to an unsustainable level for years. Employers aren't paying a living wage across the board, with the exception of the nice little top of the pyramid - tough luck if you're at the bottom or middle of the pile though - hence why the real income gap between those at the top and those at the bottom is getting wider and wider.
What kind of country can function in the long term where the majority of its able bodied working population need such huge percentages of income top ups to pay their basic living costs (food, council tax, accommodation). It's madness to think we could sustain this (although good for votes in the long term... vote for us or we're going to take away XYZ credit).
My sister has a husband who has been working a 6 day week for the last 2 years to top up the household income - he's working in a manual (unskilled) job for just slightly above minimum wage. She also has been working 3 or 4 days a week for most of the last year, doing admin on NMW for her old employer. However, with the recent rises in petrol and other household costs, it's wiped out any profit in it at all, she's looked into the extra stuff they'd be entitled to if she worked only 16 hours a week (saving in childcare, plus extra top ups) or not at all, she has concluded that there's really no point having this stressed-out constantly-manic situation at home with BIL working so much, and where the kids are getting packed off to childcare whilst she's not even making any money or extra benefit from working close to full time until they're at school, esp. since the job doesn't have any longterm prospects or promotions/ability to top up income (it's a tiny firm - a family owned chain of 4 hardware shops).
And you know what? Despite being in a duel-working household myself, I can 100% understand why she's decided that it would be better for their kids if she stayed at home and stopped work, or cut down her hours. The government will step in to fill the income gap, and stuff like free glasses, prescriptions, etc will help if she can get her hands on them; I'm not sure exactly how much BIL earns but I know he was on £6.20/hr ish last year.
But it's a broken, unsustainable situation to support longterm, across many households, if you're the government.
The real issue is that for many women (and men), if you're in a lowly paid job, either NMW or a few grand above it each year, there is nothing extra in material gain to be working fulltime or working hard. There's self esteem, and perhaps long term career prospects in some jobs, but not all - repetative, boring lowly paid jobs consist of the bulk of NMW jobs. But the costs of working (childcare, commuting, work clothes) often wipe out any extra financial gain in those situations.
Until you're earning a semi-professional salary and can start to see a difference between "what I've earned in a job" and "what I can earn in top ups and associated benefits" there's little incentive to work more hours/harder in the short/medium term.
In summary, I'm not arguing for a reduction in benefits - rather, I'm arguing for a reduction in tax credits, and for private industry to start paying their employees a living wage, without needing government intervention to top up their false salary bills. Unfortunately, this country has become so reliant on the low wages that the true cost of some goods is totally alient to your average shopper.