The Tories and their new hoops for the working poor to jump through.

[HelenaDove]

If you are not working enough hours or cant get enough hours you will apparently be sanctioned. Unbelievable I cant see some employers being happy with this either although they should be paying a living wage in the first place. Because ppl who have been sanctioned are hardly going to be able to get to work are they?

Ridiculous and vindictive.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/ministers-are-reaching-beyond-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

I'd love to know where are these full time jobs above minimum wage are? Can I have one?

Feminine if your youngest child is six as a couple you and hour dh would need to earn the equivalent of 52.5 hours at minimum wage. When your ds turns 13 it will go up to 70 hours.

Your dh not hour dh!

Sorry loads of mistakes there, I meant when your youngest dc turns 13. Not sure where ds came from.

As per usual the Tories have their heads stuck up their arses. There are not enough jobs for everyone, or enough hours available for every single person to work full time.

From what I can see though, they aren't saying that every single person must find a full time job tomorrow.

They are saying that people who meet certain criteria, so single parents with children over a certain age and couples with children over a certain age, must look for work/more hours and be available for more hours if there is a job available and they are offered it.

No they are saying even if someone has a permanent 30 hour a week job they must give that up for a temporary 35 hour a week job. Also they must attend job interviews/ job centre interviews at short notice whilst working a 30 hour week.

Thank you soon :)
Am l correct in thinking that as my Dh makes about 1.50 over min wage (an hour) that would be taken in to consideration?
Less hours needed?
70 odd hours sounds impossible. Family life would go totally caput!

Yes less hours would be needed , all they care about is the amount you earn as a household.

Thank you soon
I'd better get cracking anyway... :)

And that seems so unfair for those that are stuck somewhere where it is mainly min wage available...

70 hours at min wage is £23,660 per year.

52.5 hours at min wage is £17,745 per year.

35 hours at min wage is £11,830 per year.

70 hours isn't impossible, as its split between two adults. Many people still enjoy family life while working that amount between them. Your husband earning more than min wage isn't relevant in itself. Only the end income is relevant. The extra hourly income will increase the overall income which will leave less hours that the second adult needs to work in order to satisfy the criteria. Below the minimum income, you will still receive UC but you will have to attend work focused interviews.

Thank you slice l wondered what the figures were.
Well... I wonder what l will need to come up with regarding hours?
If my math is correct, my husbands wage comes out at just over 200 more than min wage a month....
I do think 70 hours is quite a bit though.

Yes it is unfair , only the very well off will be able to be sahm's.

70 hours a week between 2 adults is less than full time per person and is only expected if the DCs are 13 or over, according to a PP.

The aim of this is to stop people choosing to work part time at the taxpayers expense.

Feminine you would need to work 28 hours a week.

That's 28 hours at minimum wage, less if you earn more.

Sorry that's once your dc is 13, it would be 10.5 hours at age six.

Even if they don't get back in, l guess the next government will keep it. :(
Plus, those perpetually unemployed will still milk the system.
Getting pregnant etc...
I think it is really crazy that even if one of a couple work, the other is to be forced out too.
We need a living wage... And the Conservatives to disappear in a cloud of smoke!

all they care about is the amount you earn as a household.

shame they don't tax the household then.

Thank you soon.
I'll need to find a job minus the math ;)

I don't think it's at all unfair for a couple who's youngest child is 13, to work 70 hours between them. That's only 35 hours each. Plenty of other people manage it, I know plenty of single parents who work 36 hours by themselves. It's that attitude that's half the problem.

One parent will still be able to stay at home when dc's are under 5, work only school hours when dc's are 6-13.

I wouldn't dream of thinking that I should be entitled to stay at home when my children were in secondary school.

Feminine I'm not sure why you see it as being forced out.

Why should you think that when your children are 13+ that you should stay at home and receive between 5-12k to top up your husbands salary when you could earn the 5-12k through working?

I think looking as an entitlement is a bit unfair.
If my husband were wealthy l wouldn't have to work. So.. Because workers are not given a living wage, we are dependent on the government

Personally as l have an older husband (13 years) l will need to work when he eventually has to retire. I am preparing for that mentally.
Dh isn't interested in stopping, but he is in a manual job and already 56.
Id like to find work, can't imagine who'd want me though

I was self employed for 17 years, my CV is a little naked.
Oh well...

We cross posted py
I'll say again, that if he had a living wage we wouldn't be requiring government help.
I don't want to sit on my butt, I am prepared to work.