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

But you're not wealthy, and neither am I. I had to got back to work when my ds was 10 months old, and have ever since. I had little choice.

I agree the minimum wage is crap, but even people earning much higher than minimum wage can't afford for one parent to stay at home, as they'll be taxed a lot and won't receive any tax credit top ups.

The fact that you're saying that your CV is bare means it's probably a good idea to start looking for some work.

There's always going to be people who are richer and better off some through hard work some through luck but such is life and most couples have to both work these days.

I don't know anyone who's stayed at home once their dc's are in secondary school.

No, and l can't imagine l will want to either. (stay at home l mean)
Where l live is pretty restrictive unfortunately, we are rural and my Dh takes the car to work.
So... At the moment it will be tricky, as l need to be around for school pick up.
I can see when my daughter is 13,it won't be such an issue. :)

The bit about these new rules that does sound alarming is people saying that someone in a 30 hour a week job will be hounded out of it into a less stable 35 hour a week job.

Although I'm not convinced that there won't be some discretion used in those circumstances, but we'll see.

The thing I keep coming back to is that if a family is heavily relying on tax credits when their children are teenagers they might really struggle once those benefits stop when their child becomes an adult. Seen as you've more chance of a lottery win than the government doubling the minimum wage it's probably a good idea to start thinking about more hours at work.

So I guess what I want to know is - assuming I don't find something else before then and I'm still in my almost 30 hour a week secure permanent job which is under the new amount for both hours and income, how often will I have to report to the job centre? Will it be once a fortnight as it is for signing on? Because from what I can see I would be under the strictest one of the four categories. Or would it be 12 weekly work focused interviews. I have been reading all the legislation but keep going round in circles with the links for some reason.

py
Yes, l take your point.
Our eldest is 16, so we are already seeing how our income might suffer.
I just don't know what a woman of 43 and a self employed CV could get?
I am assuming that even retail is tough these days?

I'm going to start researching.

"Although I'm not convinced that there won't be some discretion used in those circumstances, but we'll see"

Pyjama Like a PP said you are being very naive.

The sanctions are actually quite scarily strict - I think that's why I'm so worried about meeting job centre demands whilst already working an almost full week.

there's some info about it here

With all due respect Helena you were complaining earlier about gas safety checks. I think we may have different expectations.

I mentioned those checks because they will be a real worry for ppl on Universal Credit when the fuckers dont turn up three times on the trot.

I wasnt complaining about gas safety checks I was complaining about the way they are executed. So please dont gaslight.

I'm not gas lighting, I just find that some people on threads like these over concern themselves and complain about very daft things. As though the world is against them and how unfair everything is.

I'm not well off, I've struggled in lots of ways and I don't vote Tory.

But I do think in theory the u/c thresholds are fairly reasonable. It's unfortunate that the less you earn the more hours you may have to work. But as I've said many times once people's children have flown the best they'll need to be able to live independently anyway.

So I'd be concerning myself with trying to find more or better paid work regardless of universal credit.

This government are doing even worse things to public services and to disabled people.

The minimum wage needs to be much higher, but even under the current t/c system benefit would still be cut the more you earn.

The thresholds are reasonable.

Its the bastards who set the targets for the JC staff who are unreasonable.

I totally agree that people need to be more forward thinking. I even worry that waiting another year will affect me getting a job.

The real problem with all of this is the proliferation of zero-hours contracts and agency work. But of course, no one seems to care about this. It's all about punishing the working poor.

I can't disagree with that because I haven't had to go through that and noone should be hounded massively or sanctioned because they're earning £500 too little a year.

I work 30 hours and earn over nmw, although I'm far from on a high income. But I earn enough probably even with a teenager to keep u/c off my back. My hours suit a family too.

But in reality I know that sometime soon I need to start thinking ahead, my job is so unstable and I don't fancy living on my income alone. Ok I wouldn't have the cost of little children, but my young adult children may still need some financial support.

I'll have to try to find something a bit more.

I read this report on 0 hour contracts and found it quite interesting

www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/research/zero-hours-contracts-myth-reality.aspx

A living wage is very subjective though. To some it means they can afford to feed clothe and house themselves. Others expect it to stretch to a large home, two adults and children.

Taking years out of the workplace has always meant it's harder to get back in. Employers want recent work experience and given the choice of two cvs, one with a full work history and one where nothing has been done in the last x years it's not hard to see who they will go for.

Firefly that's why a lot of women end up working for nothing by the time they've paid for childcare, because it keeps them in employment.

Btw I doubt there'll be a state pension by the time I retire so keeping up pension contributions is another reason to stay employed and keep working hours up.

Pyjama if they are part of a couple paying for childcare is just as much the mans responsibility as the womans. It shouldnt only be coming out of her wage.

The C4 Dispatches episode, 'Low Pay Britain' is a good one, too, about zero-hours and agency work and about how some are not being paid the min wage at all.

Yes of course Helena and that is the case, but it still comes out of the same pot. A mum can go back to work and it brings nothing in term of income into the household.

I saw that expat. At least one of them didnt want to be identified on camera as merely speaking out could/would have lost him his meagre zero hours job.

The recent full facts one was interesting aswell, can't seem to link it (full fact.org) 11 February

I think it was something like 67% not wanting more hours and only 11% are wanting a new job, I think it ties in I think with what Pyjaram is kinda saying with people doing just the minimum, zero hour contracts are bad in some areas but the report was surprising for me.

As for the 'tax gap' above, the govt are chasing it and it is now £8 billion a year lower than it was in 2005, so the current govt are better than the previous one in chasing this HMRC paper.
Interestingly, Large companies make up less thna £2billion, whilst cigarette and alcohol tax evasion is £2.5bn and the 'hidden economy', ie cash in hand is £4.4bn

The large company gap has reduced from £3.7bn in 2005 to £1.8 bn in 2013

So the best way of closing the tax gap is to go after the poor

carol - why do you say the best way is to go after the poor? People earning under 10k don't pay tax anyway. i can't spot anything about aiming at the poor in the attached doc - though i haven't read in detail