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

Why do low earners have to juggle more. If you have a sick child, need to be in for a gas check etc you still need to be there. Do you really believe those with a good salary just pay people to do absolutely everything for them

People can say this penalises the "poor" but we don't have true poverty in this country. What we do have is a huge group of people who believe it's their choice not to work or just do a few hours so that they can get round not claiming JSA yet net WTC etc. Lots went SE and do the magic 16 hours or expect to just work a few hours term time as they don't see why they should have to pay for childcare. They then plead poverty despite the situation being of their own making.

I doubt any party will reverse UC, it's long overdue and many want a more strict benefit policy.

spotted what sanctioned means now. soontobe - but surely it is about juggling because if those on benefits don't juggle in the same way that the working/non benefit claiming population does they will be sanctioned. Obviously the working population would loose their jobs.

so why should benefit claimants be allowed to give priority to gas checks when the working pop has to fit these around work?

carol still hasn't answered my question.

Funny that.

A large amount of people affected will be those working low paid jobs in the public sector. Oh the irony.

So many self employed and small businesses are really going to suffer here, the lowest profit making will probably have to close.
Anybody thinking of starting a business or becoming s/e will more or less have to forget it.
I wonder how HMRC are going to manage all the monthly submissions tbh, maybe they are taking on more staff to cope with it, and of course they will need training.
The system is going to cost far more than they will recoup.

SnowWhite

Maybe it makes you feel better and justified towards your vitriol towards benefits, but food banks aren't here for the fun of it.

morethan

dont' talk dross (or at best sweeping generalisations)

'Anybody thinking of starting a business or becoming s/e will more or less have to forget it.'

so a consultant on £50 an hour shouldn't go s/e or start a business?

No one is saying that low paid workers shouldn't juggle. the point is that they are working, and still being treated as though they aren't.

This time last year the term "benefit claimants" referred to the unemployed. Now it refers to anyone claiming tax credits.

Tax credits are paid to households with an income of over £20k. It might not be much at that level of income, but they are now benefit claimants too.

Where will it stop? How much do you have to earn to not have to answer to the government about your "choices"?

Are people who live in a household with an income less than 30k irresponsible and feckless because they don't earn enough? Or is it 40k? Are only those people on higher rate tax competent enough to live their lives?

Or maybe it will be anyone who has a baby in an NHS hospital. After all, you shouldn't have got pregnant if you intended to have the taxpayer deliver your child.

And what happens when all the feckless start earning more? Who will clean the toilets and serve in the shops and care for your granny (one day you perhaps)? Nurses start out at 25k. Teachers around the same. They may need to claim tax credits. Are people in these jobs less than the rest of you?

The jobs that keep this country running are the worst paid. We can't function without the people doing them. But because they earn less, we have a right to call them in every 12 weeks or whatever it is, and ask them why they are still such shit human beings that they can't afford to live on the pittance they are paid. Judge them for the kids they have, and the choices they have made.

FUCK THAT!!!

There is a lot of scaremongering going on on these threads.

Single parents of babies under one will not be expected to look for work, parents of children under 5 will have to attend interviews but not look for work, parents of children aged 5-12 will be expected to work 24 hours at the equivalent of minimum wage, within school hours and will be able to claim 85% towards childcare, after your youngest child is 12 you will be expected to work 35 hours at national minimum wage. If you're earning above minimum wage then you could work less hours.

Couples are expected to work 35 hours at minimum wage between them.

There will be exceptions for single parents and people with disabled children.

In theory people working on zero hours contracts should be able to have their money updated in real time.

I don't particularly like the Tories but the tax credits system had it's limitations such as if a single parent wanted to work just 8 hours they couldn't get help with childcare or working tax credit, under universal credit working any number of hours should see a family better off.

It wasn't right that under the tax credits system couples were having 4 kids and choosing for one person to work just 16 hours. There were people doing this and deliberately doing the bare minimum.

I don't like the Tories and I dislike that the new system will be all online. Not everyone has Internet or PC access.

But I don't like it when people scaremonger just to bash the government making people panic when the majority of people will be the same or better off.

Snowwhite, to be fair, it's cheaper for the government for single parents to work part time/term time, as otherwise they'd be subsidising a large percentage of childcare. Plus it's arguably better for the children long term to have a parent around a bit more.

But what are the work focused interviews going to achieve?

The two I went to were literally a woman filling in an A4 sheet of paper. They can't help or advise. All they can do is sanction.

Perfectly competent people are going to be hauled in to justify the choices that they have made that are correct for their situation, to someone who can't do anything about the fact they have to care for a sick relative or that they are in a specific job to get experience but that there is no opportunity for extra hours.

The concept and the thresholds are not the issue. Its the practicalities of the system, and the fact that it is going to make life more difficult for the people in our country that are already struggling the most. If the jobs the government are pushing people to get actually existed there would be no issue.

What are the government planning to do to make businesses create jobs that meet the criteria?

dreaming

Unless they are sure they will make a profit every month, not forgetting that expenses won't be accepted as not meeting the requirement for UC, then they will be better off not starting the business, yes.
I suppose if the person had no responsibilities they could gamble poverty.

But yes, sweeping generalisation admittedly, but I would say realistic in terms of meeting criteria for UC

I do think a lot of these policies and opinions/propaganda are very anti women. Such as Carols and Snowwhites.

I've been a single parent, I have worked part time and relied on tax credits. I had a child with a 'feckless' man. I was very young and didn't see him as feckless at the time he was very controlling and convincing and I believed in him at the time. I've done my best alone to juggle everything and haven't done too bad a job.

The ex, well he's long gone, but rumour has it he's not doing too badly, doubt he even tells anyone he has a child so in many people's eyes I'm a scrounger and he's a hard working tax payer. Somehow that doesn't feel quite fair to me.

People can say this penalises the "poor" but we don't have true poverty in this country

Yes, we do.

Slice, if people earn enough that they don't claim benefits then the government has no say in their lives. If they don't and claim money from the state then they have to accept it comes with conditions, sanctions etc. We all make choices in life, the difference being some expect theirs paid fot whilst others believe it's down to themselves to fund them.

It won't mean we have no shop workers etc, many won't be claiming benefits as they are students, have a partner with an income so don't claim benefits etc. We won't have a shortage of these workers if benefits cease.

Even with the new UC system, it's still very lax. 35 hours between a couple is nothing likewise not having to work full time until a child is 12 is daft given they are at school for 30 hours a week. Hopefully though once in place, it can be tweaked and tightened.

So a nurse, goes to university, gets a job and earns £25k per year to start. She then has a child, or already had a child.

She shouldn't have had a child as that made her have to claim tax credits/UC?

So you are saying only the rich can have children. Only the rich can expect to live their life free from judgement.

And yes I realise that these measures wouldn't apply in this scenario, but you say

claim money from the state then they have to accept it comes with conditions, sanctions etc.

Then anyone that sends their child to a state school, uses the NHS in any capacity, drives on the roads, the list goes on, but anyone who takes more from the state than they pay in, doesn't have the right to have children, or live their lives without judgement? Is that really what you believe?

Sliceofsoup I can't comment on the interviews as it has been a long time since I returned to work. When I went back after maternity leave I was already employed and went back when ds was 10 months, but I visited the job centre and had a 'better off' calculation and see what help I could get. Personally I found it helpful and encouraging and it helped me to understand the system, what I was entitled to and that I'd always be better off financially in work. I'd imagine if I was a single parent and unemployed it might help and motivate me to check in regularly, but I can't comment specifically on these actual interviews.

As I say I strongly dislike a lot of what the Tories are doing, but I do think for a long time people have just been left to rot on benefits who could do more.

but I do think for a long time people have just been left to rot on benefits who could do more.

I agree. But the actual problem is not that these people are scrounging, its that they are doing what they have to do to get by. If they are better off on benefits why would they make their life worse (because worse than benefits is unimaginable) by getting a job? Then come the cries of "benefits are too generous, cut the benefits." well no, that's not it. Wages are too low, and living costs are too high.

Benefits are the minimum amount the government says we need to live on so if work pays less than that, then there is your problem. And that problem cannot be overcome by the little person. The claimant can't do anything about the rent prices or the level of the NMW. So we are beating these people for things they have no control over.

No Slice, if working and not claiming then the person is paying tax (and road tax if driving) and therefore are keeping schools and the NHS in money. Very few people are net contributors.

If said nurse needs benefits to afford a child, then she obviously can't afford one. Having children you can't afford isn't a luxury we should be paying for. Children raised on benefits tend to fare less well in life's and we need more future tax payers not claimants.

Expecting people to self fund their children or working part time is nothing like saying only the rich can do x, y and z.

I think a nurse earning 25k even if claiming tax credits/universal credit would pretty much be left alone. I think the people being targeted are those working the bare minimum to try to up their hours and income a bit.

Snowwhite it's hardly ridiculous to work part time if you've a child in school. You have to factor in travel times to collect your child. Not all areas have before and after school care, most schools round here don't and I've sent ds to a school a few miles away as it has after school care, I'm lucky, I drive, if I didn't I could be in a situation of not having enough time to get to school and work. Holiday care can be extortionate and again round here there is little provision.

It makes a lot of sense as a single parent to work part time around school hours as far as possible. Totally different if there are two parents and extended family juggling it together.

slicofsoup - she would have been better having a child when she could have afforded it - or had a partner who could help support the child. many of us have waited till we could afford one, either by being promoted and earning more; or saving up.

at the moment i only work 16 hours a week. my youngest will be 5 in july. so once shes 5 i will have to work at least 24 hours a week. at the moment my work fits in school hours. and term time only. so once she is 5 i would have to have after school care for 2 children that then cost the govenment even more money than if they just left alone. im due a baby end of april so i think i will be ok with the 16 hours though... but still not the point. does this mean people who cant get the hours will have in work benefits reduced/stopped... then just whats the point might as well just give up.

Sliceofsoup I agree minimum wage and housing costs are too high as is the cost of living.

Proven by what snowwhite has just said. It's ridiculous that a couple where one works full time as a nurse cannot afford to have a child without tax credits.

Besides circumstances change.

Do you have children snowwhite? Do you earn 35k+, if not what would you do if your dh died or left you?

Single parents of babies under one will not be expected to look for work, parents of children under 5 will have to attend interviews but not look for work, parents of children aged 5-12 will be expected to work 24 hours at the equivalent of minimum wage, within school hours and will be able to claim 85% towards childcare, after your youngest child is 12 you will be expected to work 35 hours at national minimum wage. If you're earning above minimum wage then you could work less hours.

Have you got links for that definitely being the case for the self employed pyjama? Because the recently released YouGov document I read the other day just had a blanket "you must earn the equivalent of 35 hrs per week minimum wage or else". No exceptions mentioned. It's that that has really given me the fear.

Great to see that apparently people "do" have children to claim benefits

Not sure what I think about this proposal.