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

Very few people are net contributors.

Which is exactly my point. We are all taking more than we are giving.

To bring up a child comfortably in my area I would estimate the household would have to be earning at least £35k. And I live in a cheap area. So you are saying that unless you have that earning power, you cannot have a child.

she would have been better having a child when she could have afforded it - or had a partner who could help support the child.

Partners don't always stay, or help support the child.

And yes I know that scenario would be left alone. I am trying to demonstrate the point that people who are making very good and normal choices in life are now being judged as scrounging, because they cannot afford to live in this country on their wages. The government KNOW that the wages aren't enough, thats why tax credits and UC exist. But they aren't sorting out those issues. They are blaming the people who have no control over it.

link

Yes pyjama I have a child and don't earn 35k. If DH died there is adequate life insurance and if he left I have my own job and savings. We saved before having DS as nobody knows what the future holds and children are expensive to support financially.

Circumstances can change but it's not rocket science that if you don't work or work few hours and have x number of children that you will have no way of supporting them if things go wrong.

Lots don't even look at finances before having children though unless you count checking what benefits they can claim. Its like childcare costs and money for school trips etc comes out of the blue for many.

People will find ways around the new rules though. Many will simply have another child, some will suddenly become workers for spouses under their SE business etc. However it's a small start, in time hopefully it will get better and the rules stronger. Ensuring as many self support as possible can only benefit the next generation.

Dreamingofsun, it must be wonderful up there on your high horse.

There a loads of people with two full time wages coming in who rely on tax credit top ups. What you're effectively saying is those on minimum wage shouldn't have children. Ridiculous stance to take imo.

Oh look HappyMummyOfOne Snow White has turned up.

I have twins with additional needs. Not my choice that they have additional needs.

I work two part time jobs. To make the hours I'd need a third job that will fit with the permanent hours I already work. Ideally I'd love a full time job but those are very few and far between in my line of work.

Most people working and receiving benefits work bloody hard with little choice as to how they can retrain or earn more. To do further training in my job would cost £800, which is money I just don't have.

Why make things more difficult for those who are already struggling and working hard in crap jobs? And fyi a lot of people receiving tax credits also pay tax and NI.

Snowwhite point is, if your dh left you, which he could. You might struggle, I doubt you've enough savings to last until your child is 18.

You might find yourself in a position where you need to claim some benefit top ups, you might find it easier to reduce your hours to cope with childcare and life as a single parent.

It's very easy to sneer at others when you're doing ok but you really should walk a mile in their shoes before judging.

Bishop, it would seem so.

Why don't the Tories just forcibly sterilise everyone who relies on tax credits etc to top up an unliveable wage... no more poor children then. No more next generation poor, stop those poor sorts before they even get started.

I am getting a crick in my neck from looking up on this thread.

Yes, Fairylea. And no more people to clean happymummyofone's Snow white's house or her car or serve her in Waitrose.

Quit outting people: they're entitled to disagree. I don't agree with SW on this either but I do think dredging up past names is totally out of order!

I have had a quick read. I do feel at the moment too many people are in the position where they cannot afford to earn more which is silly. I would hope this scheme targets those who extra hours could be available but we shall see.

Fairylea what some people fail to realise is we need shop workers/cleaners/bus drivers/bin men/care home workers/waiters/teaching assistants/receptionists/shelf stackers, you name it, to keep the country ticking over. Some people obviously think that all of these roles should be filled by students and people who remain in these jobs should never have children. How ridiculous.

Gas safety check is MANDATORY.

Workfare is MANDATORY.

if you refuse hours on a zero hours contract because you have to stay in for the check you very likely wont get offered those hours again.

And the heating engineers our HA use REFUSE to enter flats on their own. The occupier HAS to be there. These engineers are also notorious for no shows. Ive had several no shows from them myself Then you have to wait in AGAIN. i think its just another way to harass the poor. IF it was really about safety wouldnt OWNER occupiers also be COMPELLED to have them done?!

You dont turn up to workfare.....you get sanctioned.
You dont wait in for gas safety check ....you get evicted. You cant win. And considering some of these work placements are for six months this scenario is very likely.

Isn't the gas safety check scenario going a bit over the top?

Anyone in work will have appointments to juggle.

Its like childcare costs and money for school trips etc comes out of the blue for many.

I actually agree with this. But people having children is not why the wages are so low and rents are so high.

Why are you so keen to blame normal working peoples choices? Its the government that are letting landlords in this country profit from tax payers money, we are buying their houses for them ffs. Its the government who are topping up the profits in big business by paying tax credits so the wages stay low.

But we listen to the propaganda and blame the disabled, the low paid and the mothers. Its disgusting.

Pyjama, that reasoning means that you believe every person that claims benefits has no choice but to do so. It's not the case though is it? People on MN have openly said tax credits lets them have a SAHP or reduce their hours. It's these choices we shouldn't be funding.

I'm all for a welfare state, it's what a decent country should have but there's a huge difference between tax payers supporting somebody that physically cannot work to somebody that can but doesn't want to or more hours ruins their choices.

It's an Internet forum where people are allowed opinions and nobody knows each other or their pasts. Wanting a more strict benefit system doesn't make me lacking in empathy or sneering just because I have a job at present.

Life is based on choices, these choices should only be funded by the person making them. Workers who don't claim have to live within their means, some may have to live in areas they wouldn't choose or cap the number of chidlren they have. Why should those that don't self support get rewarded for not being careful? Sends the wrong message to children.

Absolutely Pyjama.

Not all areas have higher paid work. For some areas the minimum wage is all there is. Or maybe people shouldn't live in those areas? My dh is a graduate and works 38 hours a week for £15.5k doing a job that if we lived in London would easily pay £25k plus.... but then housing etc would cost more (we actually relocated from London).

I think it goes back to those who earn more having little understanding of life on a low wage and assuming those that do earn less do so because they are lazier / more stupid / can't be bothered. It's the great Tory myth.

Pyjama those in work wont risk missing 3 months wages to stay in for the check.

And it takes more than one day because engineers sometimes just dont turn up.

Because HAs use the cheapest.

Snowwhite I think that in theory the universal credit will put an end to couples working the minimum hours. Which I agree with in principle.

What I disagree with is statements such as 'x shouldn't have had children she couldn't afford'. Because of course life isn't that simple and circumstances change.

One of the problems with the system is that it's very one size fits all, when of course in reality every families situation is different.

Yy pjyama

fairy - do you mind me asking how much you earn? i agree 15.5k isn't much to live on wherever you live.

Snowwhite, your general point is a good one. I agree with it. My DH works full time, atm I stay at home as I couldn't earn enough to cover childcare. We aren't having any more children because we can't afford to. Once the youngest is at school I will get a job so we can live on our wages alone. We live in a crappy house in a crappy area because its cheap.

But you are coming across as lacking in empathy because you cannot seem to understand that life on a low income is precarious. You keep saying about peoples choices, but for so many people, there are no real choices. They aren't starting off from a position of a good family, good support, nice friends. Many people are being thrown into the world with no skills and no where to turn. Even people who think they are making good choices are at the mercy of others. My DH could leave me or die. I would have to claim benefits. My ex was abusive, I had to claim benefits when I left him. I have been illegally evicted twice. It happens all the time.

Its fair to say people should consider their situations and make well thought out choices, but not everyone is dealt a hand in life that enables that. Blaming people gets us nowhere. The Tories are making these changes for idealistic reasons, not because they will actually work. The changes that need to be made aren't being made because the way this country works right now is putting millions into the back pockets of the party's supporters. They don't care about the hard working or the sensible. They will fuck everyone over if it makes them a buck.

See I just think that using gas safety checks as an example makes your (general) argument look petty.

I've had to have gas safety checks, I've had engineers not show up, you don't just get evicted just like that.

Things like that are unfortunately just part of life for everyone. Dp has a fairly high paid job but he works 50+ hours and gets no sick pay, he barely gets time for anything.

I work admittedly part time, well I have one afternoon off a week and I juggle dentist, doctors appointments, gas safety checks, I've had to live with a broken boiler for two weeks because I couldn't wait in.

Even the well off have to juggle work and out of work commitments.

Snowwhite

I think that spouses will need to be employed for the s/e and small businesses to take care of all the paperwork that will need to be produced monthly, rather than annually.
In the past some of us have helped out in the business for free, out of the goodness of our hearts but now we have to become employees in our own right.
It costs the gov/ the taxpayer more in this instance, but what other choice is there but to employ somebody.
My dh is always working as its the nature of his business, he has no time to do the paperwork on top of everything else. The added time it will take me to do on top of all the other things will create a job, which is what UC has set out to achieve. We will no doubt need childcare for the time between now and sept, so that will be paid at 70%.
You can see it how you like, but we see it as the jobs need doing why not employ your own family.