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

Perhaps, obviously nobody can say for sure until they've used the system. I understand what's being said, it sounds as though someone working 31 hours may be pulled out of work for an interview to look for 5 hours more work. Which seems ridiculous.

I just don't want people to panic when there are a lot of myths floating about.

The best thing people can do is arm themselves with the facts, be as prepared for the changes as possible and try their best to stick to the rules.

It's crap when you're not well off, trying your best to juggle everything and have to what feels like jump through hoops just to get money to live on. In the meantime get labelled as a scrounger.

I've completely stopped reading the DM or watching any TV about benefits, single parents and the rest of it. I rarely join in threads like these anymore.

I don't think it's a terrible hardship for a couple to work 35 hours each though.

No, people need to panic.

Maybe then the people will actually make their voices heard. Not panicking and trying to abide by the rules is the absolute worst thing we can do. We cannot accept this. If this is what they are doing to the people who can work, what the fuck will they do to the people who can't?

Hello, I would like to apologise for rising to the bait again and perhaps helping in the derailing of this informative thread.
The poster SW knows I haven't done/ nor intend to do anything illegal but has insisted to hound most threads where I post.
I have reported her in this name and previous name and MN are aware of it.
I had no idea she was banned.

Just for the record so that others don't take offence at other se/ small businesses there really is nothing illegal in being employed by your dh nor the same business as you both own.
It may be making the best of the situation rather than being employed by somebody else, and their are tax advantages I'm told, but you would be a fool and a very irresponsible parent to fraud the system, it can mean imprisonment and rightly so.

I've known a few people in couples where one has worked 16 hours (through choice) the other a sahp, 3-4 kids and receiving a lot of tax credits.

I think this is rather unfair as somebody who put my lo in nursery at 10 months old to work and who would have been on my arse if I'd ended up on income support with one child.

Doesn't mean to say I don't think that tax evasion is massively unfair, or MPs expenses or their 11% pay rise. Or the public sector fat cats taking it in while low paid workers are being made redundant.

One thing would solve most of the countries ills at a stroke and that is relax planning laws and build, build, build. The price of housing (both renting and buying) would then come more into line with wages and within the reach of all working people.
( It wouldn't help me because as supply catches up with demand and house prices plummeted , many would be plunged into negative equity.i am not sure if this wouldn't destabilise financial institutions)
It is however the right thing to do.Everybody deserves decent affordable housing.

Pyjamas

If somebody is only working 16 hours they honestly wouldn't be raking it in even with 4 dc.
They would only be getting the minimum, apart from the child allowance part.
It is the 30 hour and above that attracts the extra payment.
Maybe the 4 dc made up for the lack of 30+ hours element, I'm not sure.

morethan You are right, it isn't illegal to employ a relative. And if anyone thinks it is I'd love to hear how they explain the existence of so many family run businesses.

I also agree with slice people should be worried about this, it could have a huge negative impact on their ability to keep their heads above water. Sitting back and hoping it will all be okay is not really a viable option.

They were, try over £12000 a year in tax credits, plus earnings of £10000 and rent topped up by housing benefit.

22k for a family of six is hardly rolling in it.

I knew this was coming in and it does worry me. I was on benefits and the job centre told me to apply for this job. I did and I got it. However it's only a 4 hour contract. It's retail, so at Christmas I was doing full time hours. Now they've cut it to 16. I'm lucky, some at work have been cut to less than that. There isn't the work to support more hours for all the staff. To give some the 35 hours, others are going to be out of work.

What I find just as frightening is that on workfare I was given the advice to declare my self as self-employed as a writer, because it didn't matter that I wouldn't make enough money, as long as I was doing the hours because I'd get tax credits on it. People who took this advise may find themselves in a terrible position.

Well it's not too bad when you consider you pay little tax on the 10k earnings, so have £1800 each month, pay only £25 a week rent, and have no childcare costs. I mean heating doesn't cost anymore whoever is in the house, food can work out cheaper when bought and cooked in bulk.

My point is though, that it's hardly fair as a couple with no disabilities to choose to live like this, is it?

What I'm getting at is the tax credits system wasn't really working either. I have no desire to see people having their money stopped for working 2 hours under the threshold either.

I don't think either government have managed to get it right.

Dwerf who advised you that?

Do you have children? You should still receive universal credit even if you only work 4 hours.

It's been a chicken and egg situation that's now coming home to roost (no pun intended).

For years, as long as people with children met some fairly low weekly hours requirements, they would receive quite a lot of tax credits, that made it not worth working more than the minimum, if they were in low paid work, especially if they had 3+ DCs.

My DSis does this. They have 5 DCs and she works 16 hours a week. Her DH is self employed so works the right amount of hours (about 8 IIRC) to maximise their tax credit claim, which is well over 1k pm. They own their own home outright, so no need for HB.

My neighbour also does it a single woman aged 50+. She spends an awful lot of time sitting in her garden drinking and gossiping with her DIL so I do know pretty much all her business and she has declared on many occasions that she would never work full time, its not worth it.

Lots of people are or have been self employed traders poking about at car boot sales to find bits to sell on ebay. They declare relatively small incomes such as 50 a week which is topped up several times over by tax credits.

Yes, the problem is that there are not enough jobs to go round and many do not pay enough, but it is also not right that people have been able to choose to work a couple of days a week in a relatively easy low stress job and be not much worse off than a professional on 30/40k pa who has qualifications, works long hours, travels and has to answer emails etc out of hour, etc.

It absolutely isn't right

That's the point isn't it, did the tax credit system help to create the situation where jobs were becoming zero hours/16 hours.

Pyjamarama It was one of the workfare advisors. I was astonished. Especially since I knew this was coming in.

My youngest is knocking 12. So reduced hours for the next year, but I can't see the environment at my work changing. I think I'll have to look for a different job. Or a retail job with longer hours anyway.

Zero hours can be a positive in some contexts but it is (to me) obvious that rewarding people for working fewer hours is never going to make sense.

sorry Pyjamaramadrama . I spelt your name wrong!

I believe tax credits helped cause it.

I would love to know what would have happened if tax credits had never been introduced, from the POV of an economist or whatever job deals with that kind of thing.

If we had never had tax credits, would prices have stayed lower? Would wages have had to rise more?

The government has eroded the rights of employees, which has led to zero hour contracts, no job security etc. Patting the backs of their mates in big business while employees are shit on daily.

I think that, that sounds like terrible advice dwerf. I can understand your worries especially with your child getting older and the new system coming in.

You cannot take a job or work hours that do not exist. You can only show that you are looking for and are willing to take on more hours.

Well it's the same with housing, private landlords and dss. Ridiculous rents topped up by housing benefit in shitty unfit to live in houses.

Unfortunately I'm unsure of who to vote for this time. I tried vote for policies and was split 25% between for parties.

I thought it was terrible advice too. And I know it was coming solely from the thinking that if I signed off benefits and declared myself self-employed, then they claim a success and financial reward.

I live in a place that was already doing badly before the recession. Now we're getting two new shopping centres and new independent small businesses opening up all the time. By the time my youngest is 13, hopefully there will be lots more jobs here. Better jobs, even. Fingers crossed.

I don't think tax credits were the cause of low wages. Before tax credits there was something called family credit which topped up low pay. And there were certainly low wages before TC. Prior to the minimum wage being introduced there were jobs being advertised for a little as 75p an hour. Low pay has been an issue ever since the low pay unit was abolished in the 80s. Credits (of any sort) and housing benefit are simply hiding the problems of poverty wages and excessively high housing costs.

Hope so dwerf, as I said though my concern especially for single parents is that you can live fairly okish working part time with the help of tax credits. But then once your child turns 16 or 18 whatever the cut off is, how would people survive. They'd still potentially have a teen living at home who may be studying and only working part time, so it might be best to start trying to earn more.

On the other hand teenagers can still need a parent around, evenings, weekends, school holidays. I'd hate to see single parents forced to work nights and leave a 14 year old home alone. That's what I'm hoping doesn't happen, there doesn't seem to be any clear info but things I've found suggest allowances will still be made for those with teens.