to be shocked, but not surprised at the latest twist in the Universal Credit wheeze

[echt]

So those who will be worse off under the new system, can just roll up their sleeves and get on with it:

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/21/universal-credit-benefit-cuts-work-allowance

There are very few people living on benefits as a lifestyle choice, in fact many people on long term benefits are in work and the benefits are a top-up for low wages to help fill that gap between wages and cost of living. Cutting tax credits, etc mainly penalises working people.

As an aside, they don't just hand benefits out to whoever wants them. You have to make a claim, the claim has to be assessed, many are means tested or have strict conditions of claiming. Then once you get a claim you have to jump through hoops to keep it, there are a lot of box - ticking exercises and lots of pointless red tape, there are conditions to meet and forms to keep on top of. And the amounts of money involved are nowhere near as vast as the government and the press would have you believe. Looking at previous threads around this topic, there are a lot of unemployed people struggling to get by on benefits - particularly lone parents, usually women, with no support network - and a lot of employed people who would struggle to get by without the top-ups from tax credits but can't get the extra hours needed to make up the shortfall.

The government can't expect people to magic up extra work when there is no extra work to be had.

They'll say get a second job,Chatty, or 'retrain' for a better one.

Or move house because moving house doesn't cost anything at all. Removal vans are free, as are rental bonds, administration fees, carpets/blinds/curtains, and all those other little costs associated with moving house.

I know plenty of people who are technically in work very part time - 16 hours p/w - for the benefits. I don't blame them but the system is crazy.

Maybe 16hrs per week is all they can manage in terms of childcare costs and travel costs whilst it still being worth their while to work?

I won't speculate on individual cases Christmas, and I know on here it's tempting to see everyone as desperate to work as many hours as they can but ultimately can only manage 16, but I think it's fair to say the system can be manipulated and why not? I would too. It makes sense. Buf that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

And it's not 24 hours between them one person in the couple has to work a minimum of 24 hours. They can't work 12 each.

I'm working 29 this week and I've still got three full days off.

Dyslexic were those hours you were offering your employees permanent and steady or were they intermittent and inconsistent? Because the system doesnt allow for the latter.

29 hours over four days with say an hour of travelling either side? 37 hours in total. That's £148 of childcare, per child. That's based on my hourly childminding rate of £4 per hour including meals. Someone doing 29 hours on minimum wage will only earn around £198, so after they've paid me they'll have £50 left over for rent, food, council tax, transport, clothing, heating, etc.

Without top ups, how would they live?

those extra hours you were offering is what i meant to say.

They would still have top ups Christmas, just not top ups that mean they get more money for doing less paid work.

Interesting you say 'someone'. Assuming you mean in cases where it's a lone parent, she (usually she a she) wouldn't have to seek paid work until her child is five and school age.

Even if the child is three there will soon be thirty funded hours of childcare.

If it's NOT a lone parent, then it isn't £50 to pay for everything if there is another working parent in the house.

You can only use the funded childcare with providers who are offering it, not all providers will do so. The funded amount is often lower than the regular hourly/daily rate so this is likely to be an issue when the 30 hours comes into effect as places will be limited. I know I won't be offering funded places, I don't offer them at present either.

At the minute the tops don't mean you get more money for doing less paid work. Do you have any figures to support this? I worked in tax credits for many years and paid work is worth more than the amount paid in benefits however the additional expenses of paid work - such as childcare - often completely the increase in income.

Even if a child is school age, you'd still pay out a far whack in childcare. I charge a retainer during the school day to hold the child's place so even though they might only be here 7am to 9am then 3pm to 5pm, you pay half rate between 9am and 3pm to hold their place open. This is common practice with lots of childcare providers. You'd also pay additional rates in the school holidays as it would be full fee for the entire day.

Agree about childcare. 30 hours a week for two years is better than nothing, it's true, but for someone with three kids they could well be looking at paying out childcare for 15 years. And tax credits can make a contribution towards the cost, but as soon as you earn over the minimum wage (I'm not talking about a king's ransom here, just eg a job that pays £8 ph or so) that contribution slides very quickly - the absolute maximum is 70% but only those on minimum wage get that.

Why does everybody assume that those claiming top up benefits work the bare minimum?

Yes this may be the case for a handful of claimants, but the people I know who claim tax credits and housing allowance (I used to be one of them) work 30-40 hours a week. Its just in the south east (where the work is) the cost of living is so high that those on minimum wage or low incomes wouldn't have a hope in hell of renting a home for their families without the top ups.

I had my children when I was married and with my husband who earned more than 6 figures salary, however when we split I had to give up my job in the nhs as I couldn't afford the childcare to cover the shifts, I became an office worker working 25 hours a week or close to minimum wage, with no help from the ex. I'm now in a position that I pay my own bills but I hardly see the children as work full time and often work from home.

If people moved to cheaper areas the work often isn't there or the level of pay is lower so % for % they will still be getting the same level of top ups as when they lived in the more expensive area, the only thing is now they have no friends or family to support them and help each other out.

The bottom line is in order to sort out top up benefits and the reliance on them, the housing situation needs to be dealt with. You cannot force employers to pay more or to give more hours, small companies that might be the breaking point. The company I work for is a small family run business and if they had to increase everyones hours or pay by a couple of £ an hour they would go out of business. They have barely scraped a profit for the last three years, how would they fund a pay increase?

I'm a full time teacher and single parent. I receive a small fortune in top ups. I couldn't manage without it. I stand to lose £3k a year when this kicks in and I have no idea how I will make up that difference. I already mark exams in the summer and do private tutoring. Perhaps I should never see my children and give up sleeping?

cannotlogin - your situation sounds similar to mine, and it's shit. I work full time and also have a second job that takes up a fair bit of my evening time - I do it from home so that I don't have to pay for the imaginary childcare that will suddenly magic itself up from nowhere outside of the hours of 8am and 6pm. I honestly don't know how I could work any more hours to make up the £2,600 shortfall that we will face under Universal Credit. I have, to quote bumface, always 'done the right thing' - worked full time and more, shelled out ££thousands in childcare over the years to do so, and yet I still we are going to be absolutely hammered by this.

People who havent been in that situation dont know what it is like. The poverty trap is not a state of mind.

The situation is actually much worse than anyone here has realised. Single parents and the disabled are barred from applying for certain jobs.
If the hours are 'as and when required' they cannot apply for that job. Because you would have to fill in a new claim for tax credits every week, and they wont let you do that.
They can only apply for jobs with set hours. And thats a covert way of weeding them out of your companies profile.

The old system of tax credits added up the average pay over the last 45 weeks and applied it to the next 26. That system was scrapped and the claims were made weekly. Its penny pinching BS.

We're going to be hammered by it too which is why it makes me laugh when people say things like take on extra hours or move to a cheaper area.

I'm allowed six children at any one time under Ofsted rules, I can't take on additional hours without breaking those rules and I'm already open 7am to 7pm five days a week so can't extend my opening hours either. I can't magic up additional hours.

DH works in the public sector, salaried. Already cuts his lunch breaks short, stays after if need be (e.g., if speaking with a member of the public he stays until they're finished), works three Saturdays in every eight, and so on. Work will give him additional hours, but as he is already full time they won't be paid (can't waste taxpayers money paying for vital services!), they'll be given as 'flexi' so financially we'd be no better off.

yanbu they don't live in the real world do they?

where are all these extra hours going to come from?

and if people increase their income their UC will go down anyway wont it

I'm a full time teacher and single parent. I receive a small fortune in top ups. I couldn't manage without it.

Ffs!! That's the crux of the problem someone on a professional wage can't even afford the cost of living and is receiving s fortune. Giving these topups is inflating the cost of things, the stars for familys on HB in London is ridiculous.

We've got an economy that st the moment that isn't sustainable. The worst thing we could do is stick our heads in the sand and do nothing.

Please excuse my ignorance , I've clearly had my head up my arse for that last few months

I thought there wasn't going to be any tax credit cuts , David Cameron made a big song and dance about how they had rethought the initial summer budget announcement ,did he not ???

What have I missed ?

I don't disagree, dyslexic, but the system needs reforming in such a way as to hit those who won't work, not those of us who are in full time work and struggling to make ends meet. The hit single parents are going to take is disproportionate to couples - suggesting only married people are somehow worthy of respect and support. I have a Conservative MP who says he keeps using me and my figures as a case study but there is no change, is there? It is only going to get worse - God help single parents of more than 2 children when that little nugget kicks in.

Nothing toofat, we were always going to be hit by Universal Credit....it'll just take a bit longer

But when the children grow up to be anti-social because they have grown up with absent parents, it will be the parents who are blamed.

But when the children grow up to be anti-social because they have grown up with absent parents, it will be the parents who are blamed

YY atenco

anyway what the fuck is this obsession with having everyone work constantly?? why cant we have any semblance of a life?