to think that if you need state support because your self employed income is low, then you haven't got a viable business

[trillianandrandom]

Linked to a Guardian article. Self employed people can get universal credit if their incomes are low.

Which I can see is needed if you are do 'gigs' and your earnings fluctuate.

But in this example, I don't think this person has a viable business.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/25/universal-credit-self-employed-benefit-slash

"a self-employed children’s entertainer in Norfolk, said she would be affected by the new system. “Most of my money I earned in June, July, August and then December,” she said. “I have a small amount of money coming in this month, but not paid bookings this time of the year. If I earn under the minimum income floor, I don’t get any extra help. It’s not just me. It’s gardeners, childminders. This is thousands of people. If I had to go to an employer, I would probably end up becoming very anxious and depressed and eventually become physically sick with it. I could see a situation in which I would be signed off, on long-term sickness benefits, living on the bare minimum; I would lose my private rented house.”"

And I can see that - however, what is to stop anyone just doing some self employed business a few times a year and then getting Universal Credit to top it up?

I do think it's a mess with all the self employed people there, all the gig economy workers and people just earning a bit of money on the side.

But how do you balance it out?

But using students as an example to work at a low wage as they don’t need full employment just devalues the work of customer service roles and takes advantage of young people/students
Also often these students then end up working there full time as the graduate positions they want are hard to get and they are then stuck living at home- is that still okay to you?

No you're spot on. If your business is not supporting you, then you can it and do something else.

If as the woman quoted in the post you're working three months in the summer, then again in December, that's not a "business". if she didn't have the option of being topped up by Benefits then she'd have a couple of options - either develop more income streams for the low seasons, or get a job.

I'm self-employed, we don't claim any benefits as a family and I only work part-time, which is my choice. I probably do 12 hours a week and earn about £10k a year, if I scaled that up to full time work it would be far more than minimum wage. I've worked hard to make sure what I do is sustainable - I spend time looking at different opportunities and don't ever keep all my eggs in the one basket.

Lots of people approach self-employment as a hobby business which is fine, as long as you're not relying on it as a sole source of income. If you are, then you can't potter along making £100 a month forever and expect the government to be OK with that.

So you’d rather they were unemployed and claiming more?

It’s not as simple as you think. There are a very large number of people in this country forced into self-employment because they’re too sick to work but not sick enough to get disability benefits. They’re told they’re fit to work, but no employer would hire them when their health makes them so unpredictable and unreliable. Flexible self employment is pretty much your only option at this point, and I’d rather receive Top ups while doing my best to work as much as possible than give up completely.

A student or an adult living at home would easily live on the wage but the same wage supporting a family simply wouldn't. Employers are not responsible for their workers lifestyle choices. = only the rich deserve to have family. if you are poor (even working ft) then you shouldnt be allowed to have children. if you arent lucky enough to bag a well paid job to support a family without benefits (i wonder what percentage of jobs pay enough for this so we can see what percentage of people deserve to have children) then you shouldnt have family.

But if the children's entertainment job in the op is not viable because she only works 4 months in the year, then there coukd easily be no children's entertainers to employ.
Limited pool any way.
And a job as an entertainer does not necessarily qualify one for a gardening/burger tossing/exam marking/ice cream seller job.
Plus insurance, Plus accounts.
Can you imagine the stress of filling up your year with three or more jobs, a call for an entertainer, ooh no sorry I am gardening that day.
Soon you would have no self employment.
Small businesses can become very large businesses that employ hundreds. Just give them a decent chance.

Can you imagine the stress of filling up your year with three or more jobs,

Self-employed people juggle ALL THE TIME. That's what we do, it's the nature of the beast. You have one quiet week then three clients email within an hour of each other with some urgent work. It;s a constant process of negotiating, prioritising and re-scheduling. I texted the hairdesser earlier - could she cut my hair on wednesday? No, she said, she was busy on Wednesday but what about Friday or perhaps the following week? It's exactly the same when you try to schedule an appointment with a carpenter, or a heating engineer, or a gardener.

The person in the Guardian article knows that she is quiet January - April and September - November so could quite easily look for other things to do in those months. But chooses not to because until now the government has been happy to let her continue with a business which is not viable.

But using students as an example to work at a low wage as they don’t need full employment just devalues the work of customer service roles and takes advantage of young people/students
Also often these students then end up working there full time as the graduate positions they want are hard to get and they are then stuck living at home- is that still okay to you?

I am not sure what you mean by devalue customer service roles.

Students are not being taken advantage of. They are taking jobs that they think are the best being offered. And if how can you fault such employers if they then can't get a job in their field later?

if you arent lucky enough to bag a well paid job to support a family without benefits (i wonder what percentage of jobs pay enough for this so we can see what percentage of people deserve to have children) then you shouldnt have family.

the trouble is that raising wages will price our workers out of the global market. Instead, we should pressure our government to stop this crazy housing system where rents are outrageous.

So you’d rather they were unemployed and claiming more?

I think the issue is that in the past claiming to be self-employed while earning a negligible amount was a way to get out of being forced to look for a job. It was a fiddle. UC has tougher rules which seek to prevent this.

the trouble is that raising wages will price our workers out of the global market You cant have it both ways. We either accept that we need to keep wages relatively low so not to price our workers out the global market and accept that there will always be a need for the government to top up these wages so that families can live a decent standard ofliving relative to our country, or we can force employers to pay a higher wage that allows for a family to have this decent standard of living. The alternative that seems to be suggested is we keep wages low so as not to price them out of the global market but the government doesnt offer top up benefit, leaving families having to work 100+ hours to make ends meet (which is horrendous and creates a whole set of other problems) or these families live in poverty, such as is seen in other third world countries. Or does it hark back to if you arent lucky enough to have been born into the right supportive circumstances to enable a good education with either luck or the right connections to then get a well paid career, you dont deserve to have children. Tbh i dont want to live in first world country surrounded by third world poverty. Give people the benefits so they can have a decent standard of living.

Employers are not responsible for their workers lifestyle choices. = only the rich deserve to have family.

It's not an employers job to ensure people can afford a family. If society thinks affording a family should be a human right, society should pay for it, via the benefits system. To be fair, it does. This is why tax credits exist.

Ignore @araiwa. She’s never said anything useful in her life.

@firesuit, i wholeheartedly agree with you. Maybe I should have worded it better to Employers and other taxpayers/the government are not responsible for their workers lifestyle choices . = only the rich deserve to have family. Usually the people that are arguing against tax credits etc are also the same people arguing against businesses paying a living/minimum wage. I assume they are either childless and dont understand the fundamental concept of reproduction in society or live in such a gilded cage they have no idea what it is like for the majority of people struggling to raise a family on low wages. Or they are just cunts.

"Under the old system, it distorted the market as people who were self employed and claiming tax credits could undercut those who couldn't claim."

That's the same as someone being self-employed but having money from elsewhere (e.g. a rich husband, rents out a property or a room in their house).

I know quite a few people who have a health condition that would make full time employment non-viable. One example is a friend who due to things that happened to him as a child suffers from paralysing depression for weeks at a time. He is in his 50s and has a couple of strands of self-employment - he works loads when he's well, very little when he isn't able. He a lot in his community. At the moment he averages his earnings over the year and claims tax credits, which make sure his rent is paid. Under universal credit he won't be able to average his income, if he gets more in a month he won't get any support, won't considered ill enough to not have to look for work, and will have a year to prove he has a 'viable business' before he has to apply for loads of jobs he won't get, and lose his income and home when he eventually misses a dwp appointment.

The new rules don't allow for fluctuating seasonal work or seasonal health conditions.

hairycoo im childless by choice and i dont think like that Please dont assume.

So the ppl who were told encouraged to go self employed are about to get rinsed as well as moaned at by MN

"It's not an employers job to ensure people can afford a family. If society thinks affording a family should be a human right, society should pay for it, via the benefits system. To be fair, it does. This is why tax credits exist."

I don't agree with this. A full-time job should pay the worker enough to live as an independent adult. If the employer can't do this, then their business isn't viable.
Yes, at the moment we subsidise wages with benefits, but we shouldn't be doing this as a long-term solution.

@helena, are you against minimum/living wage and/or government top ups in way of benefits? If you are not, then Im obviously not referring to you. If you are, can you please explain how you think families on low wages with no benefit top ups are expected to manage?

I'm more irritated by the businesses whose employees are on benefits to top up their income.

I see this everytime there's a discussion about increasing the minimum wage: "Small businesses would go out of business as they couldn't afford the wages." Then they don't have a viable business, so good.

You cant have it both ways. We either accept that we need to keep wages relatively low so not to price our workers out the global market and accept that there will always be a need for the government to top up these wages so that families can live a decent standard ofliving relative to our country, or we can force employers to pay a higher wage that allows for a family to have this decent standard of living.

no, you can have it both ways if we don't have a government that deliberately understates inflationary affects on the people, in particular with housing.

I live in London. The main outrageous cost in London is housing, and housing across much of the UK is very expensive. Fix that and low wages are ok.

Usually the people that are arguing against tax credits etc are also the same people arguing against businesses paying a living/minimum wage.

I think the "usual" argument is that you have to be aware of inflation once you start raising the minimum wage (hint: it's already happened with food prices and it's not just a brexit issue), the living wage is very subjective and would in fact cause far more division between rich and poor.

Jumping to try and close the conversation down with the rhetoric of "only the rich can have children" is not just a poor choice or wording...

Tbh i dont want to live in first world country surrounded by third world poverty. Give people the benefits so they can have a decent standard of living.

BTW, I agree that the poor in this country get shafted. I just think that benefits are a poor way to deal with this.

In my view if you want to set up a business you save the money to enable you to live for a few years whilst it hopefully takes off.
Or you ensure your partner can support the family, or you can take out a loan. You can’t just decide to set up a business with no plan on how to finance yourself. Failing to plan is the best way to ensure your business ends up going bust, which unfortunately many do. I do think this situation is frustrating.
I’d love to set up a business but know financially now is not the time to be doing so, so I will wait and save.

@marchin, I hate to break it to you but there are other places outside London. Places with much lower costs of housing. Guess what, people on low wages still struggle. Im not saying fixing housing costs wouldn't alleviate some of the financial pressure but it is far more than just housing. And how far to the government go in 'fixing' the other areas such as food costs, utility costs, care costs, travel costs etc?

I live in London. The main outrageous cost in London is housing, and housing across much of the UK is very expensive. Fix that and low wages are ok.

Yup, I agree with this.

The problem is that both labour and con do not really want to tackle this issue, and the electorate on both sides only want to tackle the issue as long as it doesn't affect their own personal circumstances.

We have have all swallowed the propaganda of ever growing house prices for coming up to a decade now.

It is the age old, the problem needs to be sorted but other people need to pay the price for it.