To think there's little point taking on extra shifts at Christmas as it will mess up my benefits and I won't get any more money

[Ginzjam]

Sister thinks I'm being selfish not taking on the extra shifts at Christmas, but if I won't take home any more money and it will cause loads of Hassel affecting my benefits. I'm not saying it's right, but im right it's good business sense to refuse them?

I would do them if I ended up with a bit more money but I won't and I would be saving the company money as I'm mjuch cheaper than agency workers to cover the shifts.

OP YANBU it isn’t wirth the risk of your benefits being messed up which can take weeks to sort.

Years ago I received housing benefit, suddenly it stopped with no warning and took weeks to sort out. That gap in money had a massive impact on us.

LegoAdventCalendar et al, I agree with you, and I find the attitudes behind this government's running of the benefits system highly unpleasant to say the least, but please, let's not make comparisons to Nazi concentration camps.

OP, YANBU.

Those saying SIBU, being on benefits is not fun. A burdensome, complex and at times humiliating system has been put in place with the almost certainly deliberate aim of making things as difficult as possible for people due to a misguided - at best - belief that a choice to be on benefits rather than earning a living wage is commonplace. People - yes, even poor ones - are entitled to a healthy degree of self-interest - the same self-interest which means you claim your tax allowances rather than generously giving the state the money. This isn't actually all that different. The answer would be to make that system less inflexib,le and cumbersome. But that would defeat the object set out above, so isn't going to happen.

The work ethic and working for free stance- I never undeerstand this point of view . Anyone on benefits who works and has their benefits reduced IS NOT WORKING FOR FREE! they are working to earn some or all of the money they need to live on. It should not be a lifestyle choice to claim benefits if they are worth the same as a wage just because you can get the same money for not working.

That said, in instances such as the OP describes, benefits claimants should not have their claim impacted by having the chance to work extra hours. It should be a like for like reduction (with allowances made for increased childcare costs etc), but it should be easy to manage - maybe by the claimant being given the same benefits as normal but being expected to repay the overpayment from their increased wage for the period in question. But a blanket "Why should I work for nothing" statement makes my blood boil!

Of course it doesn't make any sense to take on the extra work if it's only temporary. A whole load of people in this country are counting the pennies to put food on the table - not trying to fleece the system so they can have a third holiday (or even a first or second one). Those banging on about a 'work ethic' are totally clueless and I envy their position of ignorance. People are happy to pay me £6 per hour to look after their most treasured possessions (children!) and I'd be horrified to think anyone would expect me to go over my numbers to earn enough money to live comfortably. Do all of you with childminders really think the hard-working adults you underpay can afford to live without benefits? Without tax credits I'd regularly be short of food and I wouldn't consider risking my payments being stopped by doing extra work over Christmas.

So no OP, YANBU!

Personally, I think you need to look at this a different way. If you are on benefits you are being subsidised by the government & the taxpayers, if you earn extra money you are replacing the subsidy with money you earn yourself.

It is not working for nothing, but more standing on your own feet. You are also contributing to the pot (by paying tax) rather than taking out.

I am sure reality is different with childcare & the balance of home life.

That's definitely an argument for taking a job with permanent longer hours.

This is the kind of situation in which benefits should be removed!!! Obviously capable of working more hours but choosing not to 😞 WOW

Actually this is the kind of situation where pay needs to increase in line with the high earners.
Sorry but there's people earning in hours what others earn in years (and avoiding tax). I'm sure if minimum wage was a fairer amount then there would be less people in this situation.
People shouldn't need to be subsidised in the first place but that's the system we have created.

Are people meant to work for 'ethics' and not money? High earners sure don't.

Remember that the biggest drain on society is not poor people, but the wealth-hoarding of the top 10%. They are literally draining the economy by piling up wealth in offshore accounts: that money is then no longer available. The very rich who spend their money lavishly are making a contribution to society, but when more money is given, unconditionally, to poor people, the economy improves quite quickly.

Personally, I think you need to look at this a different way. If you are on benefits you are being subsidised by the government & the taxpayers, if you earn extra money you are replacing the subsidy with money you earn yourself.
But honestly is this a real incentive to work? Knowing that rich companies who earn obscene amounts can dodge millions in tax, is there incentive there for someone on minimum wage to to turn down subs for nothing but the integrity of it? :s

Are people meant to work for 'ethics' and not money? High earners sure don't.

No people are meant to work for money full stop, high paid or low paid. Obviously we should have a system that helps the low paid and the high paid should pay higher taxes. But there should not be a choice to claim benefits rather than working because you end up with the same money and say it is because you are working for nothing

Personally, I think you need to look at this a different way. If you are on benefits you are being subsidised by the government & the taxpayers, if you earn extra money you are replacing the subsidy with money you earn yourself.

But if the money you're replacing the subsidy with is very short lived, as in say, 2 weeks, and then ALL subsidy is subsequently withdrawn for (I'd estimate on previous experience) 6 weeks (average time and then add on days not worked by those in the offices over Christmas/new year) and remember the extra hours are now not available any more - how do you propose that person survives for those 6 weeks?

I earn probably 80% of my income. That other 20% is however crucial to keeping my head above water. Something would not get paid if it were withdrawn. If extra hours mean for two weeks I earn 100% of my income, then great. However the results is losing 20% of my income for 6 weeks - and the opportunity to earn that 20% is gone.
I see where you're coming from, but in practice it doesn't work.

Does anyone else remember the days when AIBU used to be full of purported high earners boasting that they turned down work and promotions, in order to avoid pushing over into the higher rate band, because it meant they 'lost money'?

Because I do. I also remember that so many people were initially terribly sympathetic to their plight, even when I and other people explained that progressive taxation doesn't. work. like. that.

It's funny when so many without experience of the benefit system's strategic incompetence are prepared to tell claimants to take an ad hoc shifts and go hang. Colour me cynical, but I think the people who are prepared to believe that people earning over £45,000 pay 40% income on the whole of it, are exactly the same people who tell people like the OP to stand on their own two feet.

Humph.

the AIBU sample will be heavily bias as the majority of those answering it are, themselves, at home on a Thursday morning!

While you have a point, I'm actually on mat leave. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I earn a little shy of six figures and I work damn hard for it. But I think the OP would be mad to work these shifts.

HedwigsNest

But there should not be a choice to claim benefits rather than working because you end up with the same money and say it is because you are working for nothing

Salient point being that you don't end up with the same money. You end up with less, and jeopardise your cashflow indefinitely. Worst case scenario, homelessness because you couldn't pay your rent while you were waiting for your entitlement to top-up benefits to be reinstated.

the AIBU sample will be heavily bias as the majority of those answering it are, themselves, at home on a Thursday morning!

So being at home means 'not working'? Hilarious.

let's not make comparisons to Nazi concentration camps.

You don't get to decide how people post or what parallels they draw, that's for HQ to do.

Couldn't agree more, SGB.

But if the money you're replacing the subsidy with is very short lived, as in say, 2 weeks, and then ALL subsidy is subsequently withdrawn for (I'd estimate on previous experience) 6 weeks (average time and then add on days not worked by those in the offices over Christmas/new year) and remember the extra hours are now not available any more - how do you propose that person survives for those 6 weeks?

^this!

If OP was being offered these shifts on a long term basis, then yes she should do them but for a couple of weeks it isn’t worth it.

No, I don't have anything to do with uc, but from what I've seen from posters here, I wouldn't take on extra work and spin the wheel of fortune to see if the system can adapt effectively to a temporary shift in pay and that is before you look into how little money the extra work would translate to.

I wasn't drawing Nazi parallels, I just think "work makes you free" is a very simplistic and unhelpful way to look at the concept of work

If the OP was asking if she should turn down more hours because doing so would end her entitlement to child benefit, there would be a raft of posters suggesting ways to reduce her taxable income, or telling her not to take the increase at all. Why is the OP treated so differently? Both are trying to avoid messing up their benefits, but the potential negative impact on the OP is far greater.

Ooh, didn't see this.

the AIBU sample will be heavily bias as the majority of those answering it are, themselves, at home on a Thursday morning!

I'm on MN because my child has D&V.

Salient point being that you don't end up with the same money. You end up with less, and jeopardise your cashflow indefinitely. Worst case scenario, homelessness because you couldn't pay your rent while you were waiting for your entitlement to top-up benefits to be reinstated.

I did say higher up the thread that I don't think peple who take on extra shfts should end uop with less. There should be protection and/or a more flexible system. In a nutshell I just object to people saying they are working for nothing - why should earning what you live on not be first choice? And before anyone thinks I have no experience of this (albeit a long time ago in the early 1980's) I was once in a position where because I worked part time whilst my redundant XDH was looking for work, everything that I earned over £5 per week was deducted from our benefits. I thought this resonable and was glad that I was able to earn at least some of what we were living on. My father told me often I was mad for working 25 hours for £5 and would not accept I was working for more than that, because he saw it as lost money that had been deducted from our claim, so I was working for nothing. And he wsn't alone in his assumption. It has been an attitude I find hard to understand ever since.

Also, that proportion of 'your' money being spent on benefits should properly be seen as subsidising exploitative employers who keep wages low because they know the Government will make up the difference. Remember how a whole lot of very profitable companies jumped on the idea of 'workfare'? That concept made it entirely feasible for the big chains to sack all their staff and get them back at work as 'workfare claimants', so the employees got less money and the big chain got their labour free of charge...

The AIBU sample will be heavily bias as the majority of those answering it are, themselves, at home on a Thursday morning!

What a stupid thing to say not everyone works 9-5

the AIBU sample will be heavily bias as the majority of those answering it are, themselves, at home on a Thursday morning!

I’m at home every morning. That’s because I work from home and earn a very very nice income. I still think only a self righteous prat would look down on a person that has to decide if she should work for a few extra pennies, in order to please other people. OP, you’re doing the best you can, under difficult circumstances that the consecutive governments have compounded.