They’re not ‘top-up’ benefits if you don’t work full-time

[Gobbledegobble]

If people do work full-time, absolutely those wages should be enough to live a decent life and not require outside support, and that requires systemic change (and higher taxation for corporations, closure of tax evasion loopholes and legislation to outlaw poverty wages). I’m a lifelong labour voter and will never vote Tory. BUT working 15, 20 hours a week and bemoaning that you ‘just’ need ‘top-up’ benefits is disingenuous. I couldn’t survive on part-time wages so I work full-time. I ‘top up’ my wages, if you will! But my own efforts. Outside of you or your children having a disability / chronic health need requiring ongoing care, if you can’t afford to live on part-time hours then you can’t afford to work part-time. My partner and I work full time and pay over £1k a month in childcare fees to enable us to do so. Having children does not mean you can’t work until they’re at school and then only school hours, as lots of people seem to think. The cost of childcare is outrageous and again needs systemic change through higher taxation on huge wealth. But it’s not a ‘top-up’ benefit (as if that’s somehow better or more moral than just plain old benefits). Sure I’ll get piled on but I fully support the welfare state and want benefits to be much more generous for when people need them, which should largely be a short-term crisis. Not until the children you chose to have are secondary school age with you being ‘topped up’ by full-time workers’ taxes until then.

Life can be fucking cruel and unpredictable for many, but hey ho as long as you are managing to work full time and judge others from your ivory tower, good luck to you.

@onelittlefrog some of my colleagues tried to do second jobs but unfortunately our schedules were not fixed so you wouldn't know from one week to the next when you were working. One week might be Monday 9 - 4, Tuesday 12 - 8, Wednesday off etc, next week Monday 12 - 8, Tuesday off, Wednesday 9- 2 etc.
You rarely knew what it was going to be a week in advance.
Retail now is actually worse as contracts are ridiculous like "4 hours guaranteed but will probably be working 30" and you must be available to do those 30 anytime between 8 am Monday and 12 midnight Sunday or something daft.
So almost impossible to get a second job.

@Moonface123 i think it’s clearly OP isn’t in any kind of ivory tower, renting (‘with no assets’ kindly pointed out by a PP) and struggling with high childcare costs. Just hard all round.

But top up benefits are benefits, and when people pull out ‘most people on benefits are in work’ I don’t think that’s a fair representation of what’s going on. Most of that is part time work.

I'm a lone parent who works full-time and gets "top up" benefits because the government agrees me & my children can't manage to live on my full-time wage.

I have a number of very rude words for you that I'll refrain from sharing.

I agree.
I work part time (27.5 hours a week) and that is a conscious choice we have made (and can afford) as a family.
It's a privilege to work part time if you are a healthy adult, it shouldn't be expected.

There are many people who although aren’t diagnosed with a health condition (although I’m autistic) as such, would find it impossible to work full time (or even part time). There’s no safety net for people like me once our kids have finished A levels.

But besides that, I just don’t agree with 40 hour weeks. Even if you’re well, I don’t see how it can be a good life and I don’t think it’s good for kids to barely see their parents.

OP tellingly uses the phrase "partner"

What exactly do you expect single parents to do? Wrap around care, childcare, child sickness. Etc etc & before your privileged ass complains.... No! All single parents didn't have kids whilst single & even if they did, so what? Or are you suggesting poverty should be a barrier to parenthood.

Give me strength.

I'm spending my annual leave this year trying to revamp my CV to get a job in a sector where full-time work is possible, because while I don't claim benefits due to DH's income, I would like to be able to earn more money, but employers do not want to hire people full-time in retail when part-time employees allow them much more flexibility and ability to have staff in at busy times without having to pay them for the quiet times of day/week/year.

No one forces anyone to have 2 children in 5 years, plenty of families plan their families accordingly (obviously yes, some people have twins... I know)

I'm not so sure that staying at home to look after children should require benefits.
I do understand however that it's too expensive to pay for childcare and so I think childcare should be free, like schools.
Maybe the working parents could lose a bit of tax to help towards the nation's bill for this.

Many ( mainly) women sacrifice career progression to look after little ones and I think there needs to be a shift towards childcare being an essential societal need.

Much as I'm not a Tory or Labour voter, I do think that other countries have got their priorities right and charge more in tax in order that you get decent childcare and a better health service plus better public services.

Where do you live to get all this available, affordable, convenient childcare that enables full time work? Can I move there?

I'd love to work more days but I can't get extra days at nursery for my 2yo and I don't know if we've even got an after-school place for DD yet and the one childminder who covers the school is fully booked until she retires. School pick up is at 3pm, I work till 5pm, and then have a 30 minute drive to get home.

We're not eligible for anything but I don't begrudge any one who does claim because this shit is hard going.

Totally agree. I can’t afford to work part time so l
dont. To make ends meet then on average l do about 45 hours a week but still not swimming in money

I have two jobs and have just applied for UC. it's impossible to survive as a single person these days!

@berksandbeyond it isn't just about twins. It's about how easy it is for someone's circumstances to change. Imagine the couple who are financially stable and can afford their second child in five years, Then:

• One partner (often the man) fucks off with a younger woman
• Family is involved in a serious car crash, leaving one or both partners unable to work
• The much wanted second child is born with serious disabilities which means they will need 24/7 care
• One partner develops a major illness and is unable to work

It's so easy to be smug and tell people to just plan, but life doesn't work that way.

I don’t think that the OP was bashing anybody. Please don’t bash me either because I would really love to see open honest debate. Everybody is blaming everybody else for the problems that we currently face. We should be encouraging all members of society who want to work to have access to a job that offers the hours that they would like. The minimum wage should be a wage that people can live on not one set by government who are in the pockets of Tesco’s and so on. Zero hours contracts should be outlawed; workers need protection. All members of society who want to work should be able to but those who try to avoid it must be encouraged to be part of the society that supports them. That way everybody takes responsibility for everybody else and we have a much better cohesive society. Employers see employees as a group of people to be exploited to line their own pockets from so that they can get very very rich on the back of somebody else’s work. I agree all loopholes should be closed but all members of society should take responsibility for their own lives and cut their suits, where possible, according to their cloth. I’m afraid, that unfortunately, if you can’t afford it whether it’s a smart phone, a child or a new sofa you have to go without.

Wow sorry that was long

Another one saying that this is totally unfair for single parents. Opinion has changed so much too. I remember when DS1 was born 23 years ago there was none of the judgment of people on tax credits. It was considered totally normal for one parent in a couple (usually but not exclusively the mum) or a single parent to stop working or go very part-time for a while and then gradually build up hours again when the kids got older or circumstances changed such as a parent retiring and helping with childcare. In the meantime, lots of families claimed working tax and child tax credits. It was just the norm, at least in my area, and everyone seemed a lot less stressed and angry about it than they do now. Years of government rhetoric and ideology has set people against each other with talk of scroungers and handouts. I'm not saying that no one ever took advantage because obviously that is not correct, but on average in my experience people were glad there was a bit of help and worked to reduce their need for it as soon as they could. I think the fact that prices of things were still sane and there were opportunities helped. You could aspire to your own house, holidays, nice food etc even if you worked in a low paid job. Now, if you're faced with a crap zero-hours contract and no chance of ever owning so much as a bedsit I can see why some folk who are not higher earners think there's just no point.

The thing is many low-wage jobs don't offer full-time contracts eg care, shopworker, cleaner etc. These positions are mostly offered on a zero-hours contract/part-time basis precisely because UC allows it. It was designed to support big businesses in exploiting low-wage workers.

If you owned a massive shop/supermarket would you hire two 40 hours per week staff or 4/5 15-20 hours a week staff? Most businesses would go for 4/5 workers working less hours. If one member of staff calls in sick you have 3/4 other workers to rely on instead of just one. The tories designed UC to support that business model.

You can't force people into full-time jobs that don't exist.

OP - I agree, part time work is a privilege.

That includes people with children. Those on low wages can get 80% of childcare paid through UC.

Oh I see. Do some people in the Uk really think this? I work 22.5 hours a week am single parent, I EARN MORE doing this with benefit payments than If I worked fulltime and had my kids left alone pre and after school to fend for themselves , so actually, it works for me, so go and do one?

YABU to just to think people can't pursue full time because of having disabled children, many adults with disabilities and MH conditions need PT hours.

That is what 13 years of Labour did to our country.

They wanted everyone to become dependent on benefits so that they would have to vote for them.

Just like the Tories sold off council houses to buy voters.

I have worked part-time for years due to health issues and I have never claimed any benefits. I am lucky to be able to take on fairly senior roles with a decent salary.

But I can't stand people who look down on others or try to tell them how they should live their life and who swallow the benefits equal scroungers narrative....I would stop reading the Daily Mail for a while if I were you.

@berksandbeyond I am curious though. If your circumstances changed could you up your current job into full time? If you went to your bosses tomorrow and asked would they say "ok, you can now work full time" ? It would be quite unusual if they said yes. Most part time jobs you can't. Many companies want a person for 20 hours and that's it. They don't want a full timer. It's not always about choice. Person needs a job, here's a job, but it's for 25 hours..... should they turn 25 hours down?

It was the Tories who brought in UC not Labour. Under the old tax credits systems workers refused zero hours contracts. They needed a minimum number of hours in order to claim tax credits.

The tories changed the system to allow big businesses to take advantage of zero hours contracts.