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.

Agree with government rhetoric changing our attitudes. Also the point that many dc aren't able to cope for long in childcare (inc. my ds1).

But to me, the elephant in the room is absent fathers not contributing.

Why the fuck do people get their knickers in a twist about people on benefits, when every penny of those benefits goes directly back into the economy? Those benefits are therefore funding your precious full-time jobs, one way or another.

It's the super-rich, who amass and hoard their wealth, refusing to pass it on to anyone else by way of decent wages, for example, who are the real enemy.

Not Veronica with her part-time job at Tesco so she can pick up her kids from school.

Speaking of which - I gave up a full-time job at one point to take a part-time job (all I could get at the time in my profession) that paid more - but still had me on 'top-up' benefits until I was able to get more hours.

So I went from 'worthy top-up recipient' to 'unworthy top-up recipient' out of improving my situation, according to the OP.

That's ridiculous.

Childcare is a massive problem. I want to work more hours but we live in a small rural village in a deprived area and the primary school doesn't have a breakfast club or after school club and there are 0 childminders who pick up from the school. I know because I've searched and advertised. With our closest family an hour away I have no option but to work evenings and weekends around my husband's hours. And yes we get top-up benefits and I cannot help that.

The thing is, OP, you could afford to leave, because you'd be entitled to benefits.

I bet you claim child benefit too, don't you?

I work full time and I still can’t afford that 😆🤦🏼‍♀️, when did life get so expensive! I wish they’d top my wages up to more than full time! 🤔

Tories have been in power for 12 years, they have also been in Govt over the last 75 year far more than Labour.

12 years of Austerity, with v low wages have wrecked the UK, everything is worse, no one can name a single thing that has improved since 2010, aprt from Bojo, Sunak and Truss's bank balances.

The Tories have had a very long time to change how this country is run for the better and have chosen not too.

I think one thing that needs to happen is a massive crackdown of feckless men that walk out on their kids and don't support them. Close all the loopholes and have actual consequences that hit them where it hurts

sst1234 · Today 17:40

Twillow · Today 17:31

What a strange post. If you didn't pay £1000 a month for childcare, you could afford to be part-time! The majority of people I know work part-time, because they are:
studying
have young children
care for elderly parents
have poor physical or mental health
I don't necessarily see virtue in working full-time while your children are farmed out, sorry. And in this economy, you'd be amazed how few full-time jobs exist for non-professionals.

Here we go. Anyone working full time to support their family is farming their kids out, apparently.

Why do you think other people should pay for your privilege to kit work full time? While they themselves very likely work full time.

The epitome of entitlement, that has hardened the public’s attitude towards welfare.

This^

"Those working full time are farming out their children." "I didn't have children to let someone else look after them". All of these phrases make it so easy for right wingers to pit us against each other. So utterly depressing to see these mindless phrases trotted out time and again on this site.

But to me, the elephant in the room is absent fathers not contributing

And arbitrary times.

What if people could I dunno do 9.30/10 til 6. They could do the school run and not need breakfast club. Take their lunch between 2.45 and 3.45 then drop off their kids at grandmas til dad picks them.up just after 5.

The whole premise of 9-5 is set up on the pretence that someone else the wife is taking care of all the behind the scenes stuff.

What if a company actually worked around family set ups a bit more?

Abandon long over running meetings that merely repeat shit you already know but makes Brian from HR feel important for the afternoon.

As long as the work gets done does it matter if its slightly outside these made up times. ( not talking 9 o clock.at night or anything)

Its not like many people don't get stuck staying in the office til 7/8 at night id ve more worried about poor time management or a severe workload thats completely unrealistic than Sandra starting at 9.30

That would save people a fortune in child care. And facilitate the ability to work more hours

If covid has taught us anything its that shit can still get done even with the odd interruption at strange times.

I’m happy to subsidise the odd grifter because without doing so the really needy will get sod all.

This. My SIL is probably one of the people OP is referring to. She works very part time, her wages are 'topped up' with benefits and she has no childcare costs as PIL look after her DC. Her employer offered her a FT role and she found it hilarious, "why would I work FT when I can work PT for the same money? They must be mad. I'd have to be a mug" etc. It is frustrating, but the alternative is much worse. For every person like my SIL I believe there are many, many more who would prefer to work FT but are struggling to find a job with more hours or prevented from doing so by ill health or the cost of childcare. Attempts to "tighten up" the system so that people like her can't take the piss would almost certainly mean genuine claimants losing out.

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

Says who? I am a single parent of 3, bog standard teacher with no TLRs, one child with a disability. I have always been entitled to tax credits, even in full time work. I mean, I could take my child's diagnosis and DLA and claim carer's allowance and stop full time work but I choose not to because he can cope in mainstream school and because he has older siblings when he gets home who knows how to help him. We're lucky we can manage it like that. Your presumption seems to be that benefit claimants try to maximise their claims rather than working. That doesn't describe me and it doesn't describe other single parents I know. Most people are just doing their best in life. Stop with the judgements.

Zero hours contracts are an interesting concept for a lot of people with responsibility

Actually i have a change of heart, i think the problem is that UK workers need to "Graft" more or we will never be a prosperous country.

..and i'm backed by Liz Truss too :)

So backs to it you lazy bastards!

Lots of full time jobs simply don’t pay enough to make paying childcare an option so people make a choice. For many part time + benefits is the best option on balance. I am not saying that is how it should be.

Agree with @Hereforweightlosshelp and @Fluffyboo. Why is the government topping up when they should be making absent fathers pay?
But if we split, I'd have to rely heavily on benefits to survive. - @Tigerstigers - no you wouldn’t. You’d work and your ex would work and you’d split the costs between you. Why should the taxpayer support yet another absent father?

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.

Erm it does if your full time job doesn't pay enough for childcare. 😆

No, they don't - It doesn't work like that anymore.

I work 22.5 hours and get some UC but if I worked full time I'd be better off by about £200 a month. Not something I could pass up if the opportunity arose AND I had the childcare, which I currently don't. And yes I know that I'll be in dire straits when my children get to 16 or whatever, but I'm hoping to be in full time work well before then. Most people are aware that their benefits will stop when their children reach a certain age.

For the pp that mentioned UC covering childcare costs up to 85% - yes they do but it's to a maximum per child - up to £646 per month for one child I think. Which is adequate for wraparound care but not full time nursery in my area which would be over £1k. Also you have to pay it upfront before you get the money back from UC which some people simply can't afford to do.

OP im not sure why you're taking an issue with the phrase "top up benefits" - it's used on a DWP website! https://www.understandinguniversalcredit.gov.uk/opening-up-work/#:~:text=When%20you%20start%20work%20or,to%2085%25%20of%20childcare%20costs.

When you start work or increase your hours, Universal Credit will top up your earnings each month.

Us lowly benefit claimants didn't come up with it to "justify" or feel superior to others

You’d work and your ex would work and you’d split the costs between you. Why should the taxpayer support yet another absent father?

Yeah and if they are sick and on benefits themselves? I mean I get maintenance but alot less than I did when he was working amd fir how long I dont know tbh.

Hes spent nore time in hospital than at home lately so isn't even available to look after the kids. You propse what exactly?

no you wouldn’t. You’d work and your ex would work and you’d split the costs between you. Why should the taxpayer support yet another absent father?

Why should children suffer if fathers become absent or stop paying?

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if one household splits into two on the same wages, both parties will be left short because they are running two households instead of one. Two mortgage/rent payments, energy bills, council tax etc etc. Unless the NRP is a high earner, they may not, genuinely, be able to afford to contribute as much as taxpayers would approve.

Wow just wow.

YABU. I work full time now as DC is a teen so I don't need childcare, but when they were younger I worked part time. Ex is very unreliable and there was very little childcare available. School wrap around care is almost non existent in some places and I have no family help either.

Let's all just sh*t on each other.

Nursery fees here, full time for 1 child is £1480 a month (after tax free is taken off). Full time work at NMW is £1310 a month.

Many of these people that are part time will be relying on family or cheaper pre-school type childcare that is only open 9am-3pm.

Many of them will be single mums, who don't have a partner to help with the load.

Many of them can't afford to live in the centre of the town/city so have commute times that cut into their childcare hours.

Many of them will be doing critical jobs such as carers in the community that only offer part time hours.

Absent fathers should pay, but the government is not making them. Until they do and actually enforce it, single mothers on low wages need top up benefits.

So you're in the fortunate position that you have a partner to help you out and support you financially and you're judging single parents who don't have those things.

That's fine if the childcare is actually available. In some locations there's very little in the way of wrap around care.