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.

@DoneIn87

I agree. It's insane, but it's mainly that high because of the £1100 childcare top up to cover the 2 days.

There are barely any childminders around here. Houses are in sort supply and so expensive, childminding doesn't pay much, plus you can't do it in a tiny flat.

If affordable childcare was widely available then it would be fair to say 'work more hours if you want more money'.

I wish I could find a child minder for £50 a day, but reality is the only available childcare for me is £75 a day for my youngest and £65 a day for my eldest.

OP has £1k per month for childcare because she has a partner and neither she nor her partner are disabled. They also have access to careers/companies that offer full-time jobs.

Relatively well paid jobs as well. A couple working full time on minimum wage will still need (and be entitled to) some help with childcare costs.

Yes, but they are not included in the £20k benefit cap that the other poster mentioned.

I know what you mean. DH’s ex wife is always whinging that she’s skint but she insists that she has to be at home for the kids. Before I get jumped on as a cruel step mum, the kids are 15 and 18! Perfectly able to look after themselves and make dinner etc if she wasn’t back from work in time. She thinks DH should pay more maintenance (he pays £950 a month), DH thinks she should work more 🤷‍♀️

Of course it is better for people who can to work part time and have some benefits rather than not work at all.

OP are you just getting caught up in the "top up" description? I don't really get your point. Most people who are very low income but could earn more by working full time but still have good child care that also covers school holidays would do so.

You can't choose to work part time under the UC rules with children that age. Once a child turns 12 you are required to work a minimum of 35 hours a week, or be actively looking for full time work.

Since covid the childcare available locally has been reduced to one school nursery with hours 9-3 and the attached school has no after school cubs. Fortunately I am able to work from home around some of these hours but I can see how others don't have that option.

Based on a lone parent working 16 hours a week with 1200 rent and 1000 childcare cost: £2,216.83 total UC + (16hrs @ 9.5 x 52week / 12months) = £658

£2874 monthly (give or take a few pence)

or an income of £34489 a year.

£2874

• 1200 rent = 1674
• 1000 child care = £674

£674 left to pay gas, electric, water, insurance etc etc.

And that's assuming you col tenant in the Midlands. If they were private.rentonf on the same place they'd get £638 toward rent a month leaving them to find the remainder, which is pretty.mich impossible judging by my results.

@MoistBandana Nice try but I've seen these threads before and logic and maths don't work.

Give it a few minutes and you'll have someone reply to you claiming that they work 70 hours a week and their partner works 103 hours a week and they get 50p between them and live in a soggy shoebox in the park because they're not entitled to benefits.

Luxury...

When I were a kid I used to get up half an hour before I went to bed. Eat a bowl of 'ot gravel, lock the road clean and still go and do 25 hours a day down the pit.

But you try telling the kids of today that.. they won't believe you..

i agree with this. People will work part time for years as they get topped up, then when their kids are approaching 18 they wonder what they will do. Yes top up benefits fine until you’re in a position to work full time but shouldn’t be a long term option just so someone doesn’t have to work full time when they have kids of secondary age

Did you miss the part where it said single parent?!

That might be true of NMW, but not better paid work.

I could go v PT on my hourly rate and claim a bit of UC if I chose. I mean I won’t unless something happens, but I could.

Earning less than your earnings threshold

If you are working as an employee but are earning less than your earnings threshold, you might be expected to do some activities at the jobcentre. As long as you are employed and have household earnings of more than £355 per month (if you are single) or £567 per month joint income (if you are a member of a couple), you won’t be expected to look for work or be available for work. This does not apply to income that comes from self employment or income from other sources such as pensions. You might still be asked to take part in activities to increase your chances of getting a job.

If you are working but are earning less than £355 per month (if you are single) or £567 per month joint income (if you are a member of a couple), you will be expected to look for more work and be available for work.

Which suggests DWP are realistic about low pay, social circumstances, gig economy, 0 hours contracts and so on that some of their client group have to deal with.

A lot of the issues on Mumsnet are caused by men who don't pay enough child support and people (not just blaming women) who have (often multiple) kids without thinking through the consequences if their financial situation changes.

Living in an expensive area is another issue.

If you are a couple both working full time living in an affordably priced area, no debts and you still need benefits (apart from child benefits) then something is wrong with the minimum wage!

Of course it is better for people who can to work part time and have some benefits rather than not work at all.

Yes that’s the whole point of subsidising people into work isn’t it? You assist people to keep a foothold in the workplace when things are difficult and it means they’re ready to go FT when they can. Some never will, but they’re probably facing complex challenges.

I don’t know why this confuses people.

Eh. Life is short. We get 1. It could be over tomorrow. I'll never work full-time again.

Me either!

The problem is that wages and salaries are not enough for people to live on. I've seen many interesting threads on Mumsnet where people post salaries from jobs in the 80s and 90s which haven't in any way risen like house prices and inflation - and I would link them if only Advanced Search still worked. In 1994 I earned £16,000 for an assistant's job in publishing which would pay no more than £25,000 now. The figures just don't compute. All while the top 5% just get richer and richer.

I think the issue of being a single parent should be less of a factor than it is. Unless you're widowed a child still has 2 parents to provide for them regardless of whether they're still married.
It's the system that's wrong not the individuals in my opinion.
I know someone who clears almost 3.5k a month and doesn't earn a penny of it. (Fully able to work, chooses not to)
They're doing nothing wrong technically but it's mad the system allows this to happen.
I should say when UC kicks in things will change.
Benefits are essential to stop people from sinking into poverty but no-one should be better off not working.

And I’m delighted for you as long as you’re not expecting benefits to subsidise that (privileged!) choice

Do me a favour, go get a minimum wage job and see if you can afford your 1k nursery bill? People work part time for many reasons - 0 hours contract, no childcare, health reasons, no other jobs available. Do you genuinely believe people on benefits are milking some giant cash cow?? They will end up with less benefits than your nursery bill. I suppose you think we are spoiling them with food banks and heating grants.

If you want to spend your time worrying about money. Have a think about all the middle class and upper class Tory voters who use tax avoidance schemes. If the rich paid their tax properly we wouldn't have the debt level we do as a country.

Before you share your narrow mined, ignorant, bigoted views. Go and spend some time with people in poverty. Actually learn what it's like to be poor and rely on benefits. Then maybe your opinion might be worthy of consideration.

It’s a good job that you earn enough on your part time hours to not need top ups. You don’t take top ups, right?

"I know someone who clears almost 3.5k a month and doesn't earn a penny of it. (Fully able to work, chooses not to)"

Oh really. How is that then? Please do expand on this.

Alternatively you do what DH and I did when our children were young.
DH worked Monday to Friday office hours and I worked Saturday and Sunday and two evenings a week. So yes I was only working 28 hours, so part time; but no childcare costs at all. Bloody hard work but we managed.

And if you are a lone parent, how does this bright idea help?