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.

Not taxable income isn't taken into account for child tax credit.

I don't think these figures being thrown around are accurate tbh. With UC you're better off the more hours you work. The 16hr thing was linked to tax credits. I "take home" less than 20k including UC and I work more hours. Those unofficial benefit calculators are often inaccurate

When I worked pt on tax credits I couldn't afford to work full time because being a disabled worker I got more money with my salary & tax credits than working full time would have paid, I was doing a responsible job in the Civil Service yet didn't get much more than NMW. It's true that employers should be paying more so that tax credits & universal credit isn't needed. When f/t nurses & police still have to get uc & use foodbanks there is something wrong.

This 👏🏻

When my DC were small my Mum looked after them twice a week and other days they went to nursery. I was very grateful to my Mum for caring for my DC before they started school and allowed me to work full time. Nursery fees were still high but more manageable than that are today. My dd put her son in nursery and it cost £1800 per month. She worked full time but after nursery fees she was only £550 per month better off and some of that had to pay petrol to gets son to and fro.nursery. Now her son is at school and she is glad she held on to her job. Nursery fees are expensive but it is only for a few years, then you get some help from government. Once children are 5 and in school no reason for any fit person not to work. I don't think benefits should be given for people who choose to not work once children are 5.

I don't think benefits should be given for people who choose to not work once children are 5

School is the start of many a childcare problem not the end.

Not all schools offer wrap around. Its a first come first served basis. No garuntee you will get spot. Childminders have a limited amount of numbers of kids a certain age they can take.

Then there's the weeks of part time induction to reception. Having used all your holiday akd called in all your favours covering the summer holidays you then have to find time or someone to pick them up at 11.30 the first 3 weeks or whatever.

Then there's the sick days by god do they catch everything and anything in reception the first term.

Then there's the having to leave work to pick them up because they bumped their head/hurt their arm/fallen off a chair/wet themselves

Its actually harder work in some ways.

I don't think benefits should be given for people who choose to not work once children are 5

They aren’t. Unless people can prove they’re FT unpaid carers, or unwell enough for an exemption, everybody has to work or jobseek FT.

@MoistBandana 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

There are always exceptions to rules and this set of circumstances may well be one of them as everybody in this scenario needs support; this is a genuine welfare issue for all concerned. However some situations require people to be pragmatic and accept that their standard of living may need to be re-evaluated.

If you are a single parent working full time on NMW you would be worse of than working part time and getting top up benefits. So can you really blame single parents doing the best financial option for their family?.

And yet again your post is picking on the poorest people of society. Why are they always the target when people get frustrated.

Very important here to remember single parents and their children.
Working full time as a single parent is very hard on both.
Only one adult to do all the other life stuff such as housework, shopping and admin. Also helping child with homework, taking to activities etc. Only one set of leave to cover holidays.
I've worked with children who are hugely impacted by their one parent being at work full time, having to spend every morning and evening in clubs, then most of their holidays in holiday clubs. No time with parent.
I think single parents should be actively supported to work part time.

The system whe it works correctly it is about equality. There are many low income roles that are a necessity to society, there are also people who are unable to work or limited in what/how they work. The idea is the rich pay in to a tax system and the poor get earnings top up. Except the rich pay the bare minimum and finds ways to avoid paying correct tax. The middle class pay in but are often in a position of limited funds themselves due to rising expenses so resent 'their' money funding the system. The government do not budget enough into the system to give the poor anywhere near an equal footing. So the poor stay poor, the middle class are poorer and currently the only winners are the rich. As usual.

The weird figures are all because of the cap on the childcare element of UC.

So after working 2-3days a week you hit the maximum amount of childcare payment. So for any days you work above those 2-3days you don't get help with childcare.

It's probably not an issue in the whole of the U.K.. But in areas with expensive childcare it's the reality.

@Gobbledegobble I agree. I appreciate that childcare is expensive and that life is complicated eg bereavement, divorce, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect others to pay for your lifestyle choices unless the circumstances are extreme eg disabled child. Another way of looking at it is, if you work part time, would you be happy to spend 20-45% of the hours you don’t work doing something for the benefit of society eg picking up litter, or for the benefit of others who have made different lifestyle choices eg being the cleaner of someone who works FT so is time poor? If not, why should working people pay 20-45% of what they earn to top up your part time wages?

Also the labour market is very tight at the moment so it’s a good moment to negotiate a better salary or flex arrangement. I would rather pay less top up benefits, reduce tax to help work pay (I realise tax is not the only issue here) and pay more generous benefits to people in extreme circumstances. I would also subsidise childcare as this would pay for itself quickly.

If not, why should working people pay 20-45% of what they earn to top up your part time wages?

Luckily, they don't.
Welfare makes up around 40% of tax expenditure.
Of that 40%, Pensions are the biggest outlay taking up over 40% of the welfare bill.
Unemployment takes around 2%
And the rest is split between other categories.

See attached.

So at least 29% IS potentially supporting part time workers / stay at home parents? I don’t think your argument is showing what you want. (Unemployment, family
benefits, housing benefits). I know pensions are by far the biggest cost and I’m very glad the triple lock was removed. Much more OAP benefits (free travel, no tbh licence etc) should actually be means tested. Plenty of extremely comfortable, solvent, asset rich pensioners costing far poorer working people a huge amount of money and we won’t have anything like the lengthy, comfortable retirement many (not all) have.

Ugh ‘tv licence’, obviously

And interesting what the silent majority actually think based on the votes..!

@MoistBandana I know not all tax goes on top up benefits. The point is, if you work PT and expect others to top up your cash, are your prepared to top up their time to an equivalent degree? It’s an interesting q don’t you think?

Agree (outside of serious situations like disability that requires a lot of care). If you can take you can give.

I totally agree but if you are job hunting and all that's out there is pt Contracts would you rather the person stay unemployed?

The issue is employers having default pt contracts. It's convenient and profitable for them but the rest of us have to pick up the tab.

It's a cultural thing in the UK for mums to work part time. This stems from an individual tax system rather than household tax like almost every other country even USA.

So at least 29% IS potentially supporting part time workers / stay at home parents?

Did you add up percentages I the graphic?
You realise that's the breakdown of just welfare right? It's not a graphic showing the entire tax outlay..

Some people can’t work full time. The government knows this and thank god they do.
Some people work part time around being a carer. Some are a single parent and have children and work to juggle on their own.

Even when your children are school age, you don’t have to work full time until they are 13. It goes from 16 hours when they are 3, then up to 24 when the children are older and eventually full time as they become teenagers.

People are doing what they can around their own circumstances. Not everyone can work 40 hours a week.

Just sour grapes yet again.

I totally agree but if you are job hunting and all that's out there is pt Contracts would you rather the person stay unemployed?

I totally agree! DD a applied to work 3 shifts a week at a major supermarket, as she was also studying part time. She was sent, without being informed at the interview, a zero hours contract. She had to be available to work for 11 hours a day, 6 days a week. She worked in an understaffed department and ended up, doing 55 hours a week. Many of her colleagues did other roles, which were mainly full time. However, when the supermarket exceeded its overtime budget for the year, they cut the hours for some of people from 32 to 8 hours a week. Those people could not even afford the bus fare to work, after paying their rent.

The reason some employers prefer zero hours contracts is that they can employ people part time, to stay below the threshold for employers national insurance! It’s cheaper for them to pay three people to do one full time role, and pay no employers national insurance. Until the government does something about that, it is no use blaming people, who can only get zero hours contracts on the NMW, which turn out to be part time; but they have to be available all day and evening, six days a week!