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.

@Ilovemycatalot I'm a single parent with young dc, work FT and claim no benefits.

Why should a single parent only earn NMW? Many are skilled and capable adults not needing state subsidies.

What really bothers me about these benefit bashing posts that are filled with misinformation, bias and straight up lies isn't that MN allow them or encourages them by not taking any action, it's that a lot of people on them are basically angry that someone is getting something they're not.

It leads me to think where exactly is the line for these people?

People go to work and earn good money.

But a part time worker goes to work and gets enough to barely pay bills but that's not good enough for the worker..

So what? Part time workers shouldn't have money to pay bill they have no control over?

Worker goes to work, pays their mortgage has a nice house in a nice area...

But the unemployed get £450 a month to pay the rent on their social housing house in a sink estate and the worker is furious?

So what... The unemployed shouldn't get help? Should live on the streets? Pull themselves out of poverty using the dregs and scraps from your table?

But then someone would be along saying that it's their scraps and dregs and why should anyone else have them..

So what is the minimum floor they'd like to see for disabled, ill, unemployed?

Starvation? Destitution? Swathes of people with no hopes, no homes, no prospects?

You want to throw your scorn and rage at them whilst the fat cats make billions and laugh at you for being jealous of a pitiable poverty stricken pensioner in a social housing flat who got £150 to not freeze to death this year that hasn't eaten properly for many a month?

You need your eyes fixing. It's not the people on welfare, who, let's not forget, are mostly pensioners. It's not them that are making your life harder, of the unemployed all loved.on the streets and died.of starvation, it wouldn't make your paycheque stretch any further. If the disabled people were herded into specialist poor houses and worked 50 hour weeks sewing F&f t-shirts, it wouldn't make your mortgage not go up or the gas and electric prices not raise. Whilst you're beating the people at.your feet, the people at your shoulders are beating you. Direct your rage at those that deserve it and can change things, not the people that cant help, can't do anything and that are drowning and dying faster than you are.

I find most people who make posts like this or say similar things, have never been a lone parent.

I'd like to point out that there are a lot of men who avoid paying adequate child support, including my own DS's dad. He never has our DS overnight, out of choice. He sees DS 4 times a month. He does everything he can to pay the bare minimum (£50 per week). CMS are awful and don't make the father's pay properly either, they just shrug their shoulders. My ex relishes in telling me I get 'top up' benefits and that I am sponging from the tax payer, failing to see the irony that I have the claim benefits because he doesn't care or pay for his son properly.

I work PT in a good job, with a good wage. It's not enough to live on, so I get a UC 'top up'. If I worked FT and paid for wrap around childcare for DS, I would have less monthly take home than I currently do, and we are already a struggling (I am extremely worried about this winter, being on the energy price cap). The benefit claimants aren't the issue here; it's absent fathers, low wages and extortionate childcare.

The triple lock was suspended for one year, it’s back in April. Free bus passes are cost neutral and useless to anyone who doesn’t live in a big city because there are no buses. The free TV licence for over 75s has gone. Added to which means testing costs more than universal benefits and reclaiming the cost through taxation - which is what happens now.

The benefit claimants aren't the issue here; it's absent fathers, low wages and extortionate childcare

I have to say that I actually don't think we value parenting enough. These small ( or sometimes older) children are the next generation of work force. We seem to accept paying strangers to look after our children ( I have nothing against childcare BTW. Families do whatever they do ajd whatever works for them I have no thoughts or judgements either way) but staying home and looking after your own is something to be frowned upon. Single dads are lauded. Everyone thinks they are amazing. No one complains a single dad claims benefits. But single mums seem to he singlehandedly responsible fir all societies problem.

Work too much and you are told you are neglecting your children. Don't work at all or work part time all anyone sees is pound signs. As if taxes wouod he reduced at all if there were no single mums. We'd still be in the shit financially as a country . Who will you blame then.

And it's still kinda ironic that part time is OK when it suits you. When you can get your hair cut or your coffee or your joist cleaned. They'd soon be moaning if all the part time services you use no longer exist because they have had to switch to another job full time.

House cleaned

There is no longer a requirement to work a certain number of hours on UC, there is a requirement to earn a certain amount. This is rising soon.

I'm a single parent, was a full-time student, now working part time. Starting a full time job next month. I wasn't sanctioned for not working full-time though my kids are both 13+ because I was earning above the minimum requirement.

@Whatwouldscullydo I completely agree with this too. Also, there is not enough stigma for men who don't pay or take care of their children properly. The government should take payment directly from their wages and make it shameful, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with abandoning their DC.

Yes. Your graphic makes up to 29% of welfare spending on subsidising part-time work. That’s a fact. I agree it largely needs taking up with the companies who prefer part time to full time contracts, but that’s still a fact. And one that’s, rightly or wrongly, frustrating when you’re exhausted from working full time.

Yes, 29% of welfare spending is spent on unemployment, family credits, and income support, and housing benefits, but welfare spending is not what 100% of tax is spent on. In fact, less than 25% of the tax budget is spent on welfare with the majority of that being spent on pensions.

Lowering welfare will not lower your tax bill. Forcing low-income families into poverty will not make you richer.

Start. Looking. Up.

That's where the issue is. 50% of the world's wealth is owned by 1% of the population and yet your issue is that Mary down the road with three kids gets a couple of a hundred pounds a month in tax credits and you don't?

The issue can be with both.

@EhUpDuck How will making Mary worse off benefit you?

Well said OP. "Top up" benefits are basically subsidies to big business under the guise of helping the poor (who often have just as much income when including benefits as those working full time). All it means is that middle income taxpayers pay more tax/NI so that the Governments' favourite corporates pay minimum wage (on which now no tax or NI is due) and are subsidised by other taxpayers, enhancing their profits. Part-timer, minimum wagers often get the same wage as someone on full time pay (this only applies to those with children who probably end up with the same income as someone on £40k salary because they get so much help with rent and child benefits, especially in places like London where private rent is high - also subsidising rich landlord and property owners to keep housing costs high due to artificially propping up the market via housing benefit).

The people who really miss out are single people working full time who heavily subsidise part-timers and families who have lots of children where either nobody works or one person works part-time. It's an absolute disgrace and the reason why productivity is so crap in this country and why full time workers are paying so much tax. As the balance shifts to a place where there are more people claiming benefits of some sort than are in work there are going to be big problems. In some parts of the UK, 60% of people claim benefits. It is completely unsustainable!

"The benefit claimants aren't the issue here; it's absent fathers, low wages and extortionate childcare"

Also large employers, Tesco, Iceland, Farmfoods etc who only offer 7-20 hours a week. Home Bargains only give 16 hours. My DD has just gone from there to a 27.5 contract, in the NHS support staff, there wasn't full time hours available for her skill set. She rarely gets offered overtime. There was a thread recently were parents of students were saying that their teens were getting rejected because they couldn't be fully flexible, because of college/uni. Full flexibility is asked for, yet part time hours offered. Warehousing and call centers are the only places in my region were you can get proper full time hours.

There's been a lack of support for our Merseyside Arriva being on strike, but all they are fighting for is a livable wage and fair T&C's regarding overtime. What do we want, our country supported by UC?

I have a mortgage, so I don't get the housing element of UC. Put it this way - if I lost my job this is what I would get:

standard allowance - £334.91
child allowance - £534.58
child benefit - £157.09
maintenance from ex - £299
Total - £1325.58 per month or £15,907 per year

My monthly direct debits and other essentials are as follows -
Mortgage £500
Energy £167
Petrol £150
Council tax £100
Water £60
Mobile phone £30
House insurance £23
Internet £20
Tv license £12.47
Total £1062.47

So that would leave £263.11 per month to cover food, clothes and school uniform, car insurance and maintenance, and all "luxuries". It would be just about doable but not exactly a life of luxury that some people on this thread make it out to be.

This amount is also dependent on my ex paying maintenance as agreed every week, which he doesn't always. If he had a month where he stopped paying (which has happened before) I'd be in the red.

I'll wait for the comments that tell me I don't need a mobile phone/internet...

"Yes, 29% of welfare spending is spent on unemployment, family credits, and income support, and housing benefits, but welfare spending is not what 100% of tax is spent on. In fact, less than 25% of the tax budget is spent on welfare with the majority of that being spent on pensions.
Lowering welfare will not lower your tax bill. Forcing low-income families into poverty will not make you richer."

People not having disposable income to spend sets us all back. We need thriving hospitality/hair/taxi etc businesses. Our high streets die, deprivation lowers educational attainment etc. As said the issue is wealth distribution and the hoarding of wealth.

Also, this made me laugh:

Also the labour market is very tight at the moment so it’s a good moment to negotiate a better salary or flex arrangement

Yeah, ok 😂😂 negotiating a salary increase is next to impossible in the education or public sectors. Even in the private sector, some businesses are hugely struggling post covid.

The reason most single parents work part time is due to childcare issues so how do you expect them to do volunteering jobs with kids in tow? If they could do that they'd work full time!

Absolutely! If you are a skilled worker then maybe you can negotiate but if you're working in a shop or something on minumum wage good luck with requesting a pay rise.

The people who really miss out are single people working full time who heavily subsidise part-timers and families who have lots of children where either nobody works or one person works part-time.

I'm a single person working and living in a Nordic country with notoriously high taxes (though I don't believe they're actually much higher than in the UK). I'm subsiding (nearly) free childcare and education, including university education. I don't mind. It's what being part of a society is about. I'm happy that my friends don't need to spend their entire salary on nursery fees.

The problem in the UK is that so many of these provisions have been stripped back to the bare minimum, and that it's instead up to individuals and families to pay for these services. As a result, there's antagonism and this discourse of 'subsidising' particular (undeserving) individuals or groups, rather than funding the collective provision of services that contribute to a functioning society.

V well said 👏🏼

@Alaimo the UK mindset, fuelled by the right wing press, is that it's everyone for themselves, you're a mug if you think supporting a functioning society where everyone has enough is a good thing and it's more important to vote to keep others poorer than you are than to vote to create a fair society where everyone thrives.

It's very sad.

Absolutely @Alaimo.

25% of the income tax receipt is received by 1% of the population. Around 43% of people pay NO income tax. That is a huge burden for just over the half of the population who do.

That should say paid. So 1% of the country pay 25% of all income tax. Around 56% pay income tax, 43% ish don’t. That’s not sustainable.