To think this won’t work and will force more into poverty?

[KimberleyClark]

Kwasi Korteng wants to cut benefits to part time workers to force them to work more hours.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/21/kwasi-kwarteng-to-shrink-part-time-work-benefits-to-grow-labour-supply

you gotta love the Tories

Schools are encouraged as much as possible to provide wrap around care, and if it’s viable they usually do. I don’t think childcare is the major issue here. People know their what their earnings are and if they live in an area that has decent childcare options before they have children. People should relocate and provide as much as they can for themselves before expecting cash handouts from the state.

It makes sense to expect people to work full time or close to it if they can’t afford to live on a part time wage. It does not make sense to incentivise people to work as little as they can by giving them free money to top them up to a liveable income.

HOWEVER, people having kids they can't afford childcare for is quite another. Why should it be subsidised by child free people or those who made sacrifices when their own children were young?
Minimum wage barely covers the cost of commuting to work and wrap-around childcare for one school child. You break even and have nothing left to live on. It certainly doesn’t cover multiple kids or full time care before school age.

Are you saying that people on minimum wage should never have children? That only the rich should have children? We aren’t talking about feckless people having multiple kids. We’re talking about working people who can’t even afford one child.

And if people don’t have kids, who will do the jobs and pay the taxes in 30 years time when you retire?

@ClocksGoingBackwards firstly, after school care is not free. It's less than nursery provision, but it's still a cost and one that usually goes in tandem with the cost of uniform, school trips, school dinners etc. Children get more expensive as they get older, not cheaper.

Secondly, moving house costs money. Relocation is not as simple as you make it sound, especially with the housing market still on fire and rental costs rising very fast. Yes, people should provide for themselves - but it should be made easier for them to do so. To my mind that means focusing on those who are not already very wealthy, which is the opposite of this government's ideology.

@HardLanding and @FarmerRefuted i really feel for you both with shitty transport connections. I live rurally and until about 6 months ago the bus that came three times a week was my only independent form of transport, so I do empathise.

However, it’s seems from your stories that you are both active in work or education for at least 15 hours a week, to your immense credit. Why would you not expect this of other people as well? It’s really not much to ask.

@RafaistheKingofClay and @Gingerkittykat I think the 12 hours moving to 15 hours thing relates to the fact that if you’re working 12 hours then you don’t have to attend regular job centre appointments. You’re left to your own devices, so the government is basically allowing you to work 12 hours and receive top up benefits with no pressure to increase your earnings. This is increasing to 15, so someone would have to work 15 hours a week in order not to be pestered to work more.

I don't expect it from other people because I know how much of a slog it is to coordinate it all and how just link in the chain failing (e.g., local nursery closing down) can bring the whole thing tumbling down, not everyone has the means or the fortitude to juggle that sort of situation long term. My model also relied heavily on my mum being available to do the care pre-and-post childminder opening hours.

My model did all fall down when one of my DC was diagnosed with a disability affecting the suitability of the childcare available to me, by that point I had younger DC too and ended up leaving employment to be their full time carer for which I got Carers Allowance.

I think this policy is a good idea. I know two people on benefits who refuse to work more hours. It's the tax payers who are paying for them not to work. That is unfair and unsustainable. It is fair that people paid for by the taxpayers should work as many hours as possible.

@FarmerRefuted sorry to hear of the difficult times you’ve had with your child’s disability.

I totally see how when you were trying to juggle everything full time it was too much. Do you not think people can do 15 hours a week though if their kids are in full time school? And if not, how many hours? If none at all, then does this extend all the way until the youngest child is 18?

I don’t want anyone to flog themselves to death and I want everyone to live with dignity, but I’m really not on board with that. There has to be some expectation of work from a health adult with school age children and I don’t think 15 hours with top up benefits is unreasonable.

I think the government should run a consultation on why people don't increase their hours and then address those barriers, for example by investing in quality/affordable childcare, public transport, housing etc.

Yes this would make sense! Not penalising people by cutting their benefits because they can’t work more.

@FarmerRefuted but if someone has a child in school 30 hours then they don’t need childcare to work 15 hours, do they? And they have a whole other 15 child free hours to commute in if they need to.

I’m all for tackling barriers to employment but I don’t see many barriers to working 15 hours a week (3 more than the current expectation) if you’re a healthy adult with school age children.

I had my first job at 12, juggled 3 jobs while I took my GCSE exams, left home at 16 and worked 30 hours while at college. After uni I juggled unpaid internships with bar work for a few years until finally starting my career. Currently work around 50 hours a week with regular, extended periods of travel to humanitarian disaster zones. It’s hot, the foods normally shit and I have semi-permanent jet lag some months. I’m sorry but I really don’t buy that another woman my age can’t put in 15 hours a week cos she’s got an 8 year old in school or whatever.

Logically you can drop your child at school, commute somewhere, do your work, commute back without needing childcare in term time. But realistically there arent lots of jobs offering those terms.

@cowskeepingmeupatnight that makes more sense. If I’m right from googling this isn’t really about hours. It’s about the earnings threshold which doesn’t seem to have changed with the minimum wage so was equivalent to working fewer hours.

Re: After school care. Not only is it not free but holiday care can be extortionate. Easily possible to spend much more per day on childcare for 2 children than you earn as a single parent in a low wage job.

the government could choose to change a lot of things to make working easier. Instead it largely seems to go for actions which will make the poor poorer during a cost of living crisis. All made worse by the fact that the Tories fucked up UC when they introduced it and rather than trying to fix it they seem to be deliberately trying to break it more.

but if someone has a child in school 30 hours then they don’t need childcare to work 15 hours, do they? And they have a whole other 15 child free hours to commute in if they need to.

That's if there's a job available with shifts that only take place between the hours of 9.30am and 2.30pm (allowing commute time to be at school for drop off and pick up). This would also need to be term time only because the children don't just blink out of existence during the holidays. This job would also have to have no expectation that this person would be able to do extra shifts, for example to cover sick or holidays for other staff or busy periods such as sales.

How many jobs like that exist?

Liz Truss has only been in Government for a couple of weeks and is making some radical changes!

She is spending big money by removing the additional NIC and providing more support for fuel.

Tough decisions need to be made and they won’t please everyone. She is taking quite a different direction from the former Tory leaderships.

I like it that’s she’s taking decisive action that she believes is in the best interest. Cameron and May tried to please too many people and failed. Johnson was a joke and just in it for his own self interest.

I was impressed by her helping with the Iranian hostages.

Will her new policies help the economy… I’m not sure yet… they aren’t ones I’d have made. But I think she is trying, so I’m not going to judge her yet.

I’m sitting on the fence at the moment….

She is giving so much money to the richest and very little to the poorest.

It is quite shocking to see it being done so blatantly.

At least she admitted it live on national TV too. None of that waffle pretending that the rich aren’t getting richer and the poor aren’t getting poorer that Boris would have given.

There are quite a few jobs near me that can be done in school hours and I live in the back of beyond. Thinking particularly cafes, supermarkets, schools, secretarial work etc.

For holidays, the government should definitely do more for affordable childcare but parents also have to plan ahead with clubs etc and budget for that accordingly. That is the tough reality for all parents at the moment so the ones working 12 hours now expected to work 15 are no different in that respect.

That old chestnut - incentivise the rich by paying them more, incentivise the poor by paying them less.

@ClocksGoingBackwards firstly, after school care is not free. It's less than nursery provision, but it's still a cost and one that usually goes in tandem with the cost of uniform, school trips, school dinners etc. Children get more expensive as they get older, not cheaper.

True, and I would support free or heavily subsidised childcare, even for children below school age and even if it cost more than providing the benefit money. Either way, people should still be bale to afford children before they have them.

Minimum wage barely covers the cost of commuting to work and wrap-around childcare for one school child. You break even and have nothing left to live on. It certainly doesn’t cover multiple kids or full time care before school age.

This is a policy about people working a mere 12 hours a week, not people working full time for minimum wage. Presumably if people were working full time, they’d still get the top up through benefits to help with those things.

Are you saying that people on minimum wage should never have children? That only the rich should have children? We aren’t talking about feckless people having multiple kids. We’re talking about working people who can’t even afford one child.

There is a lot of space between being on minimum wage and being rich. We’re not talking about working people who can’t even afford one child despite doing a full working week, we’re talking about people working part time, maybe for minimum wage, maybe for more. People working part time for a low wage are never going to be able to afford a child without increasing their earnings somehow, so no, they shouldn’t be having children because raising children isn’t free.

This is a policy about people working a mere 12 hours a week, not people working full time for minimum wage. Presumably if people were working full time, they’d still get the top up through benefits to help with those things.
No you don’t get top up benefits if you work full time. I’d be entitled to £1200 a year towards childcare and that’s all.

And it IS about people working full time for min wage. Because it’s about pushing people who work part time to increase their hours. A lot of them can’t, for the reasons outlined. It’s possible to work part time during school hours, get topped up with benefits and look after your kids yourself - but due to the costs of childcare it’s not possible to work more hours and pay for care.

With Uc at the moment, if one of a couple is working then often the other is put in a light touch group where they barely have to look for work at all. But the minimum earnings that the working one needs to earn for the other to be in the light touch group is currently around £567 per month, rising to £782 per month this month. I just find it incredible that up to now, one of a couple can earn just £567 a month and the other have no real work commitments or need to search for work yet able to claim UC. Unless I am misunderstanding the rules? If I have understood correctly then things absolutely need to change as Uc is just as bad as the old working tax credits system where couples could work just 24 hours a week between them to be topped up by working tax credits.

I'm not sure of the current benefit system but when my children were at school there were parents that worked 16 hours and claimed tax credit and working tax credit and purposely didn't work full time because the tax credit top up was enough to make up the difference.

I think if you have a number of children then working less hours does work out better since no childcare to pay for and more time with children.

There are plenty of vacancies out there and yet many work part time with top up benefits, there is obviously some financial benefit otherwise why do it.

There are plenty of vacancies out there and yet many work part time with top up benefits, there is obviously some financial benefit otherwise why do it.

Work 16 hours, get topped up to a full time salary, and look after your own kids so you have no childcare to pay.

Or work 40 hours for a full time salary and have to pay for childcare.

It’s obvious why people pick option 1. They’re massively better off!