To think £800p/m is pretty generous?

[Cuppasoupmonster]

Off the back of the ‘trapped women’ thread, out of curiosity I used ‘Entitled To’ to find out what I could claim if I was a single mum of 2 primary aged kids with no savings and an ex who paid the minimum in maintenance. The hypothetical single mum earns 1,300 p/m and rents a property costing £900 p/m.

The calculator said the minimum she would be entitled to would be £800p/m, which in my view is about right. Yet I hear a lot that benefits are a pittance and had assumed that to be the case, but I was pleasantly surprised by the result.

Am I overlooking something? Not trying to be goady, I’m genuinely curious.

YABU = £800 isn’t enough in these circumstances
YANBU = £800 is about right or even generous

Yes I’m part-time because I have a 11 month old and can’t afford any more childcare than that. Universal credit do not force you to work more hours until your child is in school.

I completely agree. But why should the state fund those situations whilst others have to work full time? Otherwise again why don’t we all work part time and let the state fund us? Seems fair to me and I’m sure many agree.

"But why should the state fund those situations whilst others have to work full time? " you mean fund people who can work full time and have no reason to be part time? Who have to evidence to uc that they are actively looking for more work or have a valid reason not to be working full time in the first place? Because benefits are in place to support people who are at risk of becoming vulnerable or who are already vulnerable to poverty... why shouldn't they fund people who can't work full time? Those are the people benefits are literally designed for in the first place and none of us know what's round the corner. A bad accident tomorrow could put any of us in those shoes- wouldn't you want to know you'd be OK if that happened to you?

Exactly. And if anyone has a problem with this they should be petitioning for a cap on childcare costs to make it easier for women in particular to return to the work place instead of taking money away from people.

I'd love to work part time and get top up benefits. I've done 35 years in extremely stressful jobs and I'm done with full time work. I have another 12 years to go though. It will make me ill before then.

UC pay 85% of childcare costs. However personally i would not want to put an 11 month old in full time childcare.

Yes but you still have to foot the bill before they pay out, so unless you have the money upfront (which we don’t) we still can’t afford more childcare.

I excluded disability and illnesses in my previous post. But living rurally is not a reason for working full time which has been quoted as a reason for being able to access benefits.

UC pay upto 85 percent of childcare, even as a single person I don't get my full childcare costs back all the time. It depends what you earn.

Still dying to hear how the OP would be financially better off single 😂

@Babyroobs

I'd love to work part time and get top up benefits. I've done 35 years in extremely stressful jobs and I'm done with full time work. I have another 12 years to go though. It will make me ill before then.

I agree. It should be an option available to everyone not just the few.

It is in some areas of the UK. I cover areas for work that don't have regular public transport (maybe 2 buses per day, mid morning and mid afternoon- unsuitable for anyone doing ft hours) and the nearest town is an hours drive away. Are people supposed to pay for a taxi both ways if they can't drive? How do they afford that journey daily on minimum wage or low income and still pay their other bills? What if full time jobs aren't available in their village because there are barely any shops? Let's also add into it that their nearest supermarket is also an hour away so not only do they have to pay to travel for those things as well, the only alternative is to shop in more expensive local stores as a result making their overall cost of living higher than someone living in a town. These are legitimate problems that people in rural communities can face which is why they're included in my catchment as areas of significant economic deprivation. They wouldn't fall into that category if rural living didn't make it harder for people to make ends meet.

Who pays for it? For everyone to work PT?

Who pays for those who currently do it?

The taxpayer. But if there’s no taxpayers because they’re all working PT, then what?

The majority of taxpayers don't pay enough tax to be net contributors, let alone pay enough to fund others to work fewer hours.

39%, not ‘most’.

So the 60% that do net contribute go PT and need top up, then what?

PT does not mean shit money that needs topping up. Many people work part time and still pay a lot of tax.

People like you are why benefit claimants are disliked so much ? You only work 6 hours a week? And you’re having another baby? How will you feed the new baby ? Are you going to keep claiming benefits but for two children now ?
If you can’t work because of lack of childcare for one how will you work with two?

Can you tell me how much somebody would need to earn to still be a net contributor while working 20 hours a week?

Its pie in the sky to suggest PT working should be available to everyone and ‘the government will just top them up’. Not a single country does this because it’s ludicrous for the most obvious of reasons.

We would also need twice as many workers - teachers, nurses, doctors etc all go part time. What then? Who picks up the slack? I mean you can double what they cost in wages now if they’re working PT and claiming top up, and their job share counterparts are doing the same. It’s laughable.

No I can't because I have no idea how to work things out.
Use common sense. A GP that works part time is not claiming benefits to top up their salary.

I can see you dont…

@Cuppasoupmonster

39%, not ‘most’.

So the 60% that do net contribute go PT and need top up, then what?

its a lot more than 39% net benefactors, for taxpayers who have DCs.

Can you tell me how much somebody would need to earn to still be a net contributor while working 20 hours a week?

I would still very much be a higher-rate taxpayer and net contributor if I worked 20hrs a week.