People who won't work otherwise they lose benefits

[Alphavilla]

Came across BBC article recently quoting a 20 year old man saying he had cut out Netflix and booze to cut his costs in these difficult times. However apparently he could not work more than his 16 hours otherwise he would lose his benefits. My DH is a manager in large organisation and he finds it difficult to get shifts/jobs covered as the employees claim they can't add more hours to their part time shift because they would lose entitlement to benefits. So there is work to be had, but it seems it is more lucrative not to work. What has gone wrong?

Yes, but what can you do when you have to live somewhere and full time work doesn’t cover it?

It’s a shit situation but you aren’t going go
see rents halve overnight, which would what would be needed in London. That will never happen.

And even full housing benefit isn’t in line with private rent costs by a long way. The amount of times we were asked if we had applied for social housing - we weren’t eligible in our area anyway (computer said no - it said we were eligible to claim HB for a private renal), and the list was 15 years long in any case.

I think I said it on another thread, it was just a farce when the people DH knew from work in the HB department were claiming top up HB themselves.

This is such a good point. I feel like so many money / income / societal conversations always come back to housing.

You can’t rent anything on a low paid or PT job, because the credit checks won’t say you earn enough.

I just don’t understand where the govt expect all the people on low paid jobs or benefits, to live.

If they are on UC it automatically works it out so people don't need to ring up to sort it out. You would be always be better off working more hours but it's not by much. To be honest as soon as the kids grow up they will be up shit creek, the amounts lower a lot It's best off working full time and progressing if possible.

@JockTamsonsBairns

Well said.
My son is adopted- happily for him this is not his future.
He has siblings in the care system, one who will be 16 soon. I fear for his future.

My door will always be open to him but I suspect he will not walk through it.

I'm a work coach. this is rubbish. it goes on earnings. Universal Credit take off 55p per pound so you are always better off working.
if he works 16 hours and gets no UC it's because he's earning more than he would get on benefits

comes down to laziness a lot if the time.
'why should I work tk get 600 when I can do nothing and get 400'

following on from this if he's on disability benefits working more will make him look less disabled and they'll take away his bens

@Nagado

Yes, we’ve all had to make cut backs. But if I get rid of my Netflix, I’ve got a DH to keep me company. I’ve got books. I’ve got friends and family. Go and look at your DC. Imagine them all alone in a room, in a building full of vulnerable people. They’ve got no support from family. Would you be happy telling them they can’t have one of the few things that give them any pleasure in life? Or would you be shouting that they couldn’t be expected to stare at their four walls each night without it tipping them over the edge. Why is it ok for this lad, but not your own DC?

Absolutely this.

I really hope some posters on the thread do actually do this.

Go and look at their own kids and visualise them in the situation they described.

And see if that changes their point of view at all.

If it doesn't, I don't know what to say.

I’ve asked this question before on similar threads but never had it satisfactorily answered…..

When a family gets evicted because they are unable to pay their rent and are put into temporary accommodation, it makes no sense that the benefits system refuses to cover, let’s say, a monthly rent of 850.00, yet is happy to hand over a couple of thousand a month to the providers of said temporary accommodation which is often substandard and unsuitable for a family.

The instability of living in such accommodation has a detrimental effect on the family - mental health may suffer, any employment commitments may be difficult to meet due to re-location, childrens attendance and school performance may suffer, and all these issues may require intervention and services that cost the tax payer further money to address indirectly if the services are even there or properly managed.

If the system simply covered the original rent it would be more cost effective and far less disruptive to the family in the first place. Which suggests that there is a bit of a racket going on lining the pockets of private landlords providing said temporary accommodation…..

Also, I know a couple of people in so called supported living, and what they relate concurs with the observations of a few PPs - the supported element is scant and poorly managed.

As for just getting a job….. others have pointed out that zero hours contracts are the bane of those seeking stable work and also, employers can pick and choose and hire and fire at will. Often what used to be entry level positions require degrees and the days of joining a firm, working one’s way up and retiring after 50 years loyal service are long gone.

Oh but we can all re-train in IT and support the brave new technological world ….. until AI and automation renders yet more work obsolete.

A PP mentioned fucked up end stage capitalism. This is it folks…..

Absolutely this, and I'm seeing it now myself. I've been a single parent since DS was a baby, it limited how much I could work when he was younger. He's turning 15 early next year and I'm desperately trying to progress at work and increase my wage, as I'm still on very low pay. UC will stop in 3 years, and I'll be paying rent and bills on my own, plus trying to support him through university if he goes (he does plan to at the moment). I'm fortunate to live in a housing association property, so my rent is lower than those in private rent. But if I don't increase my wage, things will be very tight in a couple of years.

And it’s also very hard to rent even when you work full time but receive top up benefits.

The amount of estate agents who outright laughed in my face was souls destroying.

parents can claim up to 85% of childcare costs. I work and still get 20% of my childcare paid and am not on benefits

it's all old school nonsense. universal credit makes it so you are always better off working.

single parents can earn 345 before their money starts reducing too

I see my customers surprised all the time as they are still on the old benefits mindset.

Zero hours contracts benefit some people not all people want/need contacted hours. When I was a student nurse I needed flexible work in between placements and uni . It also suits some disabled people who need flexibility. I do agree it should be the law if you request contracted hours you can have it but they shouldn't ban it all together.

t’s the fault of the system but also a lot of people especially women can’t work more due to childcare*

UC covers a big percentage of childcare costs.

I'm not saying it's not shit.

But it's a vicious circle.

Employers will never fully and consistently abide by moral responsibilities, because their priority is to make money. This then becomes more true of large multinational corporate employers who lack cultural and communal ties to their workforce than it is of smaller local ones who may still have such ties, and the greater profits of the former (along with increasing deregulation from government) allow them to squeeze out the latter.

What is needed is legal responsibilities. Government needs to enact and enforce these (as used to be the case), and citizens need to vote for a government that will do so.

Or alternatively, vote for a government that will continue destroying the rights and protections of working people to syphon ever more of the economy upwards to the super-rich, and then come on here and complain about it.

And the only people who benefit from that are the private landlords.

They do, but the claimants benefit as well. They get their housing expenses covered.

Yes, but then you also have to factor in things like cost of travel to work. A train to the city centre where I live is nearly £6 a day.

SOME of their housing expenses. The LHA for a 2 bedroom property where I live is £540pm. Private rents for 2 bedrooms start at around £675 and that's the very lowest, most of them are £700+.

As a work coach, I hope you would take the time to find out your clients' circumstances before giving them inappropriate advice which could leave them homeless.

Not all of it.

Even full housing element falls short of private rent. You have to make up the shortfall yourself.

He has actually worked at least 30 hours for the last 5 weeks, but there is no guarantee of those hours. So they gave 40people part time jobs, they could have given 20 people full time jobs. That is just one store.

Absolutely. But he can't stay home all his life? So what then?

We have more people being contracted to do work that can be done by fewer because it keeps the wages low. And then we have the need of immigration, a high welfare bill and inflated rents.

Al courtesy of the low wage economy. Having said that, it is what kept inflation low all these years, so there's that.

Quite a high percentage though.

my Dp works full time and earns just over 30,000 per year before tax.

I am a sahp/parent carer. We are in receipt of a small amount of tax credits and I get carers allowance. Firstly it's not easy for me to find a job with my childrens needs, secondly if I worked we would lose tax credits and carers if I earned over a certain amount. I'd have to be working enough hours to make up what we'd lose in tax credits and carers which are unachievable hours as a parent carer! The 16 hour thing doesn't really apply in my situation but sometimes it's not worthwhile.

I don’t know if you’re a spectacularly thick work coach or you just couldn’t be bothered to trouble your arse by reading the fucking thread, but I hope to God I never need to rely on someone like you for help.

This lad is in supported accommodation. Do you understand what that means? They don’t hand those places out to university graduates or school leavers from supportive families. They go to people who need support to live as independent a life as they are capable of living. And you think he’s choosing to give up his few pleasures in life because he’s too lazy to work more?!

God help the nations’s unemployed and vulnerable.

It’s not easy to make up a £200 shortfall if you were on full benefits. Or a working single parent.