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?

Just calculated the amount I'd get in benefits if I was unemployed, based on a private rent of £750pm which is the average around here.
£1350 ish in total.
So rent £750pm. Energy bills at the rate they are now, currently around £200pm. That takes us down to £400 already. Let's say water around £30pm because that's what I pay. TV license, £13ish, can't remember exactly. Phone contract £20. Internet £15 maybe?
So that's around £320pm left for food and clothes and everything else, for me and a hungry teenage boy. Doable, sure. A life of luxury? Ha.

@Florenz

That's not really in question at this point. Corbyn lost 2 elections, people didn't want to vote for him. He was unelectable. If he was electable he'd have been elected.

Don't want to string out the tangent unnecessarily (which was my fault for introducing in the first place), but that's completely illogical. It's like saying the fact I didn't manage to catch the bus this morning proves I'm incapable of ever catching a bus.

In a complex system (like an electorate) a lot of factors interact to determine outcomes. You can't retrospectively extrapolate from an outcome that the cause must have been some immutable quality of one factor which made the outcome inevitable.

And the reality is that in 2017 Labour under Corbyn won more votes than in any election since 1997, depriving the Tories of their majority and convincing the establishment that they would have to scrape the bottom of the barrel harder to make the outcome happen that they'd told everyone was inevitable.

So now we can't afford to take additional work hours because there's nothing tying them to predictable contracts and we'll be unable to support ourselves the following week. But at least we got blue passports.

People do want to be self reliant, we've just got shite employment laws, shite pay, and shite contracts.

If the government and employers made it illegal to offer 0 hour contracts, or a real, liveable minimum wage then the amount of people who rely on benefits would decrease significantly.

Not true when you factor in childcare costs. In many cases women are worse off. I know long term I'd be better off being able to progress but as I'm currently living hand to mouth, I've nowhere left to cut back on so can't make a short term sacrifice for a long term gain.

But plenty of people work full time for £1350 or less. It's a lot of money for not working.

So are you saying that the fact that a big part of your rent is covered does not benefit you?

Exactly. If you work 37 hrs a week at £9.15 hr you will earn that. That’s where it’s unfair - but the Govt allowed to happen.

It doesn't matter how many votes he got. He lost. Twice. And the second time he was soundly defeated. How many more chances should Labour have given him? They need a leader that can win elections. Making promises to make things better means nothing if you can't get into power and actually be in a position to fulfill those promises.

Yes. I work full time myself and that is my take home pay, so I am aware.

But a single person earning that money do not need to rent a 2 bedroom house, or feed and clothe a child. They can live in a shared house at a lot lower rent, with bills included.

Yes, but a single person earning that does not need to feed and clothe a child! The figures I quoted is to support TWO people, an adult and a child. A single adult on benefits would get a LOT less than that.

I did say if possible. I understand childcare costs can be prohibitive. When the DC reach secondary school people should look for a full time job so it's not such a shock when they reach 18 and the benefits stop.

The more hours I work, the more my childcare costs increase. When working part time, I have lower earnings, and lower child care costs but due to the low earnings I qualify for the full 85% towards lower childcare. When I work full time, my childcare costs are just shy of triple, but my wage doesn't triple. I receive less UC because I'm over that threshold, plus due to my earnings I no longer get 85% towards childcare, I get approx 30% towards a much larger childcare bill which more than wipes up the difference between the part time and full time wage, on top of now getting a lesser top up amount, so I'm actually worse off per month by a fair amount. Long term it would pay off to take that hit to progress in my career, but as a single mother living hand to mouth, scrimping on heating and missing meals to feed my kids as it is, it's a hit I can't currently afford to take! Plus you then factor I'd lose the free school meals and uniform allowance, it would throw me over the edge. I hate that this is how my life turned out, but until my youngest is in primary school this is how I'm affording to keep a roof over our heads. Once you take out childcare, yes it absolutely pays more to work more.

I am not saying it doesn’t.

(And I haven’t been in that situation myself - I have only ever claimed top up housing benefit in the past while working full time).

But it’s not a fair system when LHA and private rent aren’t aligned. People can’t afford the shortfall. It shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

Just because a local authority deem that a
2 bedroom house in X area SHOULD cost £950 per month, it’s never actually the case.

I got stuck in this trap for years. You need to earn a LOT of money to get out of Tax Credits or Universal credit completely and the odd few hours overtime used to make it a nightmare. It’s easier now it’s UC online but for years I had to submit my income to the council for housing benefit and it would just make such a mess if my income changed but my employer wasn’t going to give me better pay or more contracted hours

My DD works for a massive supermarket they employed her on 16 hours then expect her to pick up 20+ more a week but it’s not regular and it fluctuates. She’s not on benefits so can do it but if you are then it just makes them a mess

This is absolutely not true.

I was getting 300 a month, and they've not shut it to 100 a month because I work between 12-18 hours a week (at 10/h)

@EhLov And yet when if/when one half of the couple dies in that scenario its ooh no you wernt really a couple...no widow benefit for you.

@sst1234 the “recession” is expected to last 18 months tops.

Hey @Florenz

www.google.com/search?q=kevin+bridges+pride+poundland&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1018GB1018&oq=kevin+bridges++pride+poundl&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j33i10i160.34133j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a8019ed8,vid:2v3fy7XKIr0

You’re forgetting he is a care leaver in supported accommodation with £25/week rent. If he works more than 16hrs without it being a FT permanent contract he will lose his housing and doing say, 20hrs a week now and then won’t generate him the money he needs to pay Market rent. Have a heart as this guy is literally an orphan trying his best.

do you have a link to the article, as clearly there is not enough information in your OP to make an adequate judgement on the issue is.

@Beezknees As a child free by choice woman i would have been pretty pissed off at having to live in a shared house just because i didnt have living proof that i have had sex without contraception. The number of those choosing to remain child free is growing too. Those without kids always get "oh you can just......."

Having children is a lifestyle choice nowadays. There's no excuse for having different "rules" for parents than for non-parents.

Even if they did understand, some people on here wouldn't give a fuck

Having children is a lifestyle choice these days…… apparently only reserved for the affluent?

Ignoring biology and evolutionary programming to reproduce, what would happen if the “economically inferior” stopped reproducing, leaving only the elite? Who would keep the current capitalist system going, because I’m pretty sure the upper classes won’t be encouraging Little Lord or Lady to become waste disposal operatives?

You see, this is the problem - when you start reducing humanity to the level of economic units, you’re on a very slippery slope.

The amount paid for a minimum wage job is less than you can scoop up in benefits.
The political parties have built a system whereby the electorate is dependent upon a system. It suits them as effectively is cash for votes.
In reality it's not a great way to spend tax income and higher wages etc would be far better.
Adjustment and change of the system is nigh on impossible because if it is changed the political party that does will loose votes.
A far better outcome would be higher wages, less taxation and a greater sense of personal responsibility for your own welfare and living costs.
The system as it is can't last, you can't tax middle income Britain into oblivion to support the NHS, benefits and paying back the national debt.