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?

When DH and i were signing on in the late 90s i was made to sign a form saying i would consider part time work DH was asked to do no such thing. But then hes not the one with a vagina

@MistressoftheDarkSide I completely agree with you. But i do think those without children are sometimes treated as "lesser than"

There was a tweet from a midwife a while back which said she has now got her first Christmas off for years The emotional blackmail and guilt tripping from her colleugues with kids started straight away

@Alphavilla

Maybe if your DHs large organisation gave people full time contracts in the first place that would help.
I explained upthread that my son has been given a 15 hour contact but is working close to full time. He doesn't claim UC because he lives with me, I can however see that for people with families that creates a difficulty

I'm a single parent and work mon-fri 9am till 3pm I'm worse off now than I was when I finished at lunch time everyday. I wouldn't work more hours as I'd be even more worse off. I got nearly all my rent and council tax paid for me when I finished at lunch time and now I pay full council tax and get about £3 a week housing benefit. Huge difference.

Young people wont be able to move out of home on those wages. I have noticed in my local Tesco that most of the workers are young people or older women

Yes I get paid more but I pay loads more in rent and council tax and get less working tax credits so I am worse off financially.

Why would one of them at least not be working if possible? A single person will still have expenses to pay that are fixed ie car insurance, council tax, energy bills to a certain extent that they have to pay 100%.

@JenniferBooth I don’t think that true at all my ex-husband claimed benefits, but he didn’t claim for the children, and he was entitled to quite a substantial amount at the time, and every single time he went in to sign on, the grey-haired old lady behind the counter, had an absolute dickie fit that he was receiving his legally entitled to benefits, contribution based , but apparently didn’t have a gaggle of kids to support.

@Justthisonce12 thats one person. Im talking about the whole system The expectation that you can live in a shittier place if you dont have kids. That you can do all the shitty shifts including over Christmas if you dont have kids
The social housing model which allocates you a tiny flat with nowhere to dry clothes because apparently you dont need to wash and dry clothes if you dont have kids .......

Agree, of course. The point about moral responsibilities was aimed at the OP whose husband was so confused as to why his company's generous offer of extra hours wasn't always taken up with gratitude! Moral responsibilities exist whether or not legal ones follow, and it's always worth pointing that out.

I'll assume the last sentence wasn't aimed at me...if it was you're a very poor shot 😉

I just don’t understand where the govt expect all the people on low paid jobs or benefits, to live
they would like us to shuffle into a cupboard every night, put ourselves on standby and then emerge the next day ready to toil away to increase the wealth & power of our overlords

That's not what happens at all.
The system takes what you earn each assessment month and calculates you allowance from it.
If you earn less one month you get more UC, if you earn more the next month your UC goes down that month to reflect it.

As a child free woman you haven't had the costs that came with a child. Most people don't choose to become single parents.

Well, there is. Unless you want to see children in poverty.

One of who? It's for one adult and one child.

It’s not an attitude. It’s makes financial sense.
If people could work and be better off they would.

people should want to be self reliant
agree, but the gvt make the rules that we have to live by, they regulate the markets, how can people be self reliant when they've allowed the housing market to inflate such that normal people cant afford a home...the basics of life have been made unaffordable!

Having children is a lifestyle choice nowadays
you speak as if children are pets, or hobbies, something that we have to amuse ourselves, but they are the next generation.
As more & more women (understandably) chose not to have any we are left with high numbers of frail elderly with progressively fewer & fewer new people to do the work

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

It's not free to work though, is it? You need to dress the part, use petrol/public transport. You need to join in in the work place - lunches, contributing to presents, bringing in a cake when it's your turn.....then there's the reductions to your benefits, plus the childcare costs.....it all adds up. That £200 becomes £100 or even less without too much trouble at all.

Fuck me. What have I just read?

This! ^

This is essentially saying that only the rich should have children.

Unbelievable!

Seems like @Florenz endorses social engineering!

With AI and robotics, the working poor, are going to become surplus to requirements. I know that’s absolutely awful. It’s terrible to think but we are going to have to financially support them.