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?

Quite. I read it. He can't afford full rent plus transport, food, dentist on night shift work but he wants to move into his own place and become a pilot.

That doesn't fit OP's narrative though!

Wages should be more than benefits.

It's the fault of the system, there's cliff edges built in and certain benefits act as gateways for others. Uc has helped with this a bit (tax credits were less flexible) but more should be done plus there are a lot of people who aren't particularly financially literate so don't understand the taper rate

In this particular article's case the 16 hours was 16 hours on minimum wage for his age, so that amount of money rather than the number of hours. The accommodation was subsidised for low income young people, he would have to pay full rent if he earned more, he would be able to apply for housing benefit but due to the set up he would be worse off. This is not the case for most people

This has been a problem for a long time, it’s not a recent thing. It’s better than it used to be because more people will be better off in work now, but before UC came about, more people were better off on tax credits.

There will always be lazy people with no aspirations that want to work as little as possible, but at least now the only way they will increase their income is through working.

They are.

But in this case, this man is living in supported accommodation, and the rent in those is often around £300 a WEEK.

Its a common attitude. Not specific to the article in question but i know many people who don't wish to work more than 16 hours because after they take into account extra costs (travel, childcare), they feel the extra income isn't worth the reduction in time with their family.

Its the problem with any form of "free money", there has to be a threshold where its phased out, and people struggle with the fact that at the threshold people feel they have to work more but only "keep" a small proportion of it after loss of benefits.

Frank Field pointed out about 30 years or even more ago about the 'benefits trap' where effectively there is a tax or benefits loss equivalent to a very high marginal rate of tax. Still the case today with the universal credit taper.

There also used to be a period of assessment for your income of 13 weeks for benefits when working, and you'd get people who were willing to do overtime, except for those 13 weeks when they cropped up.

@Beezknees This!
Im a single parent and I went back to work when my daughter was a year and one month. I was part time (3 days 10-4) so she had to be in nursery for those day.
My wages from the job were 788 and my DD nursery fee was 770! I also have a 10 yr old DS and his after school club was £185 a month.
I had to give it up and didn't renew the contract because I literally had nothing and then when UC reimburse me I ended up giving back to people who had lent me to buy food etc.

This.

People who are up in arms don't seem to understand the reality of the shitty system.

And even if it is back paid later, that doesn't help if you're living hand to mouth, you don't have a cushion of savings to live off in the meantime.

It's inhumane AND impractical.

Fantastic and informative responses on this thread.

OP, would you agree your question has been really well answered? I wonder what your DH thinks when he reads this thread too.

You don’t understand that somebody living in supported housing is likely to have additional needs limiting their earning potential?

Should such people never watch a film or have a beer? I mean, we’re not taking about a fortnight’s holiday in a five star hotel. We’re talking about a very very basic level of very small, modest pleasure. Life would be very bleak indeed if people can never have even that. That’s what we’ve come to though.

Once you give up a benefit, it can be a faff getting it reinstated. Relying on odd shifts here and there is tough.

if your dh’s company needs more staff, they need to offer permanent contracts with more hours. This might mean they sometimes are over staffed for some shifts as they didn’t really need that many people that week, but now the cheap EU labour has gone, this is the new reality you have to work with.

Yep! I didn't go to work until DS was 2 and got some free hours. I didn't go back full time until he was 9. He's 14 now so my days of worrying about childcare are over and I'm far better off working but the younger years as a single parent are tough.

The problem is the extortionate prices of rent, which means it is better for people who are not earning professional wages to work the bare minimum so that they can get the highest rate of housing benefit.
I'm a long term benefits user as my ds is severely disabled. I have a postgrad level of education. With my ds' health circumstances I can't work 16 hours. I have been offered the odd few hours working from home in research which I would absolutely love to do, but the adhoc nature would throw my. HB claim into chaos, and I can't do it on a voluntary basis (which would be great for my MH) as it would be considered as purposeful deprivation of notional income. The system is a mess.

You didn't read the whole article did you.

Is that because you're too lazy to do that before starting a thread or is it because the only reason you started a thread was to bash the poor while ignoring the handouts given to low paying employers?

Where's the bit where he is expecting to be praised exactly? Must have missed that when I read it.

Or perhaps you didn't actually read it and just wanted to make a snarky comment to make yourself feel better in some way?

It’s an absolute scandal that the system is set up this way.

This is the second month in a row they’ve fucked up my childcare reimbursement. If I didn’t have savings I wouldn’t be able to pay the nursery bill and wouldn’t be able to go back to work next month because I wouldn’t have any childcare. For those who haven’t had the opportunity to save any, I can completely understand why they’d rather work hours they can guarantee will be covered.

I know very well what it is having no money, I clearly remember those days. I remember not being able to take the bus to go to job interviews and walking everywhere, and I don’t wish that to anyone. But alcohol and Netflix are something completely unnecessary. I think consumerism is a cancer is society because it creates unnecessary needs.

I think people are forgetting things like free dental, free prescriptions, free glasses, free school meals and healthy start vouchers. A few extra hours may push you over the threshold of recieving these things. Which add up.

This.

Cutting out booze, non essential, and tv streaming, non essential, is something that many people have to do because of cost and staying in their budget. It’s tough times for a lot of people.

Watching TV is "consumerism"?

Yeah, let's all just sit around at home and do nothing. Sounds bloody great.

No shit Sherlock!

Of course I know this. Who doesn’t? I’m having to economise ruthlessly myself at the moment and for the foreseeable. I was responding to the sneering poster who asked why the man wanted ‘praise’ for cutting them out. Nobody should have to be cutting out such small things, IMO.