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?

Yep, it was like this in the late 90s / early 00s too and equally stupid then.

No mention of praise has been made. HTH.

I think there should be some pride in working for a living instead of claiming benefits. People should be willing to take the extra hours even if it leaves them only slightly better off or no better off. And the system should be fixed so that everyone is better off for working more hours.

Ah the Protestant work ethic rears its head….. unfortunately pride in one’s unpaid labours will not appease a landlord…..

Often it is leaving people worse off the next month though with the way UC works.

I've posted too soon. There was a mnetter who posted last week wanting to use her £30k saving to overpay her mortgage so she could claim UC.

She was a sahm by choice & her dp on a minimum wage job. Instead of using the £30k to upskill themselves with qualifications, they wanted to claim UC. They didn't want to earn more because that would affect their ability to claim benefits later on.

Now that I have a problem with because they're playing the system not the young man in the Op's post. There is a culture of entitlement in this country of getting someone to pick up the bill. Ewually, there is a culture of employers not paying decent wages or giving adequate hours so people can survive. Let's not turn this into a benefits bashing thread.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63629083

Careleaver cutting Netflix if anyone can be bothered to read it before bashing the poor guy.

“A culture of entitlement in this country of getting someone to pick up the bill”

Hmmm…… government officials with second homes and subsidised dining at the HOC….. I wonder why those at the bottom of the pile think that sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander…..

Do you say that as someone who actually works for free while struggle to pay the basics or are you just talking out your arse?. As no one in their right mind would work for free just for a couple extra hours of payment in 'pride'

Your lofty principles are definitely more important than people needing to keep roofs over their heads. I just can't see why these proles fail to understand that.

What a sweeping statement. I work part time with only one child in childcare half days. If I work full time, yes I may bring more home but I also have to hand out more in childcare (youngest now in full days and wrap around care for elder) while my higher earnings mean I can claim back less towards childcare which is now more expensive. The increase in wages doesn't remotely cover that difference. Overall I am left with less! I will be unable to work more hours and therefore bring home more money until my youngest is in primary school. People need to factor in the cost of working, like childcare and travel. Any extra hours I pick up incur extra costs elsewhere which mean they're not financially viable, all the while the increase in wages reduces the support. Trust me, I've done the math and every calculation possible because I'm in a financial dire straights! But it's a total viscious circle. Short of having someone to watch my kids for free, I'm stuck.

He pays £25 per month in supported living versus the £150K per annum that MN's say he'd need to live in London, although the article doesn't actually say where he's located.

It's a really terrible BBC article that isn't very specific.

I don't have a problem with people not working if it will leave them worse off, that's a problem with the system, not the people affected.

But people should want to work if it will leave them the same, or slightly better off. It means you're working to provide for yourself, instead of expecting others to work on your behalf.

I'm no fan of politicians or the public sector. I think we need massive reform in this country, politicians should not be so well paid, and the public sector in general needs to be massively reformed, it's so inefficient it's untrue. There are so many people pulling down big salaries for doing nothing of any value, in many cases nothing at all, as they're off on long term sick and being paid full salary.

Tax credits, as they were originally called, are the biggest reason this country has a productivity problem. This policy basically allowed employers to pay below market rate wages and for inherently lazy people to live off the shrinking base of net contributors.

The gravy train cannot go on forever. Keep squeezing the net contributors and the economy starts to shrink, just as we are seeing now.

@Florenz

You originally said that people should want to take extra hours even if it left them hardly better off or no better off.

What is the point of working extra hours if it does not in reality provide extra income?

“Supported living” in this country is absolutely scandalous. For one, more often than not they’re not very “supported” which completely defeats the purpose as people on these types of accommodations are there as they need more support than your average Joe for a plethora of reasons (care leavers, drug misuse issues, learning difficulties, mental health issues as some examples).

And then there’s the cost of them. £300 a week for a tiny bed sit style room, plus service charges (albeit these don’t tend to be high, but it’s not the point), plus then food costs on top. Not many people in these types of accommodations are going to be high earners. There’s a reason they’re in supported accommodation in the first place and usually are starting right from the bottom with little to no experience. Add on the fact more often than not people in supported accommodation often have other issues that aren’t conducive to being able to find work straight away, but then even when people are in a position to find work, they will almost always be worse off working due to the sheer cost of supported accommodation and as such, people just don’t bother because why would you? It’s honestly awful and I really feel for people in these situations, regardless of why they’re there in the first place.

Before Tax Credits there was Family Income Supplement. Of course, there was no help with childcare as it was assumed the mother would be at home for the children after school etc but supplementing family incomes isn't a new thing. Nor are low wages a new thing. What is new is the pace of rent rises and the lack of social housing with reasonable rents and security. Housing benefit didn't come in until, I believe, the 80's.

Pride doesn't pay the rent.

I broadly agree with you but some points can be explored further, for instance:
'inherently lazy'
don't we all try to get the maximum reward for the minimum effort?
And 'net contributors':
yes some people contribute a lot more money in terms of tax but what about all the unpaid work, all the people who devote their time to caring for others raising children, without this work things would grind to a halt and yet they are not even considered to be contributing to the system!

Yeah, cos anyone with compassion for the less fortunate is Jack Munroe. FFS.

What is new is the pace of rent rises and the lack of social housing with reasonable rents and security
Yes without a secure and affordable home no one can move forward with their lives, how are you supposed to feel like a full adult and have your own family if it's not possible to earn enough to move out of your parents box room?
And now we seem to be looking at a future where we can't even rely on on schools or hospitals....just a third world country now aren't we 😫

So he's constantly asking for people to do overtime. Any business operating like that risks a "no". They should be giving better work contracts initially.

What’s wrong with comparing someone to Jack? Why the FFS? 🤷‍♀️

There are a number of posts before yours explaining that this is not how Universal Credit works.