To not want to work more hours? (Universal Credit)

[Abneyandteal19]

Hi
Have never claimed benefits before except child benefit as we've always earns over threshold, situation now is....
3DC ages 4 (preschool) 6 and 8.

I work part time professional job management - but job share 15hrs PW. Income £14500

DH professional job in region of £60-65k has never been out of work until now. His contracts ended in Dec. Had a job lined up for Jan- company funding issues have meant they've delayed his start indefinitely. Of course he is desperately searching.

Done all calculations and looks like we are entitled to some UC, so filled in all forms. Have to agree to commitments, DH has to look for work log jobs applied for work coach etc...all fine no problem

But my commitments have come back with I must agree to look for more hours work. I am not sure I can do this... my job is job share split 40/60 so there are no more hours. I have my preschooler everyday I don't work.

Main point is we were just looking for a bit of help for a few months until DH starts and then gets paid for a new job. Chances are he will absolutely get one in next 3 months and then of course will will cease claiming anything and then me working part time will be totally fine again.

It's not that I don't want to work more just not that easy to find something for a few hours a week that will pay more than childcare will cost? Any thoughts/experience? So AIBU not to want to work more hours?

@Bromptotoo If OP's husband earned 65k pre tax, he's only just made the threshold for higher rate of tax, which is £50,271 - £125,140. So £14,729 of his pay would be subject to 40% higher rate. After tax this would be take home pay of £45,738 (assuming no pension deductions). OP's take home would be £13,502, that makes a total family income of £59,240, if you were divide this amongst a family of 5 to show your potential spend per human that would be £11,848. I'm no financial whizz, but that sounds super tight to me?

We are based in London, where people are struggling to meet their mortgage payments on higher incomes (I'm talking over 100k take home), due to interest rates and rising costs. I at a total loss as to how people can afford to pay their mortgages and have large families? 80k (which isn't the OP's income in any event) for a family of 5 simply wouldn't cut it round our way, unless you were prepared to dress in rags and eat beans in perpetuity.

Unsurprisingly, London birthrates are falling through the floor, the barriers are too high and we all work too hard (long hours and commutes coupled with high expectations placed on us by businesses). why bother if all we are doing is topping up the less ambitious workers, or those who don't work at all, in other parts of the UK? It would be interesting to know the economic effect of Londoner saying 'nah - you're alright - I think I'll work 15 hours too'.

@Bromptotoo I missed that they were renting. This just gets more and more bizarre the more I find out about it. The approach literally blows my mind: lets see how many kids we can fit into our rental (for which we have no control over rising costs) and couple this with no savings to cover the unforeseen. If I was in rentals with 3 kids, I would be rather urgently considering my return to work FT or else how to up-skill to change my lot in life.

Well maybe they were cautious and sensible about taking on a mortgage with insecure earnings ? they probably knew that in the worst case scenario UC pays help with rent but not a mortgage ! And sometimes you know babies aren't always planned, not saying this is the case here but it happens. I don't understand why their approach blows your mind so much, it 's not exactly as if they are long term benefit recipients and chose to keep having kids like some people do who have never had a job !

This is how far off piste this thread has gone.

I did not say the OP was paying rent, I don't think she is.

My point was that an ordinary couple, both working in say retail, with a joint income of maybe £45-£50k - gross - and renting as as many have to, should be able to have children.

I think I misunderstood your previous post, which said 'private let'? I hadn't realised this was a hypothetical, retail-working couple.

@Babyroobs A house in an asset that you can sell if things go wrong. You also have control over your payments (and payment holidays if necessary) so as to manage your largest out going cost which is generally either mortgage or rent. Rent is rising sharply at the moment, as buy-to-let landlords recharge the interest rate rises to their tenants, so renting represents a total lack of control over your costs (you don't decide them as a tenant, neither do you decide the renewal rate each year). Babies of course can surprise and delight you in equal measure, many of the London parents I know get themselves into a position where they can financially control and manage the outcome, or else take precautions.

@Babyroobs @lookwhatyoudidthere lives in London which, so far as most of us are concerned is another planet. Although, that said, Northampton siffers from a London pay effect s it's commutable.

They also seem to think £100k is in the way of a 'modest income'.

As an SEO in the Civil Service in LB Westminster my max 10years ago was £41k. I don't think it's hit £50k even now. My FTE in current role is about £26k.

Yes thank you I am aware we are in 2024, however they may have had to use all their savings during the pandemic period and have struggled to replace them. As for “ secure” employment I have worked in the charity sector for over 20 years, this is always contracts due to the way the funding works, luckily despite being made redundant a couple of times I have managed to not be out of work but it’s the way things work in many sectors.

She never said she rented , she specifically said they were using savings to pay the mortgage. People are not even reading the facts now! 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Sorry this wasn’t meant for you

Yes apologies I misunderstood because the poster I was quoting said about renting ! I had read the original post just didn't go back to it and thought I'd misunderstood.

Sorry that wasn’t aimed at you

I have revised my views now that I know the OP's DH is a contractor. The extra he is paid should be used to build up a buffer to use in periods where he is not working. Job uncertainty is part and parcel of working this way and he has not lost his job as such, just come to the end of a contract for which he was paid extra to enable his to make his own arrangements to tide him over fallow periods. He can't have it both ways

He’s not a contractor. He was an employee on a fixed term contract.

So despite having a full employment record until now, and having paid appropriate NI contributions entitling him to benefit, you’re suggesting that he should forego it in favour of using up saving instead ? OK then.

NI isn't a savings account you can dip into when you feel you deserve to.

Not sure why you think he was paid extra to make his own arrangements when not working when OP has already said he’s been in full time employment and never claimed benefit before. My DH works fixed term contracts and is classed as an employee of the agency, paying tax and NI, so if it’s the same for the OP’s DH and he’s paid into the system why should he not claim the benefits that are there for exactly this purpose ?

NI and benefits aren't a public savings account!

No, but the benefits system is there to support you when you need it, and if he has paid into the system through working why should he not claim the benefits he’s entitled to ? Isn’t that what the system is supposed to be for ? Any savings they’ve built up will be taken into account when assessing their benefit claim.

IMO, benefits shouldn't be an option until any and all employment opportunities have been exhausted. NI shouldn't exist to support people to sit around and wait for a job they think is good enough.

I was a benefit adviser and in my experience no one sat around waiting for the right job because benefits are a mix of rights and responsibilities - you claim benefit in return for undertaking appropriate job search otherwise benefits are sanctioned. NI exists so that you pay in when you can, so that you can claim support when you need to. What do you expect people to live on while they’re looking for work if you’re advocating no benefits until all employment opportunities have been exhausted ?

Did you not read the OP? That's exactly what they are doing? She doesn't want to look for more work. Don't want to =/= can't. I don't agree that that's an acceptable attitude. There's work going for those willing, as a benefits advisor, surely you know that.

And she’s explained her reasoning for that - she already job shares and has childcare on the days she doesn’t work. Her work coach will decide whether or not that’s reasonable. I don’t agree with the way UC is structured at the moment regarding the hours, but if there are genuine reasons it will be taken into consideration.

why bother if all we are doing is topping up the less ambitious workers, or those who don't work at all, in other parts of the UK?

FFS. Less ambitious workers, what like those required to keep the country going? Shop workers, nurses, other allied health professionals, teachers, TAs, social workers, social care staff, police and other emergency workers…..is it only the ambitious that deserve a standard of living? Rest of us, regardless of how essential our jobs may be, how you and your family may need us, should just….what, exactly?

We saw who the real contributors to society were in 2020.