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?

I don’t think anyone believes in a magic money tree when it comes to benefits. But neither do I believe that people are naive enough to believe that if those who are eligible to claim benefits don’t do so until they’ve exhausted their savings and are on the bones of their arses, there will be more money for those who are worse off. That IS bonkers. There’s a reason the benefit system allows a certain amount of savings and I for one, don’t believe that there are that many people who are altruistic enough to forego the benefits they’re eligible for, in favour of exhausting their savings. Except maybe on Mumsnet.

Possibly because she came on MN for advice rather than speaking to the UC work coach, who could have told her as much. DWP have probably advised her to look for extra hours without realising she meets the threshold.

Don't agree to it then

Of course they’re scroungers. As I’ve said, paying your taxes pays for many things, it’s not a savings plan for the lazy.

Benefits are there to help people in dire circumstances. OPs just don’t fancy working. And that’s stealing from people who go without ambulances or respite care because we need to make cuts. You don’t seem to understand money or the economy other than what you think you're ‘entitled’ to.

That says an awful lot about your morality my friend. None of it good. I don’t know anyone who would apply for benefits so they could avoid work.

So why claim benefits, then? You seem a little over compensating for the fact that claiming benefits you don’t need is morally wrong. This conversation isn’t about OP’s career choices. Just whether or not they’re morally indefensible to claim benefits because they don’t want to work. Again, she can not work if she doesn’t want to. But she shouldn’t have her nose in the trough stealing from people in poverty.

FFS the OP didn't say she didn't want to work.

She asked a question about aspects of the commitments she had to make as a condition of receiving UC. The legislation requires every claimant to agree a commitment. When you first claim you're asked to agree a wide ranging commitment to do, in effect, anything and everything to obtain work, increase your income etc.

You do that even if you're evidently far too sick to work.

Once you meet a job coach, cards on table, you get long term commitment tailored to your circumstances.

In the OP's case she's working enough and will not be required to seek more work. Or at least she won't be leaned on to do so.

Her husband will be expected to put his all into seeking work. He'll have some latitude at first to do so in the type of work he normally does. If that produces nothing in a couple of months he'll be expected to look at anything.

That's how it works.

If you don't like it fair enough; campaign and vote for change.

It's no good coming on here getting arsey and judgemental....

Absolute rubbish! She is already working, in a successful career with a well negotiated contract that fits around her family

Unfortunately it seems that her well-negotiated contract may or may not mean she is eligible for UC. So assuming she isn't eligible, she will need to make adjustments to fit the rules or use savings. The rules are one size fits all.

I fear it’s you who doesn’t understand money or the economy if you think that not claiming the benefits you’re eligible for at time when you need them will free up more money for other services.

1. Key word: ‘need’.
2. That’s absolutely how money works, bless you. It’s not a magic pot of bottomless numbers. Ask any accountant. Or average IQ.

It appears to have escaped your notice that the OP does work. And that at £14,500 a year she has no obligation to seek more hours for UC purposes as she’s over the earnings threshold as part of a couple. It also appears to have escaped your notice that this is their total income and won’t meet their commitments. They are also perfectly eligible for the benefits they are claiming, having worked and paid contributions. And you appear to have no understanding of the benefits system if you believe that in claiming benefits they are ‘stealing’ from people in poverty. UC is designed to top up low incomes for millions of people who are working both full and part time.

I think your gripe is with employers who don’t pay a living wage and expect the tax payer to foot their wages bill in the form of UC top ups. It’s certainly not with the claimants who rely on these benefits to make ends meet while rich companies pay huge dividends to their shareholders and executives, while paying the bare minimum to their employees.

Exactly. If posters have a problem with it they write to their MP asking why the hours earnings threshold for claiming Uc without having to look for work is so low rather than getting at the op. People will claim what they can, it's not their fault the government set the threshold so very low.

Handy with the insults aren’t you ? I’ve worked directly in the benefits system at quite a high level. If the benefit bill reduced significantly due to a drop in claims, the likely outcome would be that DWP allocated funding would be reduced accordingly, meaning less money across all benefits, not more for those in ‘need’.

Again, this is AIBU.
The format tends to be AIBU - yes, no, discuss.
It would be rather less interesting is was AIBU - gov.uk link. Thread closed.
If you prefer black and white facts, I suggest you stick to Google.

Nothing wrong with my morality my friend. Show me where I said anywhere in my post that I was talking about applying for benefits to avoid work. The contract between claimant and DWP requires the claimant to make every effort to obtain work and engage with DWP services to that end, in return for the benefits they are claiming. It’s a mixture of rights and responsibilities and if claimants don’t engage without good reason, they are rightly sanctioned.

I don’t believe in something for nothing, but I do believe that most people’s priority is looking after their families. So they do what most people do and rely on the benefits system into which they have paid, and from which they therefore have a reasonable expectation of support when needed. What they don’t do is leave themselves vulnerable by using up every penny they have in savings first. The system recognises the value of having a modest cushion so it doesn’t require them to do that. So if you think it should, then your gripe is probably with the social contract itself, not with the people who take from it when they need to, after paying in while they are able.

You are wrong on all counts, in the most obvious way. I clearly say she’s working; my gripe is that she won’t take the extra hours that would be easy for her, she’d rather claim benefits. If they can’t meet their commitments, they need to work to earn more if possible. And it is all too possible. That’s why she started this thread.

I fully understand the benefits system; the money given to (clearly you) is taken from other, hard working tax payers. As so many commenters seem desperate to pretend to themselves, it’s not some magic money tree, it’s a finite pot of money which indeed is measured and balanced in the economy according to use. The parasites who could work but live off others are breaking the system; open any newspaper to educate yourself, it’s completely unsustainable and our country is dying, precisely because of your attitude that you can hold out your entitled hand and others will find your lifestyle.

My gripe isn’t with employers at all, that’s a clear projection of your own living arrangements. I want the benefits system free to support those in genuine need, like the freezing pensioners without a TV, or kids without cancer treatment or a decent defense system for the UK. Not lazy parasites who want not to work.

Haha bless you, you’re making my point. If people don’t claim the money goes to whatever else is deemed necessary by the govt. Probably NHS, social care, education, defence, policing. All more worthy causes than: ‘I don’t want to do any more hours or a job that’s beneath me’.

And it’s only an insult if you find it to be true. Presumably why the ‘higher’ levels of the benefits system aren’t sorting out this crucial, immoral drain on the UK.

Again, the focus is on that pesky word ‘need’.

Your confusing OP’s ‘need’ with ‘don’t want’ is where the gap in your morality lies.

The benefits system is there to help those in need. OP isn’t in need, and that’s what I find problematic. Loopholes in economic justice don’t mean you’re right.

Are you serious ? The only place the ‘extra’ money goes is back into the exchequer so that the rich can have their tax cuts in the next budget. If you think this or any other government give a toss about those in need just look back at the savage welfare cuts - mainly to disabled people who can’t fight back. You’re deluded.

I’m not engaging with this any more, it’s exhausting. I’m out. Disgusting thread with some disgusting opinions.

You’re roping in your projections and politics to a very simple concept: claiming benefits you don’t need is wrong. The same as getting tax breaks you don’t need when kids are cold and people are dying for lack of ambulances. I’m sure we’d agree on where money should go and where it shouldn’t. OP is a perfect example, so your argument strikes me as similar to mine bar you’re defending the parasites claiming benefits rather than decry them, like you do the wealthy.

It’s not ‘disgusting’ to try to reduce claims that aren’t necessary to save money for those in actual need. Quite the opposite. Come back when you’re rested because I don’t see how anyone can defend any kind of corruption. And claiming benefits because you don’t want to work is a corruption of the system.

Come back when you’re rested

Possibly the most patronising thing I’ve seen on MN for a while. Why do you insist on seeing those who are claiming the benefits they’re perfectly entitled to, as ‘corrupt’ and where has anyone on this thread suggested that either the OP or her DH are claiming because they don’t want to work ? OP is already working and has explained her valid reasons for not wanting to look for more hours, and her DH is actively looking for work.

Hi, I don't have any work related commitments on my UC Claim but can I still apply for (LCWRA) Can you please advise, I have recently uploaded my fit note through my journal, just incase.

Just to check I understand; what you are saying is that if you were eligible to claim a benefit or a tax break but you could survive without it you wouldn’t claim it? So all of us with any free disposable income at the end of the month must be parasites, what with taking tax breaks for (for example) pension contributions and tax free childcare. Not to mention anyone who claims child benefit when not destitute or any pensioner of means who accepts their winter fuel allowance? What about the supplements to help with gas/electric bills during the peak of the price hikes? I mean if that’s really what you think you are entitled to your opinion but it’s fair to say most people will not come close to agreeing with you.