Benefits

[nappyaddict]

Tough one -

2 parent family. Mum would stay at home, Dad would do valuable voluntary work 3 days a week for 6 hours each day.

So is it "OK" for them to live on benefits?

No

Sorry, but why do you think this is a 'tough' one?

Nope

IMO, no.

(Said as someone on benefits, but not as a lifestyle choice)

What do the benefits people say?

What benefits do you they receive/expect to receive?

Presumably they would be entitled to HB, CTB, CB, CTC, IS/JSA.

Would it make a difference if it was a single parent with a toddler who wanted to do valuable voluntary work?

You don't have to be seeking work with an under 5, and would be on IS. So can do what you like with your time. But you Wong get childcare help with it

That's as a lone parent

With a 2 adult family you won't be on IS and will have to be actively seeking work.

Is that for both 2 parent families and single parent families that you don't have to be seeking work for if you have an under 5?

x post :)

I can't decide which side of the fence I am on with this.

For single parents, people could say if you can get childcare so you can do a voluntary job for 18 hours a week, then why can't you look for a paid job that is for 18 hours a week?

Or what about someone who did 18 hours voluntary work a week and had a part-time job for 18 hours. Would that be considered OK in other people's opinions, or should they be looking for a full time paid job?

On the other side of the coin a lot of services we rely on wouldn't be able to run without volunteers. A lot of people have said that people on JSA should have to "earn" their money by doing community service or voluntary work. So if someone is choosing to do that of their own accord, it's better than them being sat on their arse all day so to speak. Also a lot of jobs out their require you to work voluntarily to begin with in order to gain some experience otherwise you won't have a cat in hell's chance of getting an interview.

What voluntary work do you mean?

Ime it's not so easy to come by, certainly not 18 hours a week

If they're on JSA they have an obligation not to be "sat on their arse all day" but actively job seeking.

It would be morally wrong for an able-bodied adult to reject paid employment in favour of living on state benefits and that is reflected in the fact that JSA requires claimants to be actively seeking work. Voluntary work is fine if all other possibilities have been exhausted and there is no paid work available but it is not a valid lifestyle choice for those with dependents and with no other means of support.

NappyAddict: would they actually be able to claim those? If no-one is actually seeing work, then JSA is not a possibility. As a couple, I do not think IS would be a possibility either. As gateway benefits, ineligibility for these might also complicate if not preclude claims to others.

Sorry I don't understand what all that means EW.

IME voluntary work for a charity is fairly easy to come by.

So would I be right in saying most people think IF they are able to do that many hours voluntary work then they should be looking for a paid job at the same time and if a paid job comes up they should take that instead? Would it still be morally wrong to just get a part-time job so you can continue doing so much voluntary work? And it is morally wrong to be on JSA or IS and do that many hours voluntary work if you have no intention of getting a paid job? Would you say that applies to both single parents and couples if they have non-school age children?

It's morally wrong to expect someone else - in this case the taxpayer - to look after you and your family if you're capable of making a living and doing it yourself. Your first responsibility is to your family & not to people you are volunteering to help. Unless you happen to be either independently wealthy or completely incapable of getting a job of any description, voluntary work is a luxury and should be confined to your spare time. And if a paid job comes up I would say you were obliged to take it. A single parent may find the cost of childcare and the amount they will be paid for their work means it is not possible to take the job. But someone who is part of a couple and who has a partner looking after the children cannot use that as an excuse.

It is wrong to accept JSA if you have no intention of getting a paid job. Doens't matter what you do with the free time.

There are rules about how much voluntary work you can undertake whilst on out of work benefits. If you are on JSA then yes you are expected to seek paid work and take it if offered. If you can afford to work only part time and volunteer as well, that is also fine.

You need to talk to an advise about the specific circumstances and how the rules apply in that case.

Cogito So would you think that if you are part of a couple working say 16 hours paid work and doing 16 hours unpaid voluntary work is morally wrong if you are capable of working full time in a paid job?

Let me see if I have this right.

Couple want to be full-time funded from the benefits system (aka charitable funding for the low paid / unemployed /disabled /carers etc) in order to do pert-time voluntary charity work ?

Seriously flawed though process there I think.

Those who can work should. Deciding to take with one hand and give slightly less with the other is not on. If the government didn't have to pay out so much in benefits, there'd be more tax revenue available for funding charities by grants etc.

Yes that's what exactly I think. Responsible adults go out and earn a living best they can. Not turn down paid work, play Mother Theresa half the week and expect someone else to pick up the tab.

"So would you think that if you are part of a couple working say 16 hours paid work and doing 16 hours unpaid voluntary work is morally wrong if you are capable of working full time in a paid job?"

I don't think anyone is saying that. What we are saying is that JSA is for people who are trying to find work and can't, not to subsidise people who simply choose to do voluntary work instead of paid work. If someone can earn enough to support themself in 16 hours a week and want to do 16 hours voluntary work as well that's fine.

Cogito OK, so would it be morally wrong to do 16 hours paid work and 16 hours voluntary work if doing the voluntary work was going to be a gateway into a full time paid job?

16 hours paid work on national minimum wage would give you a gross annual income of 5058.56 I think that means you would still get housing benefit?