We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Benefits changes may push workers onto the dole
Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
"Retail workers could be better off on the dole because of tax credit changes brought in under the last Budget ..."
0
Comments
-
Your article says:
Couples earning less than £18,000 a year face increasing their working hours from a minimum of 16 hours a week to 24, or lose their working tax credit of over £70 a week
Firstly, it isn't restricted to people earning less than 18,000. Secondly, it applies only to couples WITH CHILDREN. Not all couples as your article, and the original GMB report suggests.
IQ0 -
I think the government should stop the retailers from only employing people on less than 16 hour contracts. Asda for instance employ hundreds of staff per store and most only have part time contracts. It's their way of not paying employers national insurance contributions.0
-
Yes, more utter bull on this subject. Unions playing politics again.Icequeen99 wrote: »Your article says:
Couples earning less than £18,000 a year face increasing their working hours from a minimum of 16 hours a week to 24, or lose their working tax credit of over £70 a week
Firstly, it isn't restricted to people earning less than 18,000. Secondly, it applies only to couples WITH CHILDREN. Not all couples as your article, and the original GMB report suggests.
IQ
For a start this won't affect anyone earning over £16,000. Yet the £18,000 figure is trotted out again. Maybe the unions ought to actually try understanding tax credits before coming out with rubbish like this.
Secondly there is no way 20% will be better off on the dole. Note the weasly words
"Report they may be better off on the dole":rotfl:Not that anyone has actually done a calculation or anything just some people think they "may" be better off on the dole!Around 20% of GMB members working in retail report that they may be better off on the dole after the tax credits changes in the last budget."
In reality there is no way 20% would be better off on the dole. The vast majority will lose nowhere near the "over £70 per week" figure mentioned at the start. And those that do will in the vast majority of cases get some or most of it back through increases in other benefits. As we've discussed here many times.0 -
Yes, more utter bull on this subject. Unions playing politics again.
For a start this won't affect anyone earning over £16,000. Yet the £18,000 figure is trotted out again. Maybe the unions ought to actually try understanding tax credits before coming out with rubbish like this.
Secondly there is no way 20% will be better off on the dole. Note the weasly words "Report they may be better off on the dole":rotfl:Not that anyone has actually done a calculation or anything just some people think they "may" be better off on the dole!
In reality there is no way 20% would be better off on the dole. The vast majority will lose nowhere near the "over £70 per week" figure mentioned at the start. And those that do will in the vast majority of cases get some or most of it back through increases in other benefits. As we've discussed here many times.
And there is no mention of the other benefits that can be claimed when WTC is lost. IBJSA, increases in HB and CTB will make up for a fair bit of the loss in the majority of cases.
If MSE are going to report on things, it would be helpful to ensure the info is accurate before repeating it as it adds to the misunderstanding people have about the system.
IQ0 -
Yes, if the GMB actually cared about its members it would be pointing these things out, it would be explaining how those losing out on WTC could get more HB/CTB/IBJSA, it would be trying to help their members rather than frightening them.Icequeen99 wrote: »And there is no mention of the other benefits that can be claimed when WTC is lost. IBJSA, increases in HB and CTB will make up for a fair bit of the loss in the majority of cases.
If MSE are going to report on things, it would be helpful to ensure the info is accurate before repeating it as it adds to the misunderstanding people have about the system.
IQ
But then it would spoil the political impact of the article wouldn't it. It would seem they'd prefer their members live in poverty rather than be aware of what they can claim, that way they're more likely to hate the govt.0 -
In addition, JSA does not simply hand out free money.
Almost everyone (after 6 months) with a working partner doing even a few hours a week will not be paid JSA.
You will be required to apply for jobs at the same wage level, and penalised severely if you do not.
If you resign, you may also be penalised.
If you're working 16 hours a week, you have lots of time to apply for other work.
I, like others would like to see the breakdown of this 20%.
Does it take into account that many low paid workers who have been in intermittent work may not have the NICs to claim JSA at all?
Or the difficulty in finding work before JSA runs out?0 -
I think the other posters put it correctly, the original article is miss leading and doesn't cover the whole picture just the political spin put out by the unions.
TBH surely this is a good move for the economy overall, too many of these low paid, low hour jobs-big companies taking the mick out of staff really. Better for the economy to have 10 full time workers paying tax and both employers and employees NI into the public purse than 30 workers on low contracts paying very little if anything into "the pot" so to speak. Basically the lab gov were using the tax credits to support these non jobs, eventually the economy will move on (it always does) and more full time jobs will be around.
TBH is it right that the current system actually encourages 2 parents with kids to ONLY work 16 hrs to max the benefits they get?
If one parent currently signs on they can now look for part time work and be better off under the new system. The old system would have penalised them.
More balance in your articles please MSE.
Ali x"Overthinking every little thing
Acknowledge the bell you cant unring"0 -
I also find MSE's choice of words quite difficult to swallow.
They write that just because someone could receive a fiver more per week by being on the dole, they would therefore be 'better off'. I know this is a money site, but 'better off' can really mean more than just financially. There's no implication at all of the positive psychological and self-esteem issues of being employed, or the benefit of not having gaps on your CV.0 -
Need to make the Rock'n'Roll a less attractive option IMHO. Working should always pay more than not working. Maybe give half dole to people doing half a week jobs ie 16-24 hours.illegitimi non carborundum0
-
There is alos the bit about all the workers no longer employed being a burden on the state...however there is no sugggestion that there will be fewer hours worked overall because of this bu tmore that the total hours are less likely to be worked by 16 hour/week part-timers. Those taking on the extra hours of those the union says will stop working will presumably all pay tax and NI and claim less benefits so there is unlekely to be a net cost to the exchequer even if some part-timers go on the dole as the union are suggesting.I think....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards