Being offered 2 days work/week what benefits will i be entitled to

dawnie1972

I'm currently working on a contract basis which ends 5th Feb and have been told i can stay until end of feb but they have no more work for me. I applied for a job and got a phone call yesterday, they really want me to start but can only offer me two days per week plus one day every other weekend at £6.26/hr. If i take this job will i be able to claim any benefits if so what? My current outgoings are £830/month which is rent/council tax/utility bills/car insurance/breakdown this doesn't include food etc. I've been earning £10/hour! I rent privately (£600/month). I am single and live alone with no children

karenx

How meny hours would it be? Probably wouldnt be as much as 30 which is the minimum hours for claiming working tax credits.

ceridwen

Hopefully someone will come along soon who knows the exact figures.

My instant thought is "half a job would be insufficient to meet your living costs" and I doubt you would be able to get anything at all on top of that (apart from the measly £5 I believe one is allowed to keep from JSA if one doesnt have a full-time job).

www.entitledto.com

could be a good place to look out what your position would be.

But - yep half a job is less than 30 hours a week and hence, as a childless person, there wouldnt be any Working Tax Credit payable.

Is there any chance ever of getting "the other half of the job" - or, at the very least, sufficient hours to bring you up to at least that 30 hours per week "qualifier time" for WTC? Or could you get the missing 10 hours (presumably? - assuming the full job would be 40 hours per week) you would need from another employer?

(NB: my suspicion is that the Government will lower the number of hours childless people have to work to qualify for WTC to somewhere between 17.5 and 20 hours per week soon - in order to ensure that even childless people are prepared to take half a job, rather than having to hold out for a job that is at least 30 hours per week). This is based on my belief that employers and the Government are now colluding to "ration out" full-time jobs - by breaking them down into part-time jobs that are just long enough hours that some people would be better off doing them than claiming benefit. This hasnt worked as well as they would like - hence at some point I believe they will make it worthwhile for childless people to even take half a job and the way to do that is to extend eligibility for WTC down to 17.5-20 hours a week (though it could be down to 16 hours in the event - so as not to discriminate between those with and without children). In the Government's position - I would make 16 hours the "qualifier" for everyone in low-paid types of work. - so be on lookout for them doing something like this soon.

Macro_3

ceridwen wrote: »

(NB: my suspicion is that the Government will lower the number of hours childless people have to work to qualify for WTC to somewhere between 17.5 and 20 hours per week soon - in order to ensure that even childless people are prepared to take half a job, rather than having to hold out for a job that is at least 30 hours per week). This is based on my belief that employers and the Government are now colluding to "ration out" full-time jobs - by breaking them down into part-time jobs that are just long enough hours that some people would be better off doing them than claiming benefit. This hasnt worked as well as they would like - hence at some point I believe they will make it worthwhile for childless people to even take half a job and the way to do that is to extend eligibility for WTC down to 17.5-20 hours a week (though it could be down to 15 hours in the event - so as not to discriminate between those with and without children).

That's interesting. What makes you think that - have you seen/read anything which suggests that it is being considered or is it just a guess out of thin air?


OP, you could claim for housing and council tax benefit - although you wouldn't get all of your rent and council tax paid even if you work for minimum wage (assuming two full days worked)

As far as I'm aware there would be nothing else, as you wouldn't work enough hours for tax credits.

ceridwen

Macro wrote: »

That's interesting. What makes you think that - have you seen/read anything which suggests that it is being considered or is it just a guess out of thin air?


OP, you could claim for housing and council tax benefit - although you wouldn't get all of your rent and council tax paid even if you work for minimum wage (assuming two full days worked)

As far as I'm aware there would be nothing else, as you wouldn't work enough hours for tax credits.

Various bits and pieces added together in my mind -

I recall reading recently that the Government is giving "a nod and a wink" to employers to cut peoples hours down rather than making them redundant (I cant recall exactly WHAT the Government is doing on that front - whether just verbally encouraging them or giving them some financial incentive. Think its just verbal encouragement.)

There are currently about 1 million would-be full-time employees currently having to do a part-time job instead. I've noticed this happening around me currently - wondering why someone I would think is a "full-timer" is only working a few hours a week and its turned out to be because thats all they can manage to get from any prospective employer (rather than by choice).

I read figures somewhere that the number of full-time jobs is decreasing on the one hand - but the number of part-time ones is actually increasing.

I have the cynical view that part-timers have had their conditions improved to the same level as full-timers in order to remove a disincentive to doing part-time work (rather than for the benefit of those who only want part-time work anyway).

I'm thinking that 16 hours is a very likely level to have WTC qualifications cut to - because there is (understandably) a lot of anger that those without children are being made to work longer hours at a job than those with (yes...I know...I know...that those with children would argue back against that - but having children is voluntary, having a job is usually a necessity).

So - a dose of watching what is happening around me plus a touch of intuition as to where I think its leading (for those in unskilled/low-skilled work)...

*******************

Whoops - forgot about that lower Council Tax bill OP might be able to get. So - OP - do contact the local Council and find out what Council Tax bill you would be expected to pay on the proposed salary level (as its variable to some extent according to income).

dawnie1972

Thank you for your answers. I've been on the entitled to website and i would get a good proporation of my rent/council tax paid, I'm going to call the prospective employer on Monday and ask them exactly how many hours this would be as i could make my money up doing dog walking etc which i do occasionally anyway as a spare time thing.

Macro_3

dawnie1972 wrote: »

Thank you for your answers. I've been on the entitled to website and i would get a good proporation of my rent/council tax paid, I'm going to call the prospective employer on Monday and ask them exactly how many hours this would be as i could make my money up doing dog walking etc which i do occasionally anyway as a spare time thing.

I take it you rent privately, or is your property HA/council? If private, have you worked out your entitlement to LHA using the correct LHA rate for the area?

dawnie1972

Yes I did - at first i selected the wrong option which put me as a housing assocation tenant but then did it again and found out my LHA rate etc.

Vader123

ceridwen wrote: »

Various bits and pieces added together in my mind -

I recall reading recently that the Government is giving "a nod and a wink" to employers to cut peoples hours down rather than making them redundant (I cant recall exactly WHAT the Government is doing on that front - whether just verbally encouraging them or giving them some financial incentive. Think its just verbal encouragement.)

Care to explain this "nod and a wink" Ceridwen?

I am an employer fortunate not to have any downturn in my area (yet).

But if it was to happen I would consider cutting hours if the employee agreed to keep them on, so as not to loose their skills.

But this would be my mess to handle, I'd settle from a pat on the back from the government, never mind a "nod and a wink".

Can you back this up in any way whatsover?

Vader