Can they really cut your benefit if you take a job?

karenx

dktreesea wrote: »

Yet another example of how our system discriminates against those who decide, for whatever reason, not to bring children into the world. However, even though you wouldn't be entitled to WTC, you could still get some council tax benefit and housing benefit.

People with kids work fewer hours because they have children to look after. Wouldnt be fair for both parents to go out working full time and leave the children in a nursery/childminders.
So why should it be fair that people without children work part time but still get the same benefits?? They dont have any ties so should go out and work full time and support themselves

shegirl

dktreesea wrote: »

Yet another example of how our system discriminates against those who decide, for whatever reason, not to bring children into the world. However, even though you wouldn't be entitled to WTC, you could still get some council tax benefit and housing benefit.

It's not discrimination at all.If you don't have children you have no restrictive responsibilities to fit work with.You can work various hours at different times of the day without worrying about finding and affording someone to care for your children.There is no reason why someone without children should get WTC for working 16 hours a week and given so many complain that WTC just encourages people to not work more than 16 hours so they can be supported and not work so much (they get called lazy) would giving it to somebody without kids not be saying 'hey don't bother trying to do more or trying to find a better job'?good start that would be eh!

margaretclare

karenx wrote: »

People with kids work fewer hours because they have children to look after. Wouldnt be fair for both parents to go out working full time and leave the children in a nursery/childminders.
So why should it be fair that people without children work part time but still get the same benefits?? They don't have any ties so should go out and work full time and support themselves

Just to pick up on one small aspect of this.

There is a huge problem at present, of young people being unemployed. As well as unemployment there is under-employment. That means that many who would like to work full-time can only get part-time hours.

I have been made aware of this by a news report I heard recently on BBC Radio 4, and also by my youngest granddaughter. She's 22, single, and works 26 hours a week picking internet grocery orders. She does support herself, is still living at home but contributes as well as she can. Obviously, she should be working full-time at her age, but it isn't possible. Many of her age-group are not working at all. Picking grocery orders is well below her level of intelligence and education, but it's better than nothing.

This is what the BBC report described as 'under-employment' - people who cannot get full-time hours.

shegirl

margaretclare wrote: »

Just to pick up on one small aspect of this.

There is a huge problem at present, of young people being unemployed. As well as unemployment there is under-employment. That means that many who would like to work full-time can only get part-time hours.

I have been made aware of this by a news report I heard recently on BBC Radio 4, and also by my youngest granddaughter. She's 22, single, and works 26 hours a week picking internet grocery orders. She does support herself, is still living at home but contributes as well as she can. Obviously, she should be working full-time at her age, but it isn't possible. Many of her age-group are not working at all. Picking grocery orders is well below her level of intelligence and education, but it's better than nothing.

This is what the BBC report described as 'under-employment' - people who cannot get full-time hours.

Yep there is that but the fact remains that full times jobs are available.
Why on earth should somebody without a family to support be able to work part time and have their money bumped up?It's moaned about enough with families being able to have it but they have more reason than somebody without children.It may not be instantly getting a full time job,we all know you can't just pluck jobs out of thick air,but ,especially given the level of people entering the real world and wanting to doss these days,is it not right to let the jobs and their pay be the incentive rather than using state support?

The state has to back off somewhere and stop assisting every tom,!!!!!! and harry to make their life easier.And for those without kids it's the easiest and best start to that by far!Self support and incentive needs to be built in.

So I'm not disagreeing with your post just pointing out the whole benefits for those without children argument

jdturk

its a valid point though, people choose to have kids so they should choose to be responsible for the money they have to bring in and not rely on the state.

The benefits for people with Kids should be a short term thing, not a long term thing of which they clearly are

veggyboy

Everybody seems to be generalsing a bit, I am a single person, on ESA at the moment, and I have heart failure NY scale 3/4. The most I could work if i was able would be maybe an hour or 2 per day. Does that make me lazy.

People choose to have children and should be in a position to pay for them, not relying on the state to bump their money up.

kingfisherblue

Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as everybody being able to support the kids that they have. I was married for 16 years when my ex left me with our three kids, one with severe disabilities. I didn't foresee our split before we had the children and I didn't foresee my son's disabilities.

Although I agree that far too many people rely on state benefits as a lifestyle choice, there are some of us who would prefer to be working but who do not have a choice because of circumstances beyond our control. The welfare system was supposed to be a safety net for people like me and that is what we should aim towards again.

fifipat

I agree with you kingfisherblue. I too was left to bring up three children on my own nearly 5 years ago. Months before the split I was signed off work with stress and depression and had a gynaecology problem which needed an operation. I have been on Incapacity Benefit and now on Income Support. Over the last 3 years I have completed a Classroom Assistant course just as the local council started making cutbacks and schools were no longer advertising for Classroom Assistants. I am now in the position where I will move on to Job Seekers Allowance and will have to go to the Job Centre every fortnight. My kids are off school today due to the snow and I wouldn't have been able to work even if I could have got there! The council have also now changed the hours of the secondary school and they now finish at 2.50pm two days a week. Trying to get a job to fit around school hours is increasingly difficult and holidays and in-service training days also have to be taken into account.

shegirl

veggyboy wrote: »

Everybody seems to be generalsing a bit, I am a single person, on ESA at the moment, and I have heart failure NY scale 3/4. The most I could work if i was able would be maybe an hour or 2 per day. Does that make me lazy.

People choose to have children and should be in a position to pay for them, not relying on the state to bump their money up.

You're in a totally different position and remember it was in response to somebody claiming that many unemployed choose not to work due to parents getting tax credits that they don't.

Yes parents should be in a position to pay BUT life isn't always so perfect and things go wrong.Parents should do all that they can to financially support children but if they fall on hard times or for some reason are unable to work things so they work full time etc then there's no harm in a little help from the state as it's for the sake of the kids,not the parents.

Now contrast that to somebody who has no family to provide for and can't be assed to work enough hours to provide a better life for themselves -why should they get tax credits?(as a few think they should)Why can't they provide themselves and start building that foundation that we would all love to have before children come along -financially as stable as possible,pride,work ethic,better homes etc.

jdturk

shegirl wrote: »

Yes parents should be in a position to pay BUT life isn't always so perfect and things go wrong.Parents should do all that they can to financially support children but if they fall on hard times or for some reason are unable to work things so they work full time etc then there's no harm in a little help from the state as it's for the sake of the kids,not the parents.

Now contrast that to somebody who has no family to provide for and can't be assed to work enough hours to provide a better life for themselves -why should they get tax credits?(as a few think they should)Why can't they provide themselves and start building that foundation that we would all love to have before children come along -financially as stable as possible,pride,work ethic,better homes etc.

Thing is I don't really disagree withyou but you have chosen two opposite ends to an arguement, I could turn it around and what about the layabout single parent who could work but chooses not to and the hard working individual who has worked but cannot get a job for life nor money now.

Benefits are a short term thing, not long term because people get to used to them