A new hard working class in society caught in a trap.

Jowo_2

ukcarper wrote: »

I suppose it all depends on your outlook, but if you have just £200 a week disposable income an extra £75 could make quite a difference..

Yes, it could be, plus the intangible benefits, too, from a boost to self-esteem, the social nature of the workplace and so on.

But if it's just swallowed up in childcare and travel expenses, and the job isn't as much fun as being a stay at home parent, then it makes no positive difference.

ukcarper's example which indicated a person in employment would be £75 per week better off was based on someone earning 15k a year, so that's a lot more than a salary on the National Minimum Wage, which I think is around £11k.

ukcarper

Jowo wrote: »

Yes, it could be, plus the intangible benefits, too, from a boost to self-esteem, the social nature of the workplace and so on.

But if it's just swallowed up in childcare and travel expenses, and the job isn't as much fun as being a stay at home parent, then it makes no positive difference.

ukcarper's example which indicated a person in employment would be £75 per week better off was based on someone earning 15k a year, so that's a lot more than a salary on the National Minimum Wage, which I think is around £11k.

It's based on a couple with just one working and earning £15k so childcare wouldn’t come into it.

Run again using minimum wage £12k and if I did it correctly dropped from £508 to £503 a week not much of an increase for £3k a year

Jowo_2

ukcarper wrote: »

It's based on a couple with just one working and earning £15k so childcare wouldn’t come into it.

Run again using minimum wage £12k and if I did it correctly dropped from £508 to £503 a week not much of an increase for £3k a year

Wow! a person earns 3k more per year, a salary that's around 20% more than the national minimum wage, and presumably the withdrawal of means tested benefits and the impact of tax is so steep, is why they are less than a pound a day better off?!!

That's not much of an incentive to take on extra responsibilities, work extra hours or accept a promotion, is it?

I assume this is largely due to the impact of tax credits. There are a lot of posts on the benefit forum from people trying to work out the trigger in terms of wage/hours before it is no longer 'worth' it.

My guess is that in the era before the introduction of tax credits, those who earned less, really did feel the pinch, whereas tax credits now cushions them from that type of income inequality and means paid employment doesn't really protect against poverty in the way it used to. Happy to be challenged on that assumption.

I reckon tax credits is one reason which helped to cripple the country's budget (i.e. the unsustainable model whereby payment of benefits is exceeding income tax receipts).

twirlypinky

You've all failed to mention that being a stay at home parent (i think personally) is better for the child than being in a nursery. I'd like to be at home as a parent, teaching my child to read, taking it out to the park/library/grandparents/friends houses to learn and mix etc. I certainly wouldn't do it because it's more fun than being at work, as one person mentioned.

LydiaJ

twirlypinky wrote: »

You've all failed to mention that being a stay at home parent (i think personally) is better for the child than being in a nursery. I'd like to be at home as a parent, teaching my child to read, taking it out to the park/library/grandparents/friends houses to learn and mix etc. I certainly wouldn't do it because it's more fun than being at work, as one person mentioned.

Davesnave has already said that:

Davesnave wrote: »

Have I missed it, or has no one so far suggested that having a parent care for the child, rather than a minder, is a desirable end in itself?

Davesnave

twirlypinky wrote: »

You've all failed to mention that being a stay at home parent (i think personally) is better for the child than being in a nursery. I'd like to be at home as a parent, teaching my child to read, taking it out to the park/library/grandparents/friends houses to learn and mix etc. I certainly wouldn't do it because it's more fun than being at work, as one person mentioned.

LydiaJ wrote: »

Davesnave has already said that:

Thanks.

I realise times are different now, but we decided that our children's first four years would be the most important in their lives, so we chose the SAHM over the childminder.
We never regretted that decision, but I doubt if there would have been a great financial incentive for us to have done otherwise once costs were taken into account. There were no tax credits then, either.

lostinrates

Davesnave wrote: »

I realise times are different now, ........

for many it is still possible, and shoud be for all IMO.

BUT, with no pretence to knowledge in the areas at all, I would very strongly choose a GOOD active, interested mother supportive and involved in her childrens education...who spends time with them doing stuff for them (not dragging them round shopping malls) at the weekends who has to work than a mother who is there but doesn't care too much about 20 mins reading the school book in the evening and certainly doesn't care about extra reading. A stay at home parent with play groups etc for socialising might be ideal....but an actively parenting parent has to be the next best thing.

I hate the idea some hard working mother's who feel they have no good alternative feel failures by the SAHP is they only right way. As much as I hate the idea that its not a good ideal...actual parenting little people.


eta: apologies, I should have said parent, not mother. No lack of respect was implied to active fathers.

PasturesNew

Even for a single person, the figures can be staggering. On the back of a fag packet (because it's almost impossible to get an exact figure without 10 minutes' work), I think I worked out that if a job pays about £14k/year for 40 hours/week, you can be no worse off by taking a job for 30 hours per week because WTC kicks in once you're working 30 hours and would pay out more than somebody else working at £14k full time.

And similar variations thereof.

In an area where even a £14k job is rare, there's no incentive to look for work more than 30 hours/week minimum wage, especially as so many jobs don't have any progression prospects at all.

I didn't know about WTC before I started coming to MSE, I think a lot of older/single people have no idea that they could potentially get them. It's not until you're "in the system" that you know what's out there - and reading the benefits board is a real eye-opener.

The other thing about being single and on a low income is that everybody assumes you have as much money as they do, so they sneer at you as if you're a liar or being ridiculous if you suggest you can't afford anything as they're making the assumption you're raking it in with topups too and so (because you're working), you must be loaded and on £1500-2000/month.

PasturesNew

Mathematically, it doesn't work out either.... take these two scenarios:

1] Employer used to pay £18k to a person to do a full-time job of 36-42 hours/week. A SAHM is sitting round the corner on basic benefits so will be incentivised to find a part-time job. Same employer takes that SAHM on, as a Saturday job. SAHM keeps all the cash as it's under the tax threshold.

2] Employer reads the benefits board here and takes on three SAHMs under the WTC/CTC rules. All do 16 hours/week at £5.80/hour and get top ups to make it worth about £18k to them. Govt get to fork out for three lots of childcare. Single person is sitting on the dole in a bedsit on £65/week.

So, who wins and who loses:
- employer wins as wages bill has dropped by 1/3rd + they can call in other part-timers from the pool if/when one's off sick/on holiday
- SAHMs win because their minimum wage jobs make them big salaries
- Govt loses because they're paying out for childcare and tax credits
- Person who used to have a full-time job on a living wage loses because there are no full-time jobs, especially those paying a living wage.

Money's being ploughed in by the Govt to create minimum wage part-time jobs. And then there are the expensive public sector jobs to support the system, all the people, buildings, forms, IT systems, leaflets, advisors, mistakes, arguments/confusion.

SingleSue

PasturesNew wrote: »

Even for a single person, the figures can be staggering. On the back of a fag packet (because it's almost impossible to get an exact figure without 10 minutes' work), I think I worked out that if a job pays about £14k/year for 40 hours/week, you can be no worse off by taking a job for 30 hours per week because WTC kicks in once you're working 30 hours and would pay out more than somebody else working at £14k full time.

And similar variations thereof.

In an area where even a £14k job is rare, there's no incentive to look for work more than 30 hours/week minimum wage, especially as so many jobs don't have any progression prospects at all.

I didn't know about WTC before I started coming to WTC, I think a lot of older/single people have no idea that they could potentially get them. It's not until you're "in the system" that you know what's out there - and reading the benefits board is a real eye-opener.

The other thing about being single and on a low income is that everybody assumes you have as much money as they do, so they sneer at you as if you're a liar or being ridiculous if you suggest you can't afford anything as they're making the assumption you're raking it in with topups too and so (because you're working), you must be loaded and on £1500-2000/month.

My brother was one of them, he assumed that as he was no longer part of a family (divorced), that he could not claim anything.

So on just a shade over 11k (self employed taxi driver working long hours with a secondary job of gardening), he was paying full rent, council tax (he didn't even realise about the 25% reduction until I told him about it) and claimed no top ups.

He was also paying £50 a week child support to his ex wife under a private arrangement as this was what she had told him he needed to pay...she also had the assumption that he was earning more than he was and after a few years, went to the CSA to try to get more.....she dropped it when they told her the amount he should have been paying was half what she was actually getting.

I did advise him to claim WTC and try for housing benefit but he is a stick in the mud and refused to believe me and just got further and further into the mire as each month went on (not on credit though), he stopped buying food, he got rid of his car, he sold his collectables, his books, his dvd's, didn't put the heating on etc.

I even did an SOA borrowed from this site for him to see where he could save a few pounds but it was already cut to the absolute bone (he doesn't have a television, home phone or broadband, didn't go out socially, didn't buy clothes etc)

Ok, the top ups wouldn't have been much but it would certainly have helped him....and he still pays the £50 a week child support as although he couldn't afford it, he was of the honourable mind that he brought the children into the world and he was blooming well going to pay for them.

Things have improved for him though, he has gone completely out on his own now as a taxi driver and although the money isn't flying in, it is a a lot better than it was...he can actually pay the rent and eat!