Why is it that if you have to be working for 16 hrs/week to claim tax credits .......

Sixer

Jowo wrote: »

The discussion on NICs is very helpful to understand why employers are allegedly reluctant to employ someone on a part-time basis for 16 hours. I wasn't aware of that so that's helpful.

Well, it's relevant to why employers may be reluctant to employ staff on NMW for more than 18.5 hours, as I acknowledged twice already. It may be less than that for staff on more than NMW. But it certainly isn't the main reason for specifically just under 16 hour part-time vacancies as dmg24 suggested. This is because employer NICs are paid on earnings of £110 and above. dmg24 had worked out figures based on employee NICs payable on earnings of £97 and above. The erroneous figures invalidate their argument that it's the main reason as it doesn't necessarily cost a fair bit more to employ someone for 16 hours than it does for 15, as they stated.

Jowo wrote: »

However, hearing my sisters rants about part-timers who won't work extra because of the impact on their tax credits and LHA, plus the posts on this forum from benefit claimants who would like to work longer but identify that it isn't 'worth it' means I do think there is some credibility to this.

There is a wealth of evidence that those who would like to earn more are deterred by the disproportionate impact on their benefits, hence part of the reason why the Tories want to make significant changes to the system.

I do still wonder whether employers who prefer employees to be more flexible about their commitments could try to deter those receiving means tested benefits from applying from them, simply by setting the base hours under the 'magic' 16 hour threshold.

Exactly.

If - and it's a big if as we're basing this on you and me knowing just two employers - part-time vacancies are being advertised at specifically 15 hours or less, rather than 18.5 hours or less, it would seem that flexibility over tax credits, rather than payment of employer NICs, is the most likely cause.

(Edited for typos).