So these people who can't find enough hours to make to 24?

Spendless

BigAunty wrote: »

Yes, 212,000 households with probably around 400,000 to 500,000 children where there is one of the adults working on a half time basis and the other one not working at all....

I saw a table published on the guardian which basically said for those under a certain household salary, it is essentially a waste of time taking on any extra work whatsoever. Not only is there the double-whammy of tax to pay with the withdrawal of benefit, there are also lifestyle issues (time with children, not having to spend effort in a monotonous job) and expense issues (childcare, cost of travel to work).

So a household with 1 adult in part time employment may enjoy an income or standard of living equivalent to two adults in full time employment - work doesn't actually pay because of the cushion of tax credits, housing benefit, council tax discount, etc.

Oh I know the reason behind it. I've worked with people in the past who don't want additional hours cos 'itll affect me tax credits'. I'm just amazed so many people have managed to find these positions in the first place. I can easily find childcare between 7.30am and 6pm Mon-Fri and cannot find a p-time job to fit. Do you have those figures you gave as a % and do you have the link to the table in the guardian?

FBaby

It very much depends on the profession. The better paid the less likely to be part-time position. The best chance in the latest instance is to start full-time and then manage to agree with your boss to lower your hours, which often works because the workload rarely diminishes, so they get the same work done for less money.

I do find it incredible that so many families are most likely handing up with the same disposable income working only 16 hours combined than two people working full-time (or at least closer to full-time). Moving the goal post to 24 is better but is still an insult to the tax payers. People should be made to at least look for job with a total of a 38 hours between the two under the same rule than JSA to claim benefits. Not just do 24 hours and cash benefits without having to do anything else. Totally disgraceful.

Spendless

FBaby wrote: »

It very much depends on the profession. The better paid the less likely to be part-time position. The best chance in the latest instance is to start full-time and then manage to agree with your boss to lower your hours, which often works because the workload rarely diminishes, so they get the same work done for less money.

I do find it incredible that so many families are most likely handing up with the same disposable income working only 16 hours combined than two people working full-time (or at least closer to full-time). Moving the goal post to 24 is better but is still an insult to the tax payers. People should be made to at least look for job with a total of a 38 hours between the two under the same rule than JSA to claim benefits. Not just do 24 hours and cash benefits without having to do anything else. Totally disgraceful.

I've predominately worked in admin and occassionally in retail, sometimes overlapping eg I've worked in the offices of a shop as my main job and helped out on shop floor when short staffed or at busy times. My wages would always be on the lower end of the scale, not much above NMW levels . Most shop work is currently out at min unless the shop closes at 5pm ish as I cannot do evening work due to kids and hubby's job which has no 'set' pattern to it eg this week he was away o/night wed and came back after 8pm last night, next week its likely to be a diff day he's working late.

Thats why I'm amazed so many people have managed to find these elusive jobs.

Jaspersmum

I work 24 hours per week (have done for nearly 2 years - not because of new rules). I also worked 25 hours in my previous job, it was all that was available where I live. My husband does not work (on IB for 12 years following an accident at work).
I live in a rural area with no bus service at work times at all so I cannot look further afield for full time work.
When I look on the directgov website at the jobs the vast majority are part time where I live.

FBaby

Jaspersmum wrote: »

I live in a rural area with no bus service at work times at all so I cannot look further afield for full time work.

But what happen to the notion of living where work is rather than the other way around? If it wasn't for benefits upping your income, and all you had to live on is your salary, wouldn't you take the decision to move closer to where you could access employment?

I'm not responding to your situation in paticular, but just overall. I read regularly on this forum that people can do more hours because of where they live and I struggle to understand why anyone would choose an isolate area when there are dependent on transport links to earn a living.

bigbill

"If it wasn't for benefits upping your income, and all you had to live on is your salary, wouldn't you take the decision to move closer to where you could access employment?"

You may find that very thing happening sooner rather than later due to the changes from IB to ESA and the one year maximum rule.

Jaspersmum wrote: »

My husband does not work (on IB for 12 years following an accident at work).

property.advert

FBaby wrote: »

But what happen to the notion of living where work is rather than the other way around? If it wasn't for benefits upping your income, and all you had to live on is your salary, wouldn't you take the decision to move closer to where you could access employment?

I'm not responding to your situation in paticular, but just overall. I read regularly on this forum that people can do more hours because of where they live and I struggle to understand why anyone would choose an isolate area when there are dependent on transport links to earn a living.

Having followed Norman Tebbit and gotten on my bike some decades ago, I remember with aghast the mentality of those who thought that life on the dole was an option because there was no cushy job nearby. And the pub beckoned.

Yet now, after a decade and a half of Labour largesse, we have generations whose very existence is linked to the lunacy of tax credits and other molly coddling benefits.

Unless these benefits are cut these layabouts will never get a full time job and employers will abuse a system which rewards not working more than it does those who are willing to get off their backside.

Oh, and the notion that half the country is somehow disabled or has some new fangled disorder is rubbish. Utter tosh.

Jaspersmum

In reply to FBaby and bigbill - we did have a bus service until about 18 months ago when it was stopped as it was not financially viable. I have even contacted my local MP - who is on a transport committee - but he did not even reply.
So I bought a 11 year old car for £700, so I could get a job when I was made redundant.
I could have got a bicycle and rode to work - the 5 miles each way on an A road (60 mph - single lane) with no lights and no cycle lane - but then my family would probably be claiming on my life assurance after the first week.

My point is that things do not always work out the way we want, I work and always have, my husband is unable to - the vast majority of jobs are part-time (nearly all supermarkets and shops only offer part time jobs but want maximum flexibility)

Maybe I could sell my house at a huge loss, move my child (I have 1 child) from her school and disrupt her education - just so I can find a some more hours to work!

I don't think so - My husband is unable to work due to an accident at work after working for over 20 years and I also have paid my tax and NI for the past 25 years - plenty in this country have paid in nothing!! The child tax credit is there to be claimed - why should I not claim it?

You need to start questioning the scroungers where no one works, no one has ever worked and no one has any intention of working in the future - but they can usually produce plenty of kids with various different mothers!!