MSE News: Benefits changes may push workers onto the dole

BigAunty

asandwhen wrote: »

Am I missing something. This only affects couples so between them they needs to work 24hrs to get working tax credits.
Thats only 12 hours each per week instead on 8 hours it is called WORKING tax credits after all.

Fair point - some couples with children work 10 days a week whereas this change encourages benefit claimants to increase their work to 3 days a week between them when it used to be 2, so around 66% less than other couples when it used to be 75% less....

But the actual legislation requires that one of them does at least 16 of it - they can't simply split it 12 each.

mynameistallulah

tamiami wrote: »

I think the government should stop the retailers from only employing people on less than 16 hour contracts. Asda for instance employ hundreds of staff per store and most only have part time contracts. It's their way of not paying employers national insurance contributions.

To be fair to the retailers, sub sixteen hour contracts do suit many people - not everyone tailors their hours according to their benefit entitlement!

Valor

thelawnet wrote: »

Why do you continue to regurgitate these crappy PA articles?

Either do your own analysis or don't bother.

If it's 'money saving' to give up and go on the dole, say so.

If it's unions playing politics ignore it.

But don't just print these articles, they are of no use to people who come here to learn about 'money saving' and potentially harmful.

Exactly this, I expect better from MSE, more of this and I'll have to add you to the daily fail pile and unsub.

Kezzerio

I am an unemployed mum,who would love to be able to go out and get a job.But i am unable to as childcare costs far to much. My partner (childs dad) works full time, as i would like to,but it is just not possible i will be paying out more in childcare each week then i would earn. And my partner only brings home £190 a week, and we have to pay full rent and council tax.
They should make it more worthwhile to work, or at least create better paid jobs somehow.

VT82

thelawnet wrote: »

Why do you continue to regurgitate these crappy PA articles?

Either do your own analysis or don't bother.

Very true. At least if they did their own analysis, they could add their own caveats about the long-term 'money losing' implications of the potential short-term 'money saving' of going on the dole.

I'm sure Martin didn't envisage this kind of reporting when he started the site.

chanz4

Suprised money saving expert team dont take up the tax credits change, after all isnt it something that effects a lot of familys with kids instead of how can I get out of paying debts

BigAunty

Kezzerio wrote: »

...my partner only brings home £190 a week, and we have to pay full rent and council tax.
...

You should be getting child tax credits and child benefit on this, plus possibly working tax credits, and also perhaps some housing benefit and CT discount.

A working person with dependents on NMW does usually get some kind of top-up unless they have substantial savings (capital above 6k reduces it and above 16k rules it out).

Check your benefit entitlements on the Turn2us online benefit calculator.

Though it was before the recent benefit changes, so I could be wrong, one of my friends with a couple of kids got almost the same again in benefits as her husband earned on a full time NMW job. Despite being in social housing with a cheap rent, they still got housing benefit. She said the benefits they got were 'ridiculous' though they didn't run a car, loved charity shop clothes and cooked everything from scratch (no expensive processed food) so were quite thrifty.

dtaylor84

At least we don't have to blame the decline in quality of MSE's news articles on their takeover by MSM... they've been sensationalist hot air for some time now.

BigAunty

The_MoneySavingKid wrote: »

No, thanks!
I am student, and do not want the only contracts available to be 16 hours or more. I am happy with my 12 hour contract.

8-24 hours is a great job for a young single person to fit in with their studies, to keep them in beer, cinema tickets and trainers, particularly if they are living at home and therefore don't pay rent.

But don't you think 16 hours it's a rotten way for an adult couple with a couple of kids to try support themselves - feed 4 mouths, pay the rent, the council tax, electricity, gas, water, insurance, tv, telecoms, broadband bills, perhaps even run a car. Two adults who have the capacity to work 70 hours a week with hundreds of thousands only managing a quarter of that, bringing home under £100 a week from one part time job...Therefore the taxpayers then have to pay for most of their living expenses for most of their working life...

But that's all the benefit system used to ask of them. It's now gone up to 24 hours. So now there are still perhaps half a million kids out there whose parents earn around £145 a week, who don't contribute anything to taxation, and don't pay a penny in rent or council tax, then get hundreds of pounds in benefits each week.

m.nolano

Froggitt wrote: »

If that includes families where not working, and living on benefits, is a way of life, thats a great change. You know the ones.....always featured in documentaries, 6 kids, drinking cans of lager and eating fish and chips, shiny tracksuit, teaching "the system" to their kids once they reach 16.

At the very least, make them work for their benefit.....no more something for nothing......painting fences, picking up litter, digging roads.

painting, litter picking and labour work are proper jobs for proper people looking for and doing work.
we don't need dodgy companies taking advantage of this free labour and putting honest people out of work