Universal credit - how it will work

Horseunderwater

In years gone by, the working hours per week were perceived as between 40-45 with some overtime if you wished and it was offered. Unions demanded the lower amount of 35-40 as a new standard. My Dad when he was alive worked very hard as a self employed coalman until the late 60's when ill health forced him to sell up. He was unemployed at the labour exchange for a couple weeks, then he got a job loading up lorries in the local box factory temporarily. The boss took him on for 6 months, then Dad said he'd been offered a job in the actual factory as he had what was then a green card for disabled workers (diabetic II). And as he was relatively young and fit, they wanted him on the workforce, to satisfy their quota. He was there until ill health got him again in the early 80's, when they kindly let him retire on a full sick pay pension. My Mum always worked in an office doing ledger work. She was very clever with figures and reconciling bills/outlays and very meticulous. We survived on those wages. Grew our own veg etc and lived inside our means. Never borrowed on credit, unless it was a new washing machine/cooker. Things were repaired and made to work. Dad fitted new cooker rings or knobs - it was that sort of life. Perhaps if the majority of us adopted that attitude now, we would not now be needing to be bailed out by everyone.

clearingout

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

What do you think full time hours per week are?

People who worked hard at school, are not on mimimum wage. there are plenty of graduates working for minimum wage or generally low wages...for some, life remains like that for a long period of time. I personally have a Masters degree and earned well for a relatively short period of my life but as I have always worked in the voluntary sector, my wages after 15 years were not particularly higher than they were when I left university. This is not an indicator of my incompetence (far from it), just an indicator of the particular field I went into.

Ironic really that that those who worked hard at school despite those who mucked about in class making it hard for them to learn; are now having to support those peoples families. that's a massive sterotype. People disrupting others in school do so for a wide vareity of reasons - by far the majority come to regret their actions in a very short period of time after leaving school. I personally know of a good number of adults who came to learning later in life and who have gone on to have successful professional careers - something their teachers would never have predicted!



140 hours between both parents on mimimum wage would be just over 45k. If they were prepared to work that hard, then they wouldn't be on mimimum wage for long. depends enormously on what field of work people go into. And there is nothing wrong with earning a living - I couldn't do the job I do without a decent cleaner coming in and clearing my work room in the evenings. She doesn't earn very much but I have an awful lot of respect for her. Rather than looking down on people who work in unskilled, non-professional roles, assuming they are people who couldn't be bothered in school, who are without ambition or who are otherwise stupid, you would do well to look at the work they do and the impact them not being there might have on your job. Taking time to speak with the cleaner might surprise you.

How about striking a happy medium and both working enough hours to provide a reasonable standard of living and limiting the number of children to the amount they can afford to keep themselves?

The knock on effect on children from seeing their able bodied parents claiming long term welfare, is worrying too. Children learn by example. UC will go someway towards making these types of parents, change.

As for striking a happy medium, I have 3 lovely children I can't afford. I could afford them when I had them - could afford them to be in private school - but unfortunately, I have an ex husband who thought the grass was greener and who now chooses not to support them (he gets away with this as he is self employed). What do you suggest? I have recently completed teacher training and without tax credits (or something to replace it), I will struggle to be able to afford to work. Should I place my childen up for adoption, perhaps? Or would it be better if I simply didn't work?

kerrypn

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

What do you think full time hours per week are?

People who worked hard at school, are not on mimimum wage.

Ironic really that that those who worked hard at school despite those who mucked about in class making it hard for them to learn; are now having to support those peoples families.

Full time hours are 36 week, or 40 depending on shifts.

I worked very hard at school thank you and got 3 a levels 2 as levels graded a-C, 10 gcses graded A*-B but found a vocation in life and have worked as a care assistant for 10 years. I worked damn hard at school and work damned hard now. Its a bit wrong to assume because I am not a high flyer I am the kind of person to mess about in school, or do part time hours.

I do not see why companies should be allowed to make billions in profit and employ people on the minimum wage.

2 parents working 140 hours a week is ridiculous. No one should have that little time with their children, and Im sure people in 30K plus jobs dont do this.

Im not asking for the earth-but some LOW PAID jobs are essential to society and I disagree that these people should be made to work inhumane hours, not have children or live in poverty.

And before I get a lashing for that I am applying to uni to do nursing, but wouldnt be doing that either if I hadnt gotten the experience to know I wanted to do this job.

Sixer

Just an NB: UC briefing notes are taking full-time hours as 35.

Mumto3cheekymonkeys

It is rather sad to see people sterotyping on here. The fact is that tax credits are there and they do help people. I work 21 hours pw and my OH works 40 when we had our first 2 children we were not in receipt of much tc and we both worked full time and were earning rather alot. My OH lost his well paid job and is now on a £13000 salary a year and after our 3rd child I have only gone back PT. This is for many reasons 1 being that my 2 children are in school and there is not enough childcare providers to pick them up from school and 2, that raising 3 children and keeping the house clean and tidy along with other parts of life it is very busy. Yes this is my choice and no this was not my plan but this is life and it is something that I must accept as others might as well because this is life.

princessdon

I have no objections to TC being used for want of a better word "wisely and with a common sense approach".

Eg mumto3 - You BOTH work with young children which is hard and an absolute example of why TC are a positive. I don't see why families with young children should have to both work 40 hours a week each to be eligible.

However, 24 hours - between 2 adult with say teenagers or young adults I think is wrong.

I beleive they should for eg apply a NMW allowance to the SAHP. eg if they have 3 children (14- 18 in age) with no disaibiliites then if it is THEIR choice to stay at home then say 20 hours at NMW is added as if a wage to their eligible income for Tax Credits.

I don't see why a family who both work hard should support lifestyle choices of others. I am not talking about those that can't get work (JSA is for that) and those that are "under the limit" - should have sign on, do work programme, volunteer and do things necesary to improve their chances of work.

It is the "lifestyle" choice I personally have a huge problem with (not those forced into a situation).

Someone I know worked 16 hours a week for years (teenage children) - always claimed no extra hours and no work. Suddenly they have a new business (8 hours a week) making no money but keeps them eligibile. No doubt when UC comes in they will find a way around the system then too. I have had genuines converstations and their stance is "why work more than you have to if benefits pay to stay at home".

Ironically they also slate benefit claimants - somehow beleiving that because they work (now a whole 24 hours a week between them) that they support others!

FBaby

Mumto3cheekymonkeys wrote: »

It is rather sad to see people sterotyping on here. The fact is that tax credits are there and they do help people. I work 21 hours pw and my OH works 40 when we had our first 2 children we were not in receipt of much tc and we both worked full time and were earning rather alot. My OH lost his well paid job and is now on a £13000 salary a year and after our 3rd child I have only gone back PT. This is for many reasons 1 being that my 2 children are in school and there is not enough childcare providers to pick them up from school and 2, that raising 3 children and keeping the house clean and tidy along with other parts of life it is very busy. Yes this is my choice and no this was not my plan but this is life and it is something that I must accept as others might as well because this is life.[/QUOTE]

I was agreeing with everything you said until reaching that point... YOU chose to have 3 children, you are choosing to spend your time on other things than chores. Why should others substitute that choice?

My partner and I both work full-time (him over 40 hours, me 37.5 and 2 hours travelling each day). We have two children living with us. My partner is very meticulous so the house has to be kept tidy. We also have a nice garden with many flowers that needs tendering. We don't have a gardner, we don't have cleaner. We do it all. That is our choice to do so and I don't expect others to fund for our choices.

The 'this is life' is such a cope out... It is YOUR life and your choice to work part-time for your benefit, you should pay for it yourself.

FBaby

princessdon wrote: »

I don't see why families with young children should have to both work 40 hours a week each to be eligible!

I do! It's alll about choices. You either chose to have 1 or 2 child, not more, or you wait until the eldest are self-sufficient to have another one. Full-time is called that for a reason. Working less is a luxury. Nothing wrong to decide to favour having more children, more quality time over more money, but why should others subsidise your choice when they themselves had to make sacrifices?

You don't have to have three children one after another, it is a personal choice.

princessdon

I know (and I have always worked) - but I have more sympathy for those with young children than teenagers.

I work in an area with excellent childcare but in rural areas or for some it's not as easy. My sister is a nurse - she can't work full time (although admitedly she doesn't get any TC) as her shifts are outside childcare hours.

She has to work PT whilst her kids are young - yes she has 2 children. Once they are older she can go back FT.

But as I said - they are not entitled to anything other than CB and support themselves as her OH works too, but PT nights and weekends are all she can really do.

Sixer

princessdon wrote: »

I know (and I have always worked) - but I have more sympathy for those with young children than teenagers.

I work in an area with excellent childcare but in rural areas or for some it's not as easy. My sister is a nurse - she can't work full time (although admitedly she doesn't get any TC) as her shifts are outside childcare hours.

She has to work PT whilst her kids are young - yes she has 2 children. Once they are older she can go back FT.

But as I said - they are not entitled to anything other than CB and support themselves as her OH works too, but PT nights and weekends are all she can really do.

Princessdon - UC isn't going to set cash thresholds of 2 x 35 hours for couples with young children. The proposals are (for couples) - 1 x 35 hours @ NMW for those with children under 5, 1 x 35 hours @ NMW + 15-20 (not set precisely yet they're saying "to fit in with school") hours @ NMW for those with children 5-12, and 2 x 35 hours @ NMW for those with children 12 and over.

And don't forget that this is a CASH threshold. So if the full-time earner is on anything over about £22.5k, there won't be any conditionality for the other member of the couple, as they'll have earned the cash threshold of 2 x 35 x NMW by themselves.

You could argue this is discriminatory for the low paid...