(UC) forced to look for work.

LilElvis

nicechap wrote: »

Not at all, the ai/bot scored well with this one. Lots of chomping at the bit.

Perhaps the OP will return and say, for instance, they don!!!8217;t have a driving licence, or anything to expose people!!!8217;s assumptions about stuff not mentioned in the OP.

Perhaps they are just enjoying the (rare) opportunity to rail against a perceived benefits chancer - pointing out the bleeding obvious on the benefits board sees you sanctioned.

batg

WelshY1987 wrote: »

we class it as they are our kids so it's our duties to look after them while the other is contributing to this slavery system that pays pennies the time we pay for childcare and loses working tax due to hours and wage threshold and full rent full ctax. whiles i work 5 hours day mon-fri it is not worth working for. as a parent i rather be there for my kids than a full time working slave that never got time for my kids or the money. Yes, working 50+ pays but you find a job that offers you them hours.

aren't both the kids at school for 6 hours a day? What do you do during these hours 30 hours a week?

Smodlet

Sangie, what is "under the bridge"? Je ne comprends pas cette reference.

pmduk

I suspect Sangie meant the OP has had his fun and left.

Ineededaname

This topic is probably fake as if one partner is working 30+ hours a week they must be earning above £541 meaning the other partner would be in the light touch regime and not have to attend the Jobcentre or be monitored looking for work.
The only way this is real is if the system isn't correct for some reason (earnings haven't come through maybe).

Having said that £198 of any earnings would be ignored straight away because you have dependant children and then the 63% applied..

If you could get 25 hours of work in while the kids were at school at NMW of £7.83..

7.83 x 25= 195.75 a week
×52 and ÷12 = 848.25 a month
848.25 - 198 = 650.25
650.25 x 0.63 =409.63

409.63 taken off your benefit while you earnt 848.25 before deductions.

No tax because your below the yearly personal allowance, some NI I guess and maybe a changeto your CT

Point is you should definitley be better off and that's at minimum wage and 25 hours.

You could use some childcare you'd get 85% back for and work full time and be even better off, all while setting up for a better future for yourself and not relying on taxpayers to pay for you.

Get. A. Job.

sangie595

Smodlet wrote: »

Sangie, what is "under the bridge"? Je ne comprends pas cette reference.

It's where trolls live...

z1a

.................

Smodlet

sangie595 wrote: »

It's where trolls live...

:doh: Damn, I'm slow! I thought they lived in caves. All I could think of were kelpies... Not so different, I guess.

Sncjw

A part of looking after children is to earn money to look after them.

Yes the benefits system there for those who need help and can!!!8217;t work due being single parent or lack of childcare but you can work during school hours and there!!!8217;s two of you. Even part time would bring some money in.

I know someone who is a single mother and is raising three kids and their father has died recently at a young age. She is going to go back to work soon. Two of the children are under school age. She will manage and she is on her own. I admire her because she could sit on the benefits system for all her money but no she is actually going to go and get work.

You have children in school so you can work during then plus a partner who is working.

Time to stop making excuses.

DCFC79

OP has gone for sure.