Cable Forum - Part Time Workers Targeted

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Part Time Workers Targeted (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711352)

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36134867)

It is also bizarre that a Carer's private pensions do not count as income, so Carers Allowance continues, but as soon as they get the State Pension, it is stopped due to a DWP rule about "overlapping benefits".

Since when is the State Pension a "Benefit"? :confused:

I missed out on the £500 "thankyou" payment for Carers in Wales due to this. By 2 weeks!

Carers Allowance used to stop completely once a carer reached pension age. The Blair Government changed this to help carers not entitled to a state pension or only entitled to a very small pension equal to less than the amount of Carers Allowance- for these people the change was beneficial.

However, as you say, due to the overlapping benefits rule (this is where a person is entitled to more than one benefit, so only receives the higher of those available) anyone with a state pension over £69.70 will lose their Carers Allowance. It's still important that they make a claim though as underlying benefit entitlement still attracts extra payments for means tested benefits such as Univetsal Credit, Income Support, Pension Credit etc.

I find it interesting that the Government thinks that caring for someone for 35 hours or more per week is only worth £69.70, yet a completely unemployed person (over 25) is entitled to £77 a week!

Carers save this country an absolute fortune and if they were to ever relinquish their caring commitments we would be in a complete mess. However, the Government know full well that carers aren't likely to abandon their loved ones and take full advantage of this.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36134826)

I think they expect them to get another job

Easy to say, not to do.
Finding two jobs, that you can do, and dont ever overlap in hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36134857)

There are quite a few people who play the system by doing just the minimum of work to gain the maximum of State Benefits.

Because the system is designed that way.

The more you earn, the more they take off you, so their is just no benefit to working more hours.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36134809)

I’m not sure why I should link, or evidence, a statement entirely unrelated to the one I actually made.

That’s probably because you can’t, which is typical of your shallow arguments. Put your money where your mouth is and your comments might be taken more seriously.

I would love to enter into a serious debate with you on this, but all you do is make wild statements and when anyone challenges you, you change the argument very subtly. It’s very clever, but we see through you.

A high paid, high skilled jobs solution is bound to help people, and the economy. Of course, the more people who take advantage of that, the more who are taken out of the low paid sector and the fewer potential votes for Labour.

The red wall voters have finally concluded that for themselves.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36134882)

Easy to say, not to do.
Finding two jobs, that you can do, and dont ever overlap in hours.

Because the system is designed that way.

The more you earn, the more they take off you, so their is just no benefit to working more hours.

Indeed. Even the pittance in tax cuts being given to low paid workers will be clawed back via Universal Credit. For every £1 they pay less in income tax, they will lose 55p in Universal Credit.

As outlined above, if these tax cuts take any carers, sick or disabled people over the cut off limit, they will have to reduce their hours or face a complete loss of the relevant benefits.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by idi banashapan (Post 36134822)

I think you're absolutely correct, but I also think this is the issue.

Some people (whilst not the 'target'), fall into the part-time category that will fall foul of policy changes, not becuase they don't want to work more, but because they can't. Childcare prevents them from working full time, perhaps. Being an unpaid part-time carer for a loved one, maybe? Not everyone has 37.5 hours a week to give to a job, and it isn't choice. They might really want to work full time. It's just no possible for them to do so.

The second point you make is also true. They (government) are not talking about highly skilled workers. But again, it's not because all of the low skill workers can't be bothered to be highly skilled - some people (and this may be controversial), are just not able to be highly skilled. There are many people out there, for whatever reason, simply do not have the capacity to get into a highly skilled or cognitively demanding job. They physically and/or mentally cannot do it. Perhaps it's down to a psychological disorder, a physical disorder, developmental problem, maybe even just 'global delay' as it is now referred to in education (for those not familiar with the term, it is a polite way of saying 'a bit slow').

The issue is the policy does not seem to acknowledge those people who cannot, for whatever reason, work more or work at a higher level. And whilst those people have not been 'targeted', they will unfortunately become victims in this situation.

You make some good points, with which I do agree. But these are the legitimate cases. It does not detract from the point that there are a lot of very lazy or job shy people out there who simply want to lounge around and take their income from taxpayers. These are the people we are talking about, not those lone parents with childcare or elder care responsibilities or those with severe disabilities. These are the people requiring state support, not the other troggs who can’t be bothered to lift a finger.

---------- Post added at 20:39 ---------- Previous post was at 20:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36134891)

It now pays you to work rather than to stay at home, which is how it should be.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36134892)

Can you quantify this claim with evidence?

Quote:

These are the people we are talking about, not those lone parents with childcare or elder care responsibilities or those with severe disabilities. These are the people requiring state support, not the other troggs who can’t be bothered to lift a finger.

So essentially this proposal targets all of the groups you outline above, while doing nothing to address your spurious claim at the start of your post.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36134892)

The lowest paid lose 55% if they earn more. The highest paid used to lose 45% of the top portion of their incone; this will be lowered to 40%.

Those on disability, sickness or carers benefits stand to lose 100% of benefits such as ESA & Carers Allowance if their tax cuts or increased earnings/hours take them above the prescribed limits- there is no taper.

Effectively taxing the lowest paid (some of whom save this country a fortune by selflessly forfeiting a career) either 55% or 100%, whilst taxing those on over £150,000 a year 40% does not incentivise work.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36134892)

It now pays you to work rather than to stay at home, which is how it should be.

Except it doesnt pay you to work, you get "taxed" at 55%, so it pays you to stay at home.

Re: Part Time Workers Targeted

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36134894)

Can you quantify this claim with evidence?

I think it is a fair assumption that the statement is true when we are talking about such a large sample set. A number large enough that removing them from being beneficiaries by having them in better paid roles would make a substantial difference to the cost of any benefit scheme in play.