Younger people and their thoughts about working

Why shouldn’t the state support her, as a citizen, and everyone?

If we have a fair and redistributed tax system there will be plenty for everyone. Just look at Denmark. Tax the rich!

This idea that your pension is predictable, and the economy is in a permanent growth pattern is false.
Also this idea that you have to own your home is completely impractical considering the amount of capital you need to build up a mortgage deposit, and unattainable for most young people with low wages.

Most European countries provide fantastic rental homes to their populations, with speculating private landlords a rarity.

After covid a lot of people would rather have a simple life and are stepping away from working full time, and where the pursuit of profit is seen at best as a laughable pursuit, at worst as environmentally unsustainable.

I have 3 daughters : 50, 48, 40 - 7 Grandchildren - all 3 daughters work more hours than possible. Although all grandchildren are in full time education 3/4 work part time. Even my 15yr old grandson - it’s all in the education. They’ve all seen their great grand parents, grand parents & parents work all their lives!
Even my father died at 64 in the May before retiring in September !
I’m 74 I would still love to work if I could-
Education - who is funding her lifestyle? She has to realise someone has to pay! No such thing as a free lunch

Callistemon21

Casdon

ronib

JaneJudgeNic can be protected even if not paid child benefits. I believe it requires a tick on a form to not claim child benefits but to remain eligible for the state covering nics. Any other option would be an outrage.

I just looked it up ronib, and JaneJudge is correct, so it’s an outrage. The government is apparently planning legislation to close the loophole.
stca.co.uk/news/national-insurance-credit-scheme-will-be-introduced-to-tackle-child-benefit-gaps/

This is confusing.

Does it mean that, if one partner earns over £50,000, Child Benefit will not be paid to the partner who is staying at home to look after a family? That would usually be the mother (I realise not always).

It does not necessarily follow, either, that those two parents will still be together at retirement age so the stay-at-home parent will have a gap in their own NI contributions which will affect the State Pension.

Women will be at a disadvantage again.

Yes, though as TinSoldier said this is changing. At the momet a single parent earning more than £50,000 would lose the benefit, whereas a two parent household earning £49,500 each would keep the benefit.
One of my children who is a single parent has lost her Child Benefit this year due to a pay increase, the other who is married and earning just under the limit still has it. His family are substantially better off.

My daughter works 9 days a fortnight and her partner 8 but they use their time off to take their daughter out (she goes to nursery 4 days a week and will start school in August, Scottish schools finish at lunchtime on Fridays too). They have a camper van and sometimes go off for weekends. They both pay into pensions, he earns good money, her not as good but they mainly cook from scratch, cycle whenever possible etc, have just bought a house which they are doing a lot of work on. Good for them I say, nobody knows how long their life or good health will be

She clearly isn’t very financially astute. I’m in a position where I don’t really have a private pension I could live off and am just in receipt of my state pension and because of unfortunate circumstances still renting. My pension would barely cover my rent so I have to work. She probably thinks when she can’t afford it m, she’ll get state help with her rent but she needs to listen to her peers complaining how they are paying for our pensions. With and aging population there won’t be enough young people working to subsidise those foolishly relying on others working to subside their lazy lifestyle. I think she will be in for a big shock.

I agree, lots of people rely on Government money.

Doodledog

Germanshepherdsmum

So you would propose that everyone, rich or poor, maybe regardless of their working record (how could you define ‘hard working’?), should receive a state pension sufficient to cover all the benefits which are currently means-tested? And who are the ‘others’ who have to pay additional taxes in order to ‘give people their dignity’? How much extra tax would you be willing to pay?

The figures would be for those with far more knowledge of economics than I have.

But yes, I think that everyone should get certain benefits, in the same way that we all get free education until we are 18, and free healthcare. Nobody should earn so little that they can't provide for themselves in the world's 6th biggest economy. If prices go up as a result, then we will all have to cut our cloth accordingly - either that, or big business will have to accept smaller profits if we can't afford to pay high prices. I'd rather have slightly less spending power than live in a country where 1 in 10 children is in poverty, wouldn't you? I'm not talking about a bonanza - just a fair day's pay for a day's work, so that people have dignity and can provide for themselves.

As for non-means-tested benefits, why not? Call them Allowances, as they used to be. It used to be the case that all parents got child benefit (Family Allowance), for instance. Non-working women may not have got pensions in their own right, but they inherited their husbands' pensions, with, I think, widows' pensions on top, which weren't means-tested. I assume that single women without pensions of their own would have been provided for, although most of them probably worked.

Everyone would have to pay more - I'm not suggesting a raid on the wealthy, don't worry . It would mean that even though people had slightly less coming in, they would have to pay out less, so in most cases it would work out in the end. It would also mean that people can see the benefit of working, although with AI on the horizon it might be time to think again about whether work as we know it is still going to underpin society.

Do you think it acceptable that the low paid see people as well-off as they are for doing nothing? Should it just be the very well-paid who have better lifestyles than those on benefits?

I agree that housing is a huge factor in all this though. With prices the way they are, and the huge geographical disparity in profits it is increasingly difficult for young people to move around the country for work (and therefore to have equal employment chances), and that's before disparities between prices in the North and South (or London and most of the rest of the country) are taken into account when it comes to what is left after social care costs have eaten into inheritances.

To some extent this is already happening with State Pensions. The "new" pension is higher for new claimants than for those of us who claimed before it changed. This has resulted in me having a lower pension (despite a full NI payment record) than my sister who has not worked since having children. I assume she's paid the basic NI stamp for the years she was unemplyed.
She's two years younger than I am, and the delay in receiving her pension was longer than mine.

At 35 she's hardly a young thing and should know enough about every day practicalities, living alone, cost of living, health, and possible future problems that might arise. Maybe she's just expecting the state ie you and me to provide for her if it all goes awry in which case it's a very poor attitude.

Lack of education…..lack of parental example …….lack of responsibility…. Lack of ambition!

The child benefit situation is a good example of why I don't think that means-tested benefits are fair.

Family 1 is a two-parent family with one child who is at school all day. One parent earns enough to allow the other to stay at home whilst the child is at school. They pay one lot of tax and NI between them. They don't pay childcare charges (which I believe are the highest in the world), don't pay commuting charges, may be able to do without a cleaner and all the other expenses that often go with working when you have a family to support. The higher earning parent earns £1 less than £X, so they get child benefit, and the SAHP gets subsidised NI, so that s/he doesn't miss out on a pension. As that parent doesn't pay any tax, their education, health, protection by the police and armed forces, use of public facilities etc are also all subsidised. The SAHP would like to work part-time. If s/he does, however, the household income would rise and they will lose the CB, and if s/he doesn't earn enough to pay NI s/he will lose out on pension contributions too, so s/he decides to stay at home and not contribute, as it would be financially pointless to work.

Family 2 is made up of two working parents, both of whom pay tax, NI, commuting charges etc and need to have a cleaner and possibly other help to run the house. Neither earns enough to cover the salary of the other to allow one of them to stay at home. They have two children, one of whom is in nursery, and the other is at school, using wraparound care before and afterwards. Both parents need to buy business clothing for work, pay for lunches etc, and even things like collections for leavers and babies (as per another thread) add up. Between them, their wages mean that they earn £1 more than £X so they won't qualify for CB under the new 'household income' rules, despite the fact that both of them work.

Family 3 is a single parent family. Mum is unskilled and was deserted by her partner, who doesn't pay maintenance, despite an order that he should. She has three children, all of whom are at school, and relies on UC to support her family, but the benefit cap means that the third child is disregarded for the purposes of benefits. She has to prove that she is looking for work, and 'prepare to work' for 35 hours a week, even though this is likely to be at minimum wage and she will not bring home more than she does on benefits. She has no choice either - if she doesn't work her benefits will be stopped.

How is this fair? And how can anyone argue that it is not social engineering, designed to favour the better off? Regardless of which lifestyle any of the families would prefer, only family 1 can afford to make the choice, as one parent earns enough for the choice to be made, yet it is family 2 who has two workers, and family 3 is no better off despite the mum .

We keep hearing that we need more 'economically active' people to pay for pensions, health, education etc, yet the government seems to be conspiring against that - but it only helps parents who can afford for one of them to stay at home. Those who can't afford this (or who make different choices) have no choice but to pay tax and NI to subsidise Family 1's choices.

It used to be the case that all families got CB regardless of who worked and how much either or both parents earned. This seems to me much fairer than favouring some lifestyles over others.

I find this situation also, including my youngest daughter
I know a handful of people in their 30s . Very well educated , good degrees , not interested in a career or working apart from the odd jobs . Some from wealthy families and the parents provide for them so presumably support the decision.

Soniah

My daughter works 9 days a fortnight and her partner 8 but they use their time off to take their daughter out (she goes to nursery 4 days a week and will start school in August, Scottish schools finish at lunchtime on Fridays too). They have a camper van and sometimes go off for weekends. They both pay into pensions, he earns good money, her not as good but they mainly cook from scratch, cycle whenever possible etc, have just bought a house which they are doing a lot of work on. Good for them I say, nobody knows how long their life or good health will be

Edinburgh schools close early on Fridays, not all of Scotland. It causes great inconvenience to many working parents who have to find extra childcare cover.

The likes of us will no doubt pay for her!

Theexwife

I wonder if she is part time and claims Universal credit, there are too many people tha do this.

If she is claiming UC, firstly unlike older legacy benefits, UC us assessed on income earned NOT hours worked and if she’s working p/t by choice and claiming UC and fit and healthy she’ll have to go to the jobcentre regularly and explain why she’s not extended her working hours to full time.

Secondly, she’s definitely not representative of the people I know, our children aged 21-40 are all working full time as are their partners and peers.

Finally, if she afford to work p/t, is financially independent and happy, it wouldn’t have been my choice, but good for her!

Callistemon21

Coronation

Perhaps she is stressed/burned out in work and needs a break for a short time. It may be a temporary solution. I can't see how people can live alone on part time wages.

All our GPs are part-time.

Perhaps in their GP surgery, but most work as private consultants too or even in research, where they earn better money.

There aren't too many people who work part time and are topped up with universal credit, because that's not how the system is set up!!
They will not pay a fit, healthy person to work part time!!

Money has always given people the luxury of choice, Doodledog, and it always will - and life never has been, and never will be, ‘fair’. It is up to the individual capable of work to do the best they can for themselves, rather than expecting the state to fund them. Under the new CB coming in next month, the threshold for payment is raised from £50k to £60k and the benefit then tapers off until at £80k you receive nothing. I see nothing unfair in that. I’m not in favour of the taxpayer paying for children the parents can’t afford to have, although I received CB for my one child and wouldn’t under the new rules.

With regard to your example 3 above, why should the state pay benefits to this woman who no longer needs to stay at home and could perfectly well work? Is it the fault of the state that she is unskilled and has had three children by a feckless man? What were you saying the other day about people working rather than claiming benefits?

My son is 37 and works all hours! He drives a lorry by day and works in a pub most weekends.

Germanshepherdsmum

Money has always given people the luxury of choice, Doodledog, and it always will - and life never has been, and never will be, ‘fair’. It is up to the individual capable of work to do the best they can for themselves, rather than expecting the state to fund them. Under the new CB coming in next month, the threshold for payment is raised from £50k to £60k and the benefit then tapers off until at £80k you receive nothing. I see nothing unfair in that. I’m not in favour of the taxpayer paying for children the parents can’t afford to have, although I received CB for my one child and wouldn’t under the new rules.

With regard to your example 3 above, why should the state pay benefits to this woman who no longer needs to stay at home and could perfectly well work? Is it the fault of the state that she is unskilled and has had three children by a feckless man? What were you saying the other day about people working rather than claiming benefits?

How on earth is she going to get UC for reducing her hours? You have to earn at least £1000 a month and then you don’t qualify! and she won’t enjoy going to the Job centre to explain why she’s cut her hours, they won’t entertain that. . My guess is she’s a high earner that earns enough part time to cover her costs of living.

Well it’s hardly a surprise that this country has a declining birth rate!

Does anyone know what this young woman does for a living? Perhaps she earns more than enough for her needs by working part time. Perhaps she isn't materialistic and is happy to live with less than many people have? Perhaps she is ill but doesn't want to share that information.

Is it any of our business?

None of your business neither is how she will cope, she's an adult and clearly knows what she's doing.

No, except to the extent that whilst she may be able to cover her needs now, as I said above unless she’s earning enough to put a worthwhile sum into a private pension, finds a partner or gets a significant inheritance, the time will come when she looks to the state for help.

Germanshepherdsmum

Money has always given people the luxury of choice, Doodledog, and it always will - and life never has been, and never will be, ‘fair’. It is up to the individual capable of work to do the best they can for themselves, rather than expecting the state to fund them. Under the new CB coming in next month, the threshold for payment is raised from £50k to £60k and the benefit then tapers off until at £80k you receive nothing. I see nothing unfair in that. I’m not in favour of the taxpayer paying for children the parents can’t afford to have, although I received CB for my one child and wouldn’t under the new rules.

With regard to your example 3 above, why should the state pay benefits to this woman who no longer needs to stay at home and could perfectly well work? Is it the fault of the state that she is unskilled and has had three children by a feckless man? What were you saying the other day about people working rather than claiming benefits?

My argument is not that anyone 'should' do anything. It rarely is, really. What I am saying is that the state is giving financial incentives for women to stay at home, but only if their partner earns enough for her to opt out of making a financial contribution to society, rather than solely to her family. At a time when pensioners are being told that they are a drain on the public purse as they are 'economically inactive' this seems to me inconsistent.

This means that the thinking behind the benefit is not that children are better off with a parent at home, as only Family 1 get their NI paid and are give CB. It is not that parents should have choice, as again, only family 1 get that choice, and even then, only until the higher earner earns above the threshold. It is not that parents need financial help to bring up babies and children, as this help is denied to all but family 1. It is not that staying at home should include preparation for future work, or allow the possibility of part-time work (as is compulsory for mum 3) as if mum 1's earnings push the household income above the threshold they lose the benefit. It is definitely not feminist thinking, as women taking years out of the workplace are often financially disadvantaged for life, whilst their husbands progress in their careers. This may be good for family finances for those who stay together, but is anything but good (for the woman) if they split. It is difficult to see what the thinking is. This inconsistency applies both to NI contributions to SAHPs and to the CB cap.

You bring up my example 3. Why should mum 3 be forced to work when mum 1 is also perfectly well able to work, but is subsidised to stay at home? Is there a good reason for that?

I don't know what I said the other day, but I'd be surprised if I said that anyone 'should' do anything. I am far more likely to have said that the system encourages people to opt out of work at both ends of the income spectrum, which is entirely consistent with what I am saying now. People do what works for them within the system. I rarely argue for them to do otherwise (why would they?) but do feel that 'the system' is often skewed so that people 'in the middle' are disadvantaged. That 'middle' gets further and further towards the 'bottom' all the time, too. Means-testing does that, and reframing it as 'targeting' doesn't change a thing.

Finally, the argument that things have always been unfair has always been a cop out. Historical injustice is not a rationale for current and future injustice.

I think it's her life & none of my business.