A single mum (or dad) aged 21 who is working and has one child will lose £181.44 per week or £9,434.88 per year in the latest Situation Normal All F*cked Up (SNAFU) welfare policy of Iain Duncan Smith.
The story in the make it up as you go along Conservative policy on ‘welfare’ is that anyone aged under 22 will not be eligible for Working Tax Credits because the Conservatives want to stop migrants from getting tax credits as the BBC reports and true to form fail to mention this huge consequence.
Mary is 21 and has a three year daughter. She became unemployed after her relationship broke down and she had to flee her ex-partner. She started again in a 2 bed council flat with a rent of £96 per week . She had always worked and hated the way she was made to feel dirty for signing on. She took a job around what child care was feasible and works 16 hours per week at £6.80 per hour which is the NMW from October.
Her income is:
- Wages (net weekly) £108.80
- Working Tax Credit £181.44
- Child Tax Credit £63.98
- Child Benefit £20.70
- Housing Benefit £ 92.97
A total of £467.89 per week net.
Mary had been advised by DWP that working 16 hours per week would mean as IDS reminds that she is ‘better off in work’ and as this is DWP policy.
- Mary receives a total of £359.09 per week in ‘welfare’ (items 2 – 5 above) for work 16 hours per week.
- If Mary did not work her 16 hours per week she would get £253.79 per week including JSA.
Mary gets therefore £105.70 per week more in ‘welfare’ by working and reveals what the IDS mantra of work will always pay more means the cost of welfare INCREASES and the taxpayer pays out more and there is no saving to the public purse at all! Just one of the things IDS fails to tell us.
The tax credit system is a subsidy for low paying employers just as much as it is an incentive for single parents like Mary to work. Yet because IDS and the Conservatives have some ill-considered policy pledge of stopping migrants they are now proposing to stop WTC for all British people aged under 22 to make this migrant myth pledge legally admissible.
If this perverse porcine faeces becomes reality?
Mary’s total weekly income will reduce by the £181.44 WTC to £286.45 per week if she works 16 hours.
If Mary did not work she would get £256.82 per week if on JSA and a mere £29.63 less than working for 16 hours.
If Mary was on ESA she would get £29.05 more and working 16 hours would see her net income increase by £0.58p per week.
Mary would also have to pay any child care costs out of this FIFTY EIGHT PENCE per week extra and of course her costs of going to work and there is no incentive to work and Mary is actually worse off by going to work!
Mary would than have to sign on again and the Job Centre or DWP would see her have to sign a claimant commitment clause to say she will work for minimum wage which means she would be worse off financially and especially with the other standard claimant condition that she will have to take any job within a 90 minute travel to work radius.
How can it be lawful to have to sign a contract to receive benefit with a term that means you make yourself worse off financially? Any legal eagles out there that can offer opinion on having to sign the claimant commitment to work for NMW is an unfair term in a contract if you are aged under 22?
Yet, dear reader the BBC and the rest of the media failed to discuss the above ad merely focused on Johnny Foreigner Migrant – ah plus ca change!