New UC rules to force both partners to work ??

[Citrusmuffin]

I can’t find anything online about this but have heard it’s being changed as previously there had to be a certain number of hours worked but this could be by just one partner but now it’s being changed to make both work even though the total household hours don’t change??

This seems very unfair and taking away choice for some families in difficult circumstances. I just can’t find the official guidance is anyone able to link to it ? Thanks

24 hours a week for a couple with secondary kids that dont need picking up or supervising at home? Thats beyond ridiculous. I really hope that rule is changed. Meanwhile in the world of not claiming anything, I’ll instantly up my hours when theres no pick up to do. Husband already works ridiculous hours.

The number of people who can't work due to illness is at a record high, this is attributed to huge backlogs due to covid and underfunding the NHS for years. Then add on Brexit causing a lack of workers. So forcing those who can work back into the labour market seems like a reasonable option.

Single parents don't have to work 30 hours until their kids are ? 12 years old.

I was asked to help interview for some positions this week. No -one even turned up for the interviews, they had all found other jobs ! I just don't think there are enough workers around for the number of vacant positions. We now have to start recruitment all over again !

Absolutely right IMHO. Why on earth should people choose not to work and accept support from the public. If people have caring responsibilities they will ne exempt.

You're getting worse with your replies. You don't want to get out of the house and do a little evening or weekend job?

Good. There are some many loopholes that people can take advantage of to assist them to not work or work the very bare minimum. Everyone who can contribute to the country should be contributing.

*so many

I also think one parent staying at home with the child should be an option for all families and if necessary the state should subside that

Totally disagree with this

The op has her husband she is not a lone carer. I have known people to work and care because they use carers for support.

I don’t get out this will help reduce the benefit bill anyway.
the amount you get is based on earnings.
my partner is a stay at home dad to our baby we get a Uc top up on my wage which is 26k a year.
if I had to reduce my hours so he could pick up a job (probably retail) we would probably still be at 26k or less and needing the top up from Uc to get by.

rent prices are extortionate and we wouldn’t be able to afford to rent if we didn’t get help towards.

The country is broke. Begging is a lot more aggressive a woman shouted at a bigger telling her to get a job. People are feeling it and UC is not enough to live on but people are satisfied and are fighting tooth and nail to keep it.

And to add I wouldn’t be able to reduce my hours at work, so we would then need to pay for childcare which again would just make things a lot tighter.
even with the change to childcare costs cheapest one to me (believe me we didn’t take the SAHP approach lightly) was £60per day base with need to top up for nappies etc.

Not everyone can out earn childcare, not everyone can find or get to night work to fit around a partner.

In theory DH is home for 6 so I could start work for 7. 30pm til 3.30 am say, home for 5, sleep 2 hours and take the kids to school, sleep 4 hours, pick them up and head back out to work for 7.3p but
A. How many jobs are there with those hours?
B. How do I get there if I can't afford a, car?

C. How viable is it to cope on that sleep pattern long term?

But more help is being brought in for childcare and in the long term people who are in employment will contribute more and be less reliant on the state.

for society to function we actually need to have a jobs market that pays people enough to live in our society dont we? the vast majority of people claiming benefits are actually IN work but do not have enough to feed, house and clothe themselves without the state propping up the system. The government would be better looking towards all that they are needing to do in terms of providing enough social, secure housing, adequate healthcare & care provision to allow those on long term sick to be in work and a decent education to allow children to leave school with the skills to plug the gapping skills gaps in our workforce . You're describing into the typical Tory thinking about people "not doing their bit" when their own policies have left many people even less able to contribute.

Nobody has objected to additional payments for those who are already working full time but not earning enough.

I agree that salaries need to rise so that this isn't necessary. The only way to do that is to improve productivity. The only way to increase productivity is for there to be sufficient money available to invest in decent education, healthcare and infrastructure. That won't be possible if only 20% of the population are paying more in tax than they receive in benefits, will it? So the problem being discussed here is one of the reasons why wages are so low in the UK. And, if people spend large proportions of their working life working part time or not at all their lifelong earning potential will be far lower and decrease their chance of being able to earn higher salaries. So this system is one of the factors keeping salaries low both at an individual and population level.

And it's likely to be a lower family income cos most couple send the higher earner our to work.

It’s never going to be wrong for an adult to work unless they themselves have health conditions or have extensive caring responsibilities.

Welp, this is mumsnet where people regularly appear to be wail that their six figure salary doesn't go far enough so this should probably have been anticipated but for what it's worth, OP, I'm with you.

For those hard of thinking:

If you lose your job in pregnancy or with a tiny baby (shouldn't happen but still does sometimes - companies close down) then the absolute earliest nursery funding would kick in is two, but you might well be forced to work before that time. And if you're heading bavk with significant caring responsibilities the chances are you're going to be in low paid work so might well be making less than you pay in childcare.

"Working around each others hours" is only a possibility if the jobs exist, take little account of things like travel time, and don't take any account of differing salaries. If the only job available to work around your partners hours is a minimum wage evening job then does it make more sense to take it or for your partner to use that time to take higher paid overtime?

SEN is not instantly diagnosable and not all issues that take a child out of school are SEN. My son had serious eye issues for a couple of years which included regular assessments followed by an op after which he was off for a few weeks for recovery. It wasn't by any means SEN but meant me regularly taking a full day to drive to the (not local) hospital for assessment until they judged we were good to go - and then I needed childcare for his recovery. An understanding employer would give me the time but not all employers are understanding.

Schools do not instantly go to SEN diagnosis when there us SEN and a lot of schools with excellent OFSTED ratings are really crap with SEN. A friend's child who was eventually diagnosed with autism spent two year with his mum being called in almost daily to help him after accidents because they couldn't or wouldn't help. He's now at a special school - but it took an awfully long time to find him a place at one, several years before there was a diagnosis that allowed her to claim it as a disability, and good luck finding an employer that will let you dash off daily for this.

No. I don’t. Because I can’t due to my illnesses.

If that changed then I would want to 100%. Unfortunately my prognosis is that things are progressive

The following is proposed from Sept 2023

The AET is rising to 29 hours a week for a couple. They can do this between them, or one person in the couple can do all of the hours. However, there is a catch meaning for most couples both will have to work.

The couple’s CET used to be £567. That was doable for one working person. It rose to £782 last September. Still doable for one person. In January, it went up to £988…getting tricky. The proposed change for September 2023 is for a couple’s CET to be

Depending on age of children,

Op are you claiming DLA for your child? If not, do so (it’s fairly easy to get compared to PIP) and then apply for carers allowance.

These threads always bring out the right-wingers. Well I think they do….if they don’t, then Mumsnet generally is left-wing until it comes to benefits. They’re all paying you out of their own pocket you see…

We are waiting for the dla claim to be processed so hopefully soon will be awarded

Ahh so you don't have a child in mainstream sent home 3 days a week plus multiple fixed term exclusions. That was my life before I home educated how could I possibly have held down a job?

I believe if savings are over 16,000 , you would not be eligible for UC - the savings disregard is usually applicable if the money is for a house deposit and their are exceptions of course - doing up their house could be considered a deprevation of capital 🤷‍♀️