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

I think youd benefit from spending 24 hours in the shoes of some parents… having an SEN child can be exhausting!
I taught a girl with Down syndrome for a few years. Her mum was a single parent with heart disease so pretty ill in herself. Her DD came to school and mum would sleep during the day because shed be up half the night looking after her extremely hyperactive child. No respite, little support, no family. School holidays were a nightmare for her if she couldn't get respite or a holiday club place. No way on this earth could she consider working.

If I'm being honest, yes. I took some very good financial advice after the death of my partner and was very strongly advised to take out both critical illness and medical insurance because I couldn't afford to get sick. If I'd been going without the advice I probably wouldn't have done so because the size of the monthly payments for those two things frightened me. It was an awful lot of money - as it turned out, worth it, but I can't take true credit for it other than the credit of "realising I was over my head nd getting advice".

It's down to having enough spare income to pay for insurance, enough understanding to know that there's such a thing and why it's important. Maybe not luck, but something not everyone has for sure.

It's not about luck when people are making an active choice to keep their work hours low and top up with UC to maximise their income and spend time with the kids because it's too dreadful to use the nursery.

What will people do when they soon find they will need to contribute to doing some of those work hours?

Clearly a strategy by the government to get both people used to working (rather than just one) before increasing those hours in the future.

UC as a lifestyle choice should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

I don't include those who cannot work due to disability in that.

I get it. It takes much less effort to stamp your foot and say "Omg, just DO IT!!" that to critically analyse why people aren't doing that.

We can all see why they aren't doing that: because the rules are such that they haven't had to and they would rather not be inconvenienced by having to arrange their lives so that they can work instead of claiming money from the state. Hence the rules needing to be changed to prevent people perfectly capable of working from doing this based on such ridiculous excuses.

Oh for goodness sake! Lots of lone parents work full time and manage to do their housework as well. This is getting pathetic now, the excuses all boil down to "wouldn't like it, can't be bothered, too much effort".

You underestimate people. They're shrewd enough to figure out what to claim in order to maximise income / reduce work hours. These are very transferable skills.

We can all see why they aren't doing that: because the rules are such that they haven't had to and they would rather not be inconvenienced by having to arrange their lives so that they can work instead of claiming money from the state. Hence the rules needing to be changed to prevent people perfectly capable of working from doing this based on such ridiculous excuses.

Yep. It's quite painful to read some of these ridiculous excuses.

I agree, despite my apparent feckless, lazy, lifestyle that UC shouldn't be a lifestyle choice.

The point is that most people aren't making it so.
As things stand at the moment, for some many families the way to best financially protect their family is for one of the parents to not work.

If they outlaw all benefits except disability benefits, there will still be people who cannot make two parents working work. They'll just spend less, even if that means fuel and food, or use other strategies.

Of course it will push other people into work, some who don't want to be and some who will naturally follow the path that gives their family greatest financial protection.

But the context wasn't about one off tiredness, it was about taking the only time a parent gets to sleep because of being up all night with a disabled child and expecting them to work it, or having a work / childcare pattern that just doesn't allow for sleep.

I have two disabled children and am a lone parent. They hardly sleep. I still work full time to provide for them. The idea that this is "impossible" when there are two parents to share childcare between them is ridiculous.

I should also point out for anyone smugly thinking that they have cover so they will be fine in a similar situation that claiming on critical illness cover requires a form being filled in by your consultant - and whether or not you have private medical cover, cancer specialists are frequently through the NHS.

It took over six months and finally a letter to PALS and my MP before I could be provided with the documentation which meant my cover actually paid out. Until that point I was reliant on sick pay and my savings. That's with a case of cancer which meant that literally the week they finally got the documentation they paid out. So don't assume because you prepared, did everything right and took responsibility you'll be fine, you might not be.

I agree, the government has to do something and hopefully if they do it a little bit at a time, claimants will successfully adapt. It's been a long time coming.

Well I'm on tax credits and haven't worked out how to afford decent life insurance, so maybe some of us are just extra thick?

As things stand at the moment, for some many families the way to best financially protect their family is for one of the parents to not work
Are you including the benefits they'd need to claim as part of this financial "protection"?

If there is one piece of advice for the worried OP this is it.^
Start planning early before others cotton on and options reduce.
It will be happening whether people like it or not.

Don't worry. The job club will help you with getting started on the path to financial independence.

And some people will think that managing a job and providing adequate care on a few hours sleep is the best option, and some people will think that taking care of the parents wellbeing too is the best option. Some people will think the other people are wrong. I think in circs like that people have to make their own choices.

If I'd worked say 8 pm - 2 am then got to sleep for say 4 and been back up at 7 to look after DS all day, I wouldn't have felt mentally capable of ensuring I was doing all his meds and feed and o2 properly. I accept that that is clearly my failing as a human but knowing I'm inferior in so many ways, I wouldn't have put DS at risk by doing it. Am I grateful there's support to enable that? Yes, just like I'm grateful he didn't leave hospital with a huge bill. And when I get back into paid work, I'm happy to know that my wages theoretically support other families in that circumstance.

At least you get the comfort of knowing you're the better parent.

I agree, i've always wondered how these people weren't afraid that the government could get rid of benefits/make benefits much harder to get. Some base their life choices, amount of kids, lack of work history on the belief that nothing will change.

I've never understood why, it's so short sighted.

I couldn't afford it for the 15 years before I had DS either, and neither does DH who works full time have it. You'll find lots of people who work full time don't have it too. Freckles idiots, all of us

Do you work full time as well?

And the awesome news is that if you manage to get sick before you get to afford the insurance you'll probably never be able to have it in the future either 😬 I am currently uninsured because shockingly, no one will take me for either life or critical illness cover, even with a cancer exclusion, even though my consultant thinks I've every chance of living a full life. And... So are my kids because no one covers kids without also covering a parent.

One company will consider it in six months after another scan. I confidently expect the premiums to be eye watering and the exclusions to be massive.

And some people will think that managing a job and providing adequate care on a few hours sleep is the best option, and some people will think that taking care of the parents wellbeing too is the best option. Some people will think the other people are wrong. I think in circs like that people have to make their own choices.

The utter cheek of this. No it's not the "best option" for me. If other people pulled their weight then my tax rates wouldn't be so high and maybe I could work a little less and still afford to provide for my own kids, and spend more time with them too. Rather than being milked for money to subsidise two parent families having one part time worker or a SAHP! Utterly ridiculous that this should be allowed when people are not disabled. It's beyond a joke frankly, and then the audacity to say it's fine, they can "make their own choice" that they'd prefer to live off the rest of us if they feel like it.

The utter cheek of this

Yes. It really is.

@TheHandmaiden it doesn't quite work like that though- you are given an allowance based on the size of your household- and the allowances which were set in local authorities a good few years ago and are variable levels are nearly always considerably below 'actual 'rental costs these days 'unless' you are in social housing- meaning many people are using the rest of their payments to cover off the difference- which can be substantial . You don't simply get all your rent paid.

My own personal views (and I am not a Tory) is that they have been very heavy (too heavy) on certain things but surprisingly lax on other things
I cant agree with consistent child maintenance not being counted towards income. As I've mentioned below someone I know has almost £800 a month maintanance plus £1680 or so UC and rent of around £680. She has 2 primary aged kids and doesn't really work (well under 6 hours a week) she can't see the point as she feels she would be little better off as not got high income potential. Nor has she been hassled to get more hours !! She's a nice person but yes it irritates me , because to be frank she's playing the system and shes taking money from the public purse when I would rather it went to someone who genuinely can't work- no excuse where we live, after school clubs, childminders WFH jobs etc. she lives central, so no travel issues and I think there are a fair few who would be happy to get by in this situation and just take. Also far too many supposedly 'split up' couples out there with kids who effectively haven't split- but are for the purposes of claiming. A lot of people are very savvy on things like this and the benefits system encourages it- personally I think we should be giving some kind of incentive to lower and middle income earners who aren't taking anything. Labours tax credits were good in that way.

With regards to contribution based HB , I can see that would be hard to police , especially when it came to disabled, caring committments etc, however I certainly don't think there should be any right to buy unless you have paid at least 85% of your rent without recourse to public funds. - and even then if you sell within 10 years I think 75% of any profit over purchase price should go back into the system.

I think we are far too hard on some genuinely in need, far too soft on some who simply cannot be arsed and offer far too little to those with modest level incomes who work but don't claim.

I typed financially supporting and deleted it cos it wasn't the right word to include the benefits claimed. So yes, financial protection was the best I could muster. I'm sure you're more erudite and could phrase it better