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

Nope. Feckless, work shy and having babies all over the place.

@crikeyalmighty what are labours tax credits? Don't remember getting tax rebates or anything.

Well I believe the welfare system SHOULD be there to support you.

You can resent that all you like.

I also think carers allowance should be paid at a decent level so that you making that choice doesn't mean an implosion in your standard of living.

However it would be ridiculous to say you don't have the right to choose to do that. To say you aren't allowed to work and any help you do get for your children should be removed so that you're unable to work.

So yes, you should be able to make the decision either way in a situation where you have two disabled children who require round the clock care which significantly affects your physical wellbeing.

I'm sorry knowing I think you deserve support if you want it upsets you.

@kitsuneghost I definitely remember getting them at the time about 2009 or so - it was quite small amounts in our case, but at the point when I had a short spell off work and H was working. Can't remember what they called it- I'm sure others will but it was dependent on you working over and above a certain amount of hours but I think earning under a certain amount. - but you got it even if you were on no other benefits at all -maybe you were over the earning limits. ?

Well if you did, just maybe you'd have the money to pay for things like insurance.

Just a thought eh...

@Crikeyalmighty I agree with this. UC is also very hard on self-employed people. Earnings from SE don’t count towards AET. Why not? They still expect you to declare it and adjust payments accordingly, but it doesn’t count as employment.

I think they need to be very careful removing the couple’s AET in the way they are. If one person in the couple is working 36 hours (NLW) a week and the other isn’t working, they are now saying the non working person must work 18 hours (NLW) in line with single claimants. However, the first individual might likely drop their hours to 18 hours if that is the individual requirement for single claimants (Yes, they might be sanctioned for a few months, but that will end if the are doing the required 18 hours of AET). What I see happening in the future - and I have heard couples moot this already - is that rather than one person work 35/6 hours a week and the other not work, they will both just do the 18 hours each and not lose any UC. More people in work, but fewer hours each. I think this was the op’s point at the start. It doesn’t make sense.

The Govn will cotton on to that, if they haven’t already.
This is just the beginning of getting everyone into work, the requirements will be increased over time.

Well I believe the welfare system SHOULD be there to support you.

You can resent that all you like.

I also think carers allowance should be paid at a decent level so that you making that choice doesn't mean an implosion in your standard of living.

However it would be ridiculous to say you don't have the right to choose to do that. To say you aren't allowed to work and any help you do get for your children should be removed so that you're unable to work.

So yes, you should be able to make the decision either way in a situation where you have two disabled children who require round the clock care which significantly affects your physical wellbeing.

I'm sorry knowing I think you deserve support if you want it upsets you.

Sorry I really don't understand what this means? You think that I should be able to decide not to work even though I can? Sure, it'd be nice to have the same income and not have to bother, I'm sure 99% of people feel like that, but who do you think should pay for it?

Yes it's harder for me being a lone parent, and being disabled, and having disabled kids. But for now I can do it so surely I should? What I resent is that other families with two parents and nobody disabled seem to think it's ok if they don't bother and make excuses and make the rest of us pay for them. And aren't even ashamed of that, in fact are furious that some small steps are being taken towards preventing it.

I've said many times in this thread that I think people who are so disabled they cannot work should get far, far more generous support than they do. And parents struggling to care for disabled DC. But the only way to afford that and better public services for everyone is for those who CAN to contribute and it's shocking how many people with no disabilities think they shouldn't have to bother and are "entitled" to have a large proportion of their living costs paid by everyone else. Then moan that wages are too low etc. Of course they will be, because we will continue to be a low productivity country if millions of people who could work are expecting to be funded by others! That is a huge drain on society.

Not on the "take anything" plan you seem to want to push her into she won't - my critical illness and life cover - WITHOUT added health insurance - was roughly £200 a month before I got sick! And again you absolutely should not ever take it out if it means having no savings because even if you have an absolutely open and shut case terrible illness it might still take six months or more to pay out.

Starting to suspect you're just a troll now.

But what you don't seem to be taking into account is that very few people - particularly children - go from "this person is perfectly fine" to "this is a clear disability".

Most children show up, symptom by symptom, starting with "eh, not everyone meets those milestones" bumping through "I mean it could be the parents" until finally you're at "okay yeah big red lights all over the place on this one".

People act as though the disability only needs help the day you get a diagnosis. The reality is that you've probably been bumping along rock bottom for a while in order to get it.

She is 5. 🤣 She went at 11 months to nursery. Easier when you have just the one and they aren't school age.

@swg1 yeah I'm well aware of that. What's that got to do with the point I've been making about the entitled people who have no health concerns with anyone in their family but think it's fine for the rest of us to fund them or their partner not to work because "it's easier" for them or organising childcare would be inconvenient etc? That is what needs to stop. Everybody knows kids will need childcare so people should have planned for this before having them not use it as an excuse not to work.

Not yet they don't.

Well given I'd already stated I hadn't for the 15 years id worked, I guess not eh.

I think parents who are caring for disabled children should be able to have a say on who cares for their disabled children. I think if you're surviving on 2 hours sleep a night because the children are up all night because of their disability then the parent should be making their own choice as to whether they feel working is sustainable or not. And no, I don't think it should match YOUR wages, I think it should be closer to something like a reasonable amount to survive on. If you as a single parent feel you're able to work then great.

My friend who's son required round the clock care didn't feel she could do both, and frankly I think it would have hospitalised her if she was putting her son to bed at 8 pm and then going out to work through the night, not to mention the absolute lack of appropriate respite care she had for him, then I don't think you should get to decide she has to go out to work on top and screw her physical health or mental health.

So shoot me, I'm clearly an awful person.

My husband commutes 45 minutes each way. By the time he gets back most evening jobs have started. We have three jobs between us and I work extra shifts bank holidays/school holidays. It works for us. I would prefer working in the week but no family or wrap around care means no choice. Most childminders around here prefer sipping tea to looking after the children they are paid to look after. I plan to work more when my youngest gets his 15 hours at 3 so maybe you should wind your neck in a bit? It works for us. I have worked since I was 14 so why shouldnt I have a little help and it is only little because we have a mortgage. I also certainly wouldn't be a childminder. I only like my own kids.

Because how are you going to separate them legally? Any system made to catch the one is by necessity going to catch the other.

Immediate cessation of all benefits including CB bar disability related benefits.

Reckon that would placate some on this thread.

I'm glad it has been like that. I was home raising young kids and DPs wage wasn't enough. It's not good when the state wants all very young children in childcare.

Especially as the majority of childcare workers are underpaid and overworked. Ratio changes will mean things get even more stretched. So the government want the majority of very young children in childcare with people who won’t be paid enough or happy in their jobs. Recipe for disaster

Yes it'll be chaos, nurseries are already stretched and in droves. And a lot of them will be babies which are harder to care for. I would have hated it for mine when they were young.

workers leaving*

What do you think should happen with single parents, though?

I am disabled with SEN kid and I work because I have to. I don’t want to be single. Or disabled. And really I wish DD had an easier time of it too. I’ve dragged her to the childminders in her pyjamas before with her school clothes in her bag and a huge apology and flowers for the CM at pickup. Because if I didn’t I’d lose my award and I’d be evicted. Regardless of my health issues or hers. It would be much harder if we were homeless!

If you believe the same rights should be extended to lone parents (as in, there’s a household of one working parent and one SAHP in your shoes, so us lone parents just pick which one to be) then that’s lovely and admirable and honest. But if it’s that there must be a working adult in all households- then surely there is no need for any SAHP in either?

In 10 or so years' time the woman you mention won't get maintenance as her dc will be too old. She'll get benefits for her alone once they're adults. She won't have money in a pension. She'll be even less employable. It might suit her now but in the long term she'll have nothing.

I have every sympathy for single parents but that scenario also applies to two parent families too.