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

And some will have women stuck with a cocklodger who, because she works her arse off, insists that he doesn't need to because she fulfils the working requirement.

Swings and roundabouts, innit?

It is actually very frightening for very many families who are desperately struggling to juggle looking after their children and/or other relatives while working and often suffering depression, exhaustion, stress and the ill health that comes from not having rest or quality time with loved ones, the extreme stress of work, low pay, and the mental health effects on children having to spend long hours in school and childcare away from home and family.

It causes immense suffering and is appalling in this day and age.

You don't need cares allowance just the caters element on UC.

@Citrusmuffin

No

Because people also say they can't work when they can but they just don't want to

Ahh carers

This ruling is political it saves no "tax payers money" as hours are spread its simply been done to encourage the frother thinking others have it easier than them to vote conservative.

Yes to add low rate care to mean you qualify for carers allowance as currently it is middle or high care

It just seems petty to me 😞

But why jot campaign for a society that allows everyone to have a healthy work/life balance and sufficient income, rather than want to force others to suffer because you're suffering? I find it hard to understand such a mindset. Why the desire to hurt others, rather than to make things better for everyone? It comes across as very vindictive and spiteful.

Money is taken off the disabled person's benefits to pay the carer's allowance.

This thread really shows that parents of SEN /disabled kids absolutely will work if they possibly can meaning the ones who say they genuinely can’t need the protection to be able to make the choices that are right for their family which is often for one partner to work full time and one to be at home . Why would anyone agree with taking a way that choice especially as @NewNovember states it’s a political decision and won’t save any taxpayers money

@Satsumastocking no it's not.

@Citrusmuffin the choice for one parent to remain home as carer or to home educate is a privilege. Many people here would love to be able to home educate their child but are not in the position to do so. That’s not something the government should be funding for you, it’s a lifestyle choice that you’re making and one that many others can’t afford. Either your partner needs to take on additional hours to fund your choice to be a SAHM or you look for work that fits around his hours. I’m not sure why you think anything other than that is fair.

Yes. It's a political tactic, feeding the people who think, "I suffer so I want others to suffer" their bitterness, while the rest of us work hard to try to create a better society instead.

@Citrusmuffin

Because those who are genuine are already exempt.

It's a basic right that was the norm until very recently.

?

It’s just punishing people for no reason really. There’s no way it’s cheaper to provide kids with SEN with a fully appropriate school place than let a parent have universal credit to stay at home with them. Fair enough if they were going to properly resource SEN education including wraparound care, but they aren’t.

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. The state is prepared to subsidise childcare (inadequately) so why not a stay at home parent?

I think it's great that this change is hopefully happening. If you or your child is ill enough to not be able to work or go to any kind of educational setting then there are other benefits to claim. UC shouldn't fund this as it is being taken advantage of by people who just don't feel like their kids or themselves should have to get up in the morning or having structure.

I also think it's great that they split it so that both parents continue to stay in work. That way they are able to hopefully earn a pension, get pay rises and they will be able to more easily make more money once the kids are older. I really don't see any issues with this at all. There is help for those who really need it, and for those who don't but just fancy it, they need to earn it.

@Citrusmuffin - I have two SEN children, one more severely impacted than the other. I also have a fairly serious mental health condition. Despite my partner being on a good wage, one of us staying home to home educate is not an option, or if it was, we’d be expecting to make sacrifices to financially support that choice.

For low rate Care ,it's said the child need,s around an hour of extra care a day ,for medium and high rate Care,they needs a significant amount of care / day and night for High rate ,and you are supposed to.be doing at least 35 hours of care / week ,so I guess that's why you don't get carer,s allowance for Low rate
Obviously it's not black and white and some kids will be on the wrong rates .

It's a basic right for people who are funding themselves 🤦‍♀️ Nobody has a basic "right" to refuse to work whilst being funded by benefits.

Do people really think like this??

This is simply untrue. Home ed has been allowed and benefits paid to a home educating parent for as long as I can remember (since my childhood in the 80s). Everyone has that right.

I don't see the point in moving the hours across of its total household hours.

I do think if people are able, and they need more income, they should both work more hours.

I really don't understand why they don't / why this happens.

That’s not the case.

Adults in receipt of some benefits lose/aren’t eligible for the severe disability premium if someone claims carer’s allowance for caring for them, but that doesn’t apply to children or all adults.