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

@PieInSpace you must be joking! I know someone with 2 at primary school who works 6 hours a week. Has a lovely HA flat and gets very good maintanance too ( around £780) and UC covering all her rent plus about £850 a month. She hasn't been queried once about her lack of hours and has made it clear she's fine as she is. I used to be very social minded- but bloody hell no wonder we've got issues.

It may not be splitting the expected hours. Each partner may need to work the expected hours separately. Policy is not decided yet

I was bothered by this news. I wish the care and childcare load was spread equally between men and women but since it often isn't, I feel that there'll be some women in complicated caring situations who will have a setup that just about helps make ends meet while they do a huge amount of unpaid care. And suddenly with the rules changing, what will happen? Will they have to stop doing that care or just live in more poverty? It must be hugely stressful.
I know that we have allowances for carers but only one person can claim that - so in situations where more than one person cares for a person, somebody possibly doing 20-30 hours a week might not be eligible for carers allowance.
And the Pip assessment is hopeless so disabled people who can perhaps cook themselves a meal but then have to sleep for the rest of the morning and definitely couldn't work, are being denied pip as it's based on basic personal care not having the energy/ability to work. And therefore they won't have the exemption and will live in more poverty.
Being a 'stay at home parent' might be an enjoyable lifestyle choice for some but it's so undervaluing of all the unpaid care work women do to assume that it's always that.

There are huge benefits to both parents paying into their pensions, to remain working and not having long gaps in their CV, to leave the house and talk to other people etc.

Yes, it does seem like people on here think that an award of dla or pip comes easily to those who are entitled to it. If only! Reality is so different isn't it?
Firstly there is a huge wait for an assessment , then the refusal of valid claims leading to the huge wait and stress of a tribunal. The high success rate at tribunals for disability benefits demonstrates just how many valid claims are turned down by the department. It is a horrible system to deal with, causing lots of stress and anxiety for families and individuals who are already suffering due to illnesses and disabilities and their families. The cynic in me says it was deliberately set up this way.

OP, you’re just fear mongering. A lot of your posts are you jumping to conclusions and getting upset over it over the things you’ve convinced yourself.

UC ALREADY has a process in place for disabled people - they won’t fall under this change.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-if-you-have-a-disability-or-health-condition-quick-guide/universal-credit-if-you-have-a-disability-or-health-condition

UC ALREADY has a process in place for people with disabled children, again, they won’t fall under this change.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/tax-credits-and-benefits/benefits-for-carers/universal-credit-carer-element-aIXdk4U00sBE

Back in the 80's, a single parent in receipt of supplementary benefit (which was the equivalent of UC back then) was not required to look for work until their youngest child was 16 years old.

The assumption when the welfare state was set up back in the 40's was that most single parents would either be fully/substantially supported by maintenance payments, or receive widows/widowers benefits, so supplementary benefit would just be a small top up if applicable at all.
It was also recognised by society and the government that children benefit from having a full-time SAHP.

Things have certainly changed in the last few decades, arguably not for the better.

I am very happy for the taxes I pay to support those who cannot work. That's the purpose of a social fund. But I want a more just society, which means everyone has to chip in. So those who can, should work. Eg for illustration, a couple with a child who receive weekly payments of rent allowance, £200, council tax exemption, £30, UC £300 would need to work just short of 51 hours a week (minimum wage) between them. If one has a disability, then the other works 25.5 hours; their fare share. This would mean that those who lose their jobs, can get their mortgages paid and aren't at risk of repossession (recently happened to a friend of mine who found it difficult to secure a new job vecayse of the type of work thry specialise in. She eventually landed a £92k pa job (slight inc in her previous salary), but for 9 months struggled to find anything - too experienced for more junior jobs in her field.

Why is this wrong?

This change would be a good thing and it should require couples to work as many hours as possible. Universal credit shouldn’t be there to provide choice, it is meant to be there to provide a safety net for people who genuinely need it. Not for people who expect to have the luxury of a SAHP at the taxpayers expense.

If there is a problem with this because of families who have children with SN that mean they need a SAHP, then the solution would be to improve access to the carer and disability related benefits.

I don't understand this - if there was scope for one partner to work an extra 12 hours; why aren't they doing this already? 🤔

Why should workers pay for someone who CHOOSES not to?

It does look odd on paper, but from a feminist point of view, as I'm guessing the mother is usually the parent who does the majority of the care, it does mean the other parent at least on paper needs to do their fair share of the caring. It also means that both partners keep their hand in the world of employment and keep up to date with skills etc, rather than one partner having a long break in their employment history which can cause issues when trying to go back to work for people who have had an long time out.

I don't get the "won't save any money" posters!
What, won't save any money by having a person contribute towards their own pension? Won't save anything by stopping hordes of people from becoming long-term unemployed and unemployable?
How about stopping the never-ending baby mamas from procreating? (it's no fun working around a couple of kids, even less so if there's four of them so time for a reality check)
No doubt the change will affect the life-style choosers mostly, and... Great!

I had such lifestylers as neighbours. Her - SAHM. Him - turning down a wage increase as not to tip him into earnings that would stop the gov subsidies.
With the proposed changes, that sort of scheming would lose it's shine.

The trouble with saying that 'disability' exempts the parent from the work requirement is that the bar is so high. Many, many children with borderline conditions, who struggle in school, do not qualify.

If the parents are forced to work, the children will get shoved into unsuitable and damaging school places, to their own detriment and the detriment of every other child in that classroom.

But it benefits the tax and vat systems and the wider economy to have as many adults as possible in work. So that is obviously the governments priority.😡

This is fine in theory, but what about people whose wages are not enough to cover childcare?

Agreed. If I wasn't being crippled by huge tax rates I could afford to cut my hours and spend more time with my own children, who would hugely benefit from that. Yet instead as a lone parent my tax is being used to fund two parents families having a SAHP or a parent working part time? It seems obvious that is wrong, except if there are very extreme other circumstances.

The general guideline for UC is that anyone claiming needs to work. And that the primary carer of a child over 3 needs to find part time work, increasing to full time work as the child ages.

A lot of people refuse to work when they have kids, but that is a lifestyle choice if the child does not have additional needs. That’s why the govt has increased childcare provision. I grew up in a 2-working-parent household so that is the norm for me. My mum earned more than my dad so I hate the stigma that women have to forget about their careers.

You also get women that refuse to work as they are a “housewife”, particularly with the diverse population of the UK. With the current system where she doesn’t ”need” to work if his income is high - if her husband’s income gets very low, they still don’t expect her to look for work but rather wait until his business picks up and for the govt to just increase their benefits. Asking both partners to find work isn’t really changing the rules of UC…it’s more just implementing what’s already there and making the expectation clearer.

ultimately financially everyone is struggling right now, and there’s more long-term security from having both adults in the household working.

What if the partner just wanted to add 12.5 hrs overtime instead I can’t see what that wouldn’t be ok as it would still reach the threshold of required hours but they seem to want to force both out no matter what for no benefit ?

But why couldn't you just work for 12.5 hours a week and your partner look after the children during that time? You keep saying you would work if you could, well you could work for 12.5 hours, yet don't want to.

The government funds this in part, UC gives claimants an 85% refund which significantly reduces their costs. They can also fund the 1st month’s cost upfront.

I'm waiting for the government to announce single parents are to go back to work when their youngest is 9 months old due to the 15 free hours childcare when that kicks in.

The whole not claiming for more than two kids with tax credits and child benefit and now all UC claimants having to work bar carers is undoubtedly the government trying to drive down the welfare bill however they won't be lowering anyone's taxes.

They always target the poorest and most vulnerable people in society.

I can’t work at all due to my health issues as well it’s not just a childcare issue for SEN dc

That's unlikely to be the case, for a variety of reasons.

Childcare costs are short term. Lifelong earning potential is harmed by people (mainly women) taking years out of work. This generally results in additional need for state support all the way through to retirement due to insufficient pension savings.

This exacerbates the shortage of workers and lowers GDP and tax revenue (childcare workers also pay tax).

It lowers health, education and productivity across the economy on average.

It increases inequality in the workplaces which has also been shown to damage company performance and productivity.

They always target the poorest and most vulnerable people in society.

people on low/no incomes are the demographic of UC claimants. There’s not a disparity in treatment - people with higher incomes can’t claim and get 0 benefits.

UC “switches off” the requirement for vulnerable people to work, including:
-disability
-homelessness
-bereavement/funeral arrangements
-domestic violence
-drug/alcohol dependency

there’s a full list here http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0465/CC_Switching_off_work_availability_work_related_activities_v10.0.pdf#page7

This is long overdue but won’t have much impact as most UC claimants are probably single mothers. Or living apart from their partner “on paper” so they can max out their claim.

you make it work? When my kids were little their dad had a mon-fri 8-5 job, i worked 6-11 in the eves and picked up extra on the weekend. With a SEN child at home. You do what you have to do.