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

oh dear how ignorant 😂

Lol! Some of us just have to crack on with sleeping 3-4 hours per night and working full time anyway.

I was just going to say this. You can home school your SEN child every day but you can’t work 12.5 hours, you are wanting your husband to pick it up?

I have no problem with asking parents who have kids at school to work during school hours but I have a real problem with the more recent policy of pushing parents of young children into low paid jobs who then need to have other low paid people looking after their young children….it’s the tax payer who ultimately pays for the “free” hours at the end of the day and this policy is not funded adequately ,to the detriment of the childcare sector. That to me makes no sense, ditto with those who have caring responsibilities for children or other relatives where costs would otherwise fall on the state.it’s not a one size fits all situation.

Can you claim dla and carers ? It might take the pressure off so you don’t have to do that ? Long term for your health that could be damaging and depending on your job or if you drive or operate machinery could be dangerous for you and others ?

Why not ? He’s happy to ? As long as we meet the requirement in terms of hours why does it matter who does it as long as it’s done ?

As soon as the announcement was made regarding child care being made available for 9 month old babies I said that. Its worrying that also at the same time the adult to child ratio was reduced - against the advice of all child care professionals. I worry that we are heading to a modern day work house mentality. Of course people should be expected to pay for their own choices - but life isn't that simple now. I was very lucky to have had my children in the 90's before this country went bonkers. I worry for young parents now.

It's paid in arrears though, so you have to find the money upfront to pay the childcare then claim it back after. Not everyone has that kind of spare cash.

Given the attitude Here I’ll be very glad if we get dla and carers awarded so I won’t have to worry !

I guess just because marriage is a partnership, or supposed to be

Yes and it is , we both do our fair share and are happy with the arrangement we have

should that be ration reduced or increased? Gargh. Changed anyway - more children to each adult.

Regarding my reference to young parents - I mean current parents. Nothing to do with being 'young'. Parents of young children I meant to say.

I don't know the ins and outs of this rule but it seems perfectly reasonable to expect either of the adults to work fulltime. I think 30hrs/week is a generous definition of full time. Before asking for state subsidies the family should make efforts to increase their income, so either parent works additional hours.
Let's say dad is unemployed and jobseeking. Mum is a SAH parent to 2 school age children. Dad AND mum should look for work. If mum gets a job first but then Dad gets a job later that's between them to decide how to manage things. I'm pretty sure there are many women that would prefer to not go out to work. That's fine, but dont expect the state to support you. It's also not acceptable for a father to say he's not prepared to look after his own children.

I hope this is true! Why should I work to fund other perfectly healthy people staying at home?

I've only read the OP's posts (& those she quotes), but a few things occur to me:

How easy is it to get part-time jobs? Everyone's quoting 12.5 hours a week - how easy is it to find these & what employment protection do you get at that level?

Someone mentioned the requirement being to see a coach & show you're looking for work - is this going to be used to sanction people & force them off benefits? Is this where the advantage to the governement lies? In being able to reduce the bill & claim there are fewer people receiving benefits?

And we've all heard stories of perople being made to turn up to interviews or be sanctioned, no excuses accepted. If a disabled mum with responsibility for an SEN child, possibly miles from her nearest jobcentre, can't get to the interview, will she be sanctioned? Maybe there's no public transport or it's very expensive, maybe her DH has the family car to, you know, get to his job. My nearest job centre used to be 10 minutes drive away, on the only public transport route through my village; if you were fit enough, you could walk to it. It was closed down like others locally, & I have no idea where the nearest one is now. I think it's cynical to make things difficult for people & then punish them; but I get the impression I'm at odds with many people on this thread.

I don’t think you have any idea do you

this!

I'm sure you are, but whilst it's dependent on state benefits you don't have the final say on what arrangements you're happy with 🤷🏻‍♀️

£1662.11 per month or £19,945.32 per annum

That is how much a non-working couple (with no disbilities) and 2 children in private a let of £900 a month recieve. Plus free prescriptions, dental, eye tests, school meals etc.

£1,563.36 per month or 18,760.45 per annum (take home).

This is what working 40 hours at minimum wage will recieve. It is insanity.

I have a child on higher rate DLA and mobility. I now work when she is at school (SEN facility). It's only 13 hours a week 11:30-1500 term time around caring for her. My partner works 46 hours. We do recieve top up from tax credit but only the severely disabled child element alongside my carers allowance due to me earning under the threshold of £138per week.

Relying on government benefits should not be a lifestyle choice. They are there to pick up the slack for those genuinely unable to work.

Paying benefits to those who “choose” not to work rather than investing in services that help everyone.

I agree @70Sarah

This is the problem.

I even saw a post the other day objecting to higher earning single mothers using the 30 hours free childcare. Things like that should be universal, same as healthcare and education. Why on Earth should the people paying the most who pay for this for themselves and others not be allowed to use them? The poster was equating this to people who have never worked and paid tax claiming benefits.

The level of entitlement in the UK seems to be out of control and nobody with these views seems to have any answer to how they expect the country should fund all of this when 25% of working age adults are not in employment! A country of over 60 million people has only 30 million ish working. And only 40% of those being net contributors to tax. It's not sustainable.

but you don’t know that yet ? Not for others either , you don’t know the details or the exemptions ? So why not wait and then start worrying, if necessary.

Maybe they are trying to stop people being out of the workforce for a long time as it makes it harder to reenter and if circumstances change they may not be able to rely on a partner and need to work themselves

Ignorant? Do explain, we're all ears.

£1662.11 per month or £19,945.32 per annum

That is how much a non-working couple (with no disbilities) and 2 children in private a let of £900 a month recieve. Plus free prescriptions, dental, eye tests, school meals etc.

£1,563.36 per month or 18,760.45 per annum (take home).

This is what working 40 hours at minimum wage will recieve. It is insanity.

Wow. This is insane! That's not much less than I earned as a new graduate.