Do Universal Credit rules require work when you have young children?

[Chezza1990]

Does anyone know if there are any rules with having to have a job when you receive universal credit and have children? To put it into context I have 3 children aged 4 and under, my partner is self employed and im currently employed, however im struggling to maintain a healthy work life balance.

Sure 🙄 I’ll take your word for it but I’ve heard all this shit before from different people one it turned out had an abortion at 16 oh and there was the woman who’s son was selling class A drugs from age 15.

Not many people are perfect at 15 if you were then good for you

Keep your snotty opinions about abortion to yourself. I'm out of here - don't tell people they should get abortions rather than claim top up UC.

The absolute worst thing I have seen posted on here. Particularly when the money given to families really isn't that much in the scheme of things. I'm not anti abortion - but it's someone's right to choose rather than poor people being told to get rid of their kids rather than have a UC top up

We clearly move in very very different circles.

Precisely. Cannot believe so many people are aghast at the thought of, you know, actually being financially responsible for their own children!

If you're already struggling financially to provide for one child then it's incredibly self centered and entitled to have a second, third and even forth child. Whilst telling yourself 'Well the government can help me out and top me up' or 'Well it's not really that much money anyway.'

Absolutely no one 'deserves to have a baby' and they absolutely do not deserve to have as many children as they want.

Having a baby is not a 'right'. It is a privilege.

No I've never known anyone in my friends and family who have been on benefits. All of us are highly educated with excellent jobs so earn very well indeed.

Do you have any idea how offensive that statement is? Plenty of us are 'highly educated' but have nevertheless had to rely on benefits at one time or another. In case you hadn't noticed, there are not enough decently paid jobs to go around. The implication that if someone's on benefits they must be too thick or not hardworking enough to get a decent job is very unpleasant.

If youre working in a very low paid (but essential) role, you have a much lower (actually, zilch chance) of ever being in a place of supporting one child without a top up, let alone two. If in a household with a substantially higher income, you have more choices in front of you.

So I will respectfully agree to disagree.

Not all households are equal, and a top up to help households working but earning too little to survive is basic humanity.

It’s meant to be a helping hand until you get yourself sorted - it’s not a blanket “long term” benefit. There will always be those who need it long term, like yourself, and that’s ok. But it’s not designed to be long term for everyone.

For most people on it it will be long term especially with low wages and less jobs.

It is long term for us unless I put my children into wrap around care every day. I can do 16 hours and get UC or I can do 37.5 hours and put them in clubs every day for about an extra £200 a month. That would change everyone's life.

It will be long term here too.

Ffs!
UC is not a catch all and rolling in money. Deductions are made based on how much you earn.

Someone can be earning £45k and still get UC if their rent and childcare is high.

But would you not earn more than the £200 needed for clubs as your hours would more than double and your pay increase dramatically?!

Or do you mean you prefer to only work 16 hours and have the state make up the rest?!!!

That's what it was back in the day. There will always be a line of thinking that people should 'better themselves ' so they don't need benefits. But the low paid jobs that those who don't claim benefit from, will always need to be done. The people doing them need to be able to survive.

If they worked around the clock in a collection of jobs, those people will be called selfish for taking all of the jobs.

I think according to you lot, you would prefer people to live to work. Live out of one room and not have any kind of life, family or otherwise just so you can go out for a meal or fill your car up with petrol but knowing the person serving you is on the bare minimum with no added extras.

Also long term for me.

Maybe change to a part time job and have the kids in nursery (not sure where you are or if you benefit from the free nursery hours). Another way it could work is if you and your DH work opposing days/shifts. If you'd have to pay for 3 in nursery then it probably would work out cheaper to stop working until the kids are in school and I'd personally consider it. I wouldn't want to be out of work that long though, with the fear of becoming de-skilled in my area.

My salary is £30,000 per year so around £1,200 per month working part time.

My benefits are £1,000 per month so my working full time I would get £2,400 per month and not £1,200 plus £1,000.

If your salary is low to start with the doubling it doesn't make a dramatic difference.

Well said

There's a poster on here who uses this as a lifestyle choice, then bleats constantly about being a single parent & poor. She has a reasonable job, just prefers to work part time & claim UC.

Just get out to work full time, like the rest of us do my dear. 🤨

Maybe she values spending time with her child/ren.

Maybe she should value paying for them then too.

It's possible if she went full time and lost the UC, she (and consequently her child/ren) would suffer. Lots of people find themselves in that position, and personally if employers are going to pay such shit money as to make that the case, frankly I don't blame people for prioritising their income in whatever way they need to.

But, again, surely she was aware of this before she decided to create another life that she, personally, could not afford. When does it become unreasonable to expect them to pay for the choices they make? 3 kids? 6? 10? She made the choice to have children she couldn’t afford. It’s irrelevant that she may or may not work for a company that pays her low wages, she was aware of that, yet she still chose to further burden the benefits system.

Crap.

While there are minimum wage jobs about (many, many of them), which do not pay enough for even a dual income family to survive, then topups are needed.

There shouldn't be a subset of people not allowed to procreate because they earn a very low wage.

Using the blanket term benefits bill in this discussion is also unhelpful a d of limited value as it covers many different scenarios which are chalk and cheese.