Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to think certain benefits discrimate against SAHMs?

72 replies

stuckinabureaucraticmachine · 29/09/2011 12:28

Namechanging regular here.

I've been a sahm for a few years after working for around 7 years. In that time I have become disabled, but did not claim Incapacity Benefit (as it was then) because we could live perfectly well on dh's salary and I do not believe in claiming benefits that are not needed. I believed I was protected for a pension and future benefits claims by Home Responsibilities Protection.

I now realise that I am not. I could kick myself but am not sure that I could have done anything differently. I could not have gone back to work and we would not have been able to afford to make class 1 contributions. It is only now that I realise HRP is for Class 3 contributions only and does not count towards certain benefits.

The situation now is that we are running into trouble and believed now was the time to claim ESA. I get DLA but it goes towards the extra costs of living with the disability. We need ESA for normal living costs as I cannot work. My claim has been refused because I have not paid or been credited with enough NI class 1 contributions.

AIBU to think this is wrong and discriminatory against those who choose to sah parent? I did not claim benefits to stay at home, I lived off dh's salary, by no means well off but able to get by. But this law is saying that if people stay at home with their children for a period of time and then become ill there is nothing they can do? I cannot claim the non-contributory type of ESA because dh works more than 24 hrs a week, but we don't have enough now to quite scrape by. I feel that I have paid into the system when I was able, then made the choice to be at home with babies, and am now paying for that choice and for becoming ill.

AIBU? And does anyone have any advice, because I don't know what to do from now.

OP posts:

PeachyWhoCannotType · 29/09/2011 14:20

And what would you prefer they did with CA I wonder?

In order to get CA you ahve to prove you are caring for 36 hours a week; anything else is fraud. FT work prohibits the claim but most people can;t afford to pay for teh caring to be done by anyone else.

If she doesn't need a carer then that is fraud.

I gave up work becuase I can't find anything- despite a post grad education- wher I can be ehre for several school pick ups intaxis and back again for the same in reerse, and I cannot find a childcare solution for the boys. Also I am exhausted 24 / 7 as we ahve a bunch of non sleepers but that wasn't the rationale. I'd love the choice; it's about far more than income- pride, having a life, security (rented housing not being given to people on HB very easily...). I somehow suspect that my almsot- MA (due to complete next eyar after several years of PT slog) should ensure an income greater than my hourly CA rate as well (3 kids with diagnosed SN (plus one with undiagnosed SN) = 11p per hour. Taxable.

RhinoKey · 29/09/2011 14:31

CA is a pittance when you work out how hard you have to work to claim it.

I had to give up work because I couldnt find childcare that would accept DS. A nursery want suitable and a specialist CM wanted £8 an hour, which was more than I was earning. On top of that there are the appointments (at least one a week) , the 4 hours sleep a night and the sheer drain that DS brings (although he is worth it most of the time).

aliceliddell · 29/09/2011 14:33

Anyone who thinks being a SAHM isn't work has never done it. The kids you raise will be the NHS staff and carers of tomorrow when all the prople with 'proper' jobs are old and frail. But the benefits system doesn't recognise any work done at home looking after family members. If we think it's worthless, try employing someone to do it 24/7 and see how much it costs.

RhinoKey · 29/09/2011 14:33

NationalDisgrace - maybe he needed to give up work to help his wife?

NationalDisgrace · 29/09/2011 14:41

RhinoKey I know the lady quite well and she says he would have preferred to stay in work - ideally they would have only needed him to cut a few hours work rather than giving up work completely. But if they'd only cut a few hours, they wouldn't have been eligible for as much help (no CA) so the choice was between giving up entirely or struggling on with FT work and not enough support to care for her (as Social Services refused to pay for direct payments for an employed carer). There is no middle way as far as benefits are concerned - you either become eligible for a lot of help if you are not working at all, or none at all if you stay in work.

PeachyWhoCannotType · 29/09/2011 14:52

It's certainly true CA should be on a sliding scale, help people adjust to suit their family needs. It's also silly that you annot study and claim- the actual in college hours should be what is assessed not the FT label, in my last eyar of university I did 12 hours in uni a week- boys in school more than that- and study is a real way of helping people find work that can pay, or fit aorund their carer responsibility

My boys are lovely and we have a decent life really- after all it's about more than cash- but anyone who begrudges us help needs to think about whether they'd trade their kid's futures and / or give them extra hurdles for £55 a week. I suggest if the answer is no- well then. If they would say yes then they are benath ,me.

PeachyWhoCannotType · 29/09/2011 14:55

ND did your friend know about this (scroll down for aduts)- here

Tianc · 29/09/2011 15:05

Sorry OP, you're saying exactly what I've been thinking for years. I call it the fig leaf system.

We in the UK believe we have a comprehensive safety net ? not least because of Daily Wail propaganda that benefits are absurdly generous. But behind that fig leaf of belief, the net has been slashed and slashed over the last few decades, with more and more byzantine and restrictive rules so it doesn't have to actually pay out. Each of us only discovers this when we come to use it ? by which time it's a bit late.

We could, as a nation, go all out and say, "Nah, fuck the poor." Instead we kid ourselves that all is well because there's a system, all is well and the only complaints are coming from greedy, undeserving whiners.

Btw, you probably wouldn't have got Incapacity Benefit when you first became ill, even if you'd applied. Your NI contribs wouldn't have been right because of being SAHM, and you wouldn't have got means-tested IB as too well off.

PeachyWhoCannotType · 29/09/2011 15:40

It's true Tianc and it works in different ways.

EG I have a child with autiosm who ahs to attend a special school and won't ever be independent

But becuase of the wat ATOS now assess he won't tick the right boxes on their charts (unusual presentation) and may well get no help after 16; this will mean I can't get carers either, if he doesn;t attend workj training he will lose all other help as well- and he can;t attend work training due to his disability, can;t stand to be in alrge groups, just shuts down and needs a 1-1. Social Services say tehy can;t be exepcetd to fund residential for him and he won;t get an income so goodness only knows what will ahppen to him, he's safe after I die but i would not be surprised if he does not live long after me.

NationalDisgrace · 29/09/2011 15:47

Thanks Peachy, I'm not sure if flexible working ever came up as a suggestion as the DH was working in quite a pressured environment and not at all family-friendly, let alone carer-friendly. So not sure if the company would have agreed even if they'd requested it.

PeachyWhoCannotType · 29/09/2011 15:50

Always wortha try though; DH was a manager for a haulier on possibly the most time sensitive of all contracts so very high pressure but they agreed- in the end,, after losing teh letters and pretending the rules did not exist...

aliceliddell · 29/09/2011 16:25

This is the problem; nobody realises how inadequate and shite the system is until theyneed it, then they're too ill and knackered to fight back. buyt there are a few like benefitclaimantsfightback.co.uk

aliceliddell · 29/09/2011 16:26

Try again benefitclaimantsfightback.co.uk

hairylights · 29/09/2011 17:06

Sorry but your op says you became a sahm then became disabled. therefore you chose not to work.

hairylights · 29/09/2011 17:09

"Anyone who thinks being a SAHM isn't work has never done it. The kids you raise will be the NHS staff and carers of tomorrow when all the prople with 'proper' jobs are old and frail. But the benefits system doesn't recognise any work done at home looking after family members. If we think it's worthless, try employing someone to do it 24/7 and see how much it costs."

Leda tics aside, it is not a paid job and is not therefore comparable to one. It's a different kind of work and it's a choice.

PeachyWhoCannotType · 29/09/2011 17:10

It's work

it is not employment

The nefits sytem does recognise it via tax credits as well- more likely to qualify on one income than two after all

hairylights · 29/09/2011 17:11

Should read "pedantics".

aliceliddell · 29/09/2011 17:12

So she didn't 'choose' not to work, then. Nor when she became disabled. SAHM are economically active but financially unrecognised.

hairylights · 29/09/2011 17:41

Yes she "chose" not to work for pay and Hereford lost out on the conditions that have to be met to claim ESA. Quite simple really. It's contributions based. She didn't make the required contributions to qualify.

hairylights · 29/09/2011 17:43

Therefore, not Hereford.

aliceliddell · 29/09/2011 17:52

So having a benefits system that excludes people who are economically vital but financially unrecognised discriminates against those people. You might think that's fair enough, but it's a bit of a stretch to say it doesn't happen.

Tianc · 29/09/2011 17:54

" it is not a paid job and is not therefore comparable to one."

Now this I find bizarre.

Childcare & housework are entirely capable of being paid jobs. I paid someone today to do my housework.

However there is an attempt at the moment to return to the early 20th century myths that some forms of work are not... well, work.

The UK govt has designated anybody not in a salaried position or self-employed as "economically inactive and therefore available to the salaried workforce now or imminently" ? I think there was a census Q reflecting this, but it's certainly in ONS categories.

I went and looked up the International Labour Organisation designations. (ILO is like WHO, but for better understanding of world labour demand, etc). Can't find the links just now, but it was clear UK was running strongly counter to ILO best practice, which was to include women's unpaid work in economic calculations.

hairylights · 29/09/2011 18:03

Yes, but when two parents within a family decide that one will stay at home to care for children, that's a personal choice.

The state, society etc does not ask for it to be done. No-one asks you to do it (or has any obligation to pay you for it).

I'm not saying there is no value in that to broader society, but broader society does not require it to happen. Why should broader society then pay for it?

I really don't get this idea that society should pay for personal choices that people make about what is best for their family.

PeachyWhoCannotType · 29/09/2011 18:04

Economically inactive is one of the most ahted phrases I encounter

It is used to include anybody not earning without regard for why: it just aplces a lack of worth on them in one fell swoop

aliceliddell · 29/09/2011 18:05

Why shouldn't broader society pay for it? Why should it be individual women?

Flip

1 2 3