to think certain benefits discrimate against SAHMs?

[stuckinabureaucraticmachine]

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.

What a ludicrous suggestion. Because 1. Its personal choice wiyhin a family. 2. It can't afford to.

In the benefits circle, "economically inactive" is used to described people on incap/ESA.

'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.'

Hairylights, is it the same for parents who expect help with nursery costs?

No HL it really isn;t; i;ve ahd iot thrown at me as a carer, and it was used by a family member to justify why ds1 and ds3 should be killed.

Extremist fuckwittery I know, but it feeds people like that.

Well the state does assist with nursery costs which is very nice :)

The fact is that the state pays some benefits to those who choose to have children. But it does not, and never will, pay parents to stay at home with their own children.

Peachy those sound like quite extreme circumstances. I'm talking mire generally.

I've often heard it used to eman anyone who isn;t working either in a 'get them all working now' or 'so we willw rite them off as insignificant' way though. In fact there was a job advertised lcoally for an Economic Inactivity Worker whos eremit wasn;t overly set just people who are not working.

Office for National Statistics:
"Economically inactive people are not in work and do not meet the internationally agreed definition of unemployment. They are people without a job who have not actively sought work in the last four weeks and/or are not available to start work in the next two weeks."

"internationally agreed definition of unemployment" means the ILO definition.

From the same source (Overview tab):
"The main economically inactive groups are students, people looking after family and home, long term sick and disabled, temporarily sick and disabled, retired people and discouraged workers."

its not just sahms. I was shocked to realise that if you are self employed you are only paying class 3 (?) contributions hence no contributions based benefits. And before someone points out you pay less ni his way, that is true but you are not given the option to pay any other ni.

This whole "economically inactive" lark is a very weird combination with the govt's love of the Fourth Sector, and the Big Society idea that vast swathes of the public sector of the economy will be carried out by voluntary workers who are unpaid ? and therefore by the govt's own definition, economically inactive...

I read this stuff, and find myself looking up and expecting to see the White Rabbit hurtling past crying, "I'm late, I'm late."

PMSL Tianc at white rabbit

But yes; ou create a massive stigma to being economically ianctive, you force those people into doing work to cheapen sainsbos wage bill claim schemes then expect them to be volunteers as well.

As if that will work.

Ex volunteer manager me; we only recruted parents by nature fo what we did (mentoring charity- wide definition of aprents,a dopted / step all fine) but these same people now have their IS stopped earlier if single and out of work or will be sent on schemes so the pool to recruit from will shrink and it was already far too small yet teh aprties use my old emplpoyer as a model of how things should be and

argh!

TBF, I'm not sure the term "economically inactive" is itself new, just the idea that if you want to go for the arbitrary target of citizens employed ? 80% per the Freud Report ? it's really good idea to target people not even available for work rather than those looking for it.

Sorry, keep X-posting so looks like I'm talking over people.

Ah we all do that Tianc LOL

It might not be a new term but it's hit the ainstream in the last 18months or so I think. It ties up people who cannot work too much with the people who can;t be arsed and I think that is really deliberate to be honest, break down definitions of disabled / carer / sick / recently redundant / recent graduate etc and you take away their justification

Oh agree completely, Peachy.

I'm quite that you've seen this term around enough to be familiar with it. I noticed it in the depths of some documentation last year and poked around a bit.

So the concept that "Economic Inactivity Worker" is now a job title...

Yep, definitely being catapulted into the Zeitgeist.

Ah. Fuck.

I've just understood.

They are not expecting the volunteers to be volunteers. They are expecting public services to be delivered by mandatory "Work for Dole-rs".

The "unpaid-work-for-profit-making-companies" racket is bad enough. Roll that out to the public sector and you'll never have to pay a librarian or dustman again.

YES

which is a bugger as I have spent a fiirtune training to try and start up a social enterprise that I suspect will be handed to unqualified volunteers before I even get going. if they think I am doing it for free though they can fuck right off! taken almost 3 years of hard slong it has.

Tianc I should point out I read a lot of policy too LO< used to work in charity sector and am doing a vaguely related MA so my exposure risk is high but the debate about the term ahs been ahd in general Sn circles before on here.

Note as well that the term was for a job absed not far away from the Valleys, place that IDS loves so much. And of course Cheryl Gillan adores my own city with it's 20% unemployment rate almost as much as we love her, without her bothering to check why that is and how many industries had gone bust in the time before she travlled over to tell us how crap we were live on QT

Thankyou for your responses. I will write to my MP, while knowing that does sod all really.

Hairylights - so you're basically saying that all sahms have no right to certain benefits? I didn't choose to become ill, and had every intention of returning to work, and worked hard before (and during with voluntary work etc but we all know that doesn't count, yeah right Big Society )

Can't believe also that those who are self employed can't get the contributory benefits. This is all so little known. Even the guy on the ESA helpline had no idea what I was talking about when I first asked him about Class 3 contributions and if they counted.

Good luck with writing, and I'd be interested to hear his/her response, if you fee like sharing.

There are so many ways a Government (and I mean this and the last) can help boost tax revenue and they all miss them.

ESA means you can start to sort yourself out to work (in truth the prospect of ATOS will mean anyone with any ability should want to run like fuck anyway but...)

An example: just after graduating I relaised that working outside school hours was an impossibility, no childare was available that could take the boys and their needs- even the lovely CM whoa dores ds3 had to be collecting from school when his taxi arrives (isn;t it typical how they clash exactly? 3.15 both) so could not help, even thogh she wanted to.

So I considered a TA role- had wanted to teach anyway. here where I am you need a certain level of TA qual to get a job in first place, standard procedure. TA training course was like wahey come on in- and then funding. Nothing available for degree holders, and I certainly did not have the £grand plus they wanted all in.

So no go.

Except had I been able to do the TA i'd have more than covered that in a lifetime of work, indeed I would have lost CA which would have saved that twice over and more in a year.......

Just seems bizarre and completely the opposite of sensible ways to address specific needs. Identify at risk groups (recently disabled, carers, long term unemployed) and take away the degree diswqualifier, help people up on the self supporting road.

Nuts.

Liking all rerferences to the White Rabbit. Where do you think I got my name? Particularly inspired by the Red Queen saying that you have to run twice as fast just to stay in the same place. Quite.