To be very scared at the details of the Universal tax credit?

[Feminine]

I had no idea.

I've been away from the UK, and just saw the actual proposals/rules on another thread.

Its bad right?

I imagine there is another thread on this so if there is, sorry ...I can't find it! :)

I work a job I don't want to. I work 3 -7pm which means I will hardly see dd1 when she starts reception

I do this to fit around dh's hours. We are lucky in the sense we do not have to pay childcare (which we couldn't afford anyway).

We earn £36,500 between us which means we get about £10 a week in tax credits. I think we will lose this under the UC scheme.

We barely have enough money to pay the bills, rent on our 2 bed, and buy food.

Bearing that in mind it's not the couples I feel for in all of this, tough luck if you both have to work. Dh comes home from a physical full time job just in time to wave me off to to work, and then has to look after two small children. But that's our life that's what we chose. I have no right to demand any different.

It's the lone parents I feel for.They are already struggling to be everything for their dc, to be both mum and dad. That must be exhausting enough, and then there is the fight many have to go through to get maintenance. If that sounds patronising, I don't mean it to. I just mean being a LP is a tough job.

Well UA, maybe there will suddenly be huge numbers of jobs organising all these disabled people who are being forced into working in warehouses. We can all fight each other to get employed for 59 hours at minimum wage organising the workfare scheme.

See, I cost the NHS a fortune as I'm made to work as LP. My insides are shot to pieces and I'm losing weight. The consulants, hospital ivestigations and medication aren't cheap. Would save the government a fortune if they didn't insist on paying my childcare (almost as much as I earn) and the NHS bills.

Although I earn above NMW so maybe the 24 limit might not apply to me. The hours aren't there anyway. I can't leave a child friendly employer just to get extra hours elsewhere and make myself more ill.

If you earn above NHW can you work less hours? Is it about the money you earn rather than the hours you work?

Thicko question. If a LP has a child of 6 and works fewer than 24 hours a week but at a higher rate of pay than NMW, are they likely to be hassled into workfare programmes do we think?
Is there some way of figuring out what will happen - do the job centre know?

It'll all change before it is due to be implemented, I really wouldn't stress about any of it tbh.

But stressing is what I do best

If the children are over 12 and both parents are capable of working, can someone please explain to me why, providing there is work available, both parents should not be expected to work and to work for 35 hours pw each.

My DH works about 60hpw. I went back to work, part-time, when my youngest was settled in reception because I got bored at home and wanted to work and was brought up to have a work ethic with the expectation that I would take personal responsibility, possibly with a partner to provide for me and mine. When my youngest was 7 I upped to full time and engaged childcare for my own career development and self fulfilment.

From the age of 12, my youngest child was more than capable of letting her self in, spending 40 minutes on her own until her bro got home, making herself a snack and starting procrastinating over her homework, practicing piano, etc.

Really don't understand why those with the physical or mental ability to do so should not be expected to provide for their own families or why they expect families such as mine to provide for them. If families are disabled, or have dc with special needs who need a parents' full time care, then I am more than happy to contribute towards their benefits. For those who can but won't I most certainly am not happy to do so and support every single measure put in place to prevent them from sponging.

MIW, because lots of people are single parents, or live in areas where they feel there does need to be an adult presence for older children, or have a disabled child, or are disabled themselves, or will only be able to get shift work or work with very unsocial hours so their 12 year old could be in all night alone, or will not be able to find a job because there aren't many so will have to do workfare. And this 35 hour rule will apply to all those groups.

Can I just draw people back to the hastily glossed over issue with carers?

I mean.... there's been reference to "apart from disability".... but this ignores the fact that actually YES carers are expected to do Workfare.....

So how are we supposed to do that? Are we supposed to leave our disabled kids at home setting the house on fire/poisoning themselves etc as SNc childcare doesn't exist and we can't afford it anyway?

And where are all these jobs meant to come from by the way, particularly as major corporations are benefiting from free employees with a £1200 bonus from the govt for taking these people for free... where are people going to actually work if all the jobs are taken with Workfare?

I think the issue is those deciding who has the mental and physical capacity are targetted on getting people back to work so we can see the potential problems there.
Also many people are bone fecking idol, my cousin had her baby at 18 and has worked every bloody day since, she has two under 4, didn't take mat leave because no work, no pay. The friends she has think she is mental and should claim benefits instead but actually she has about £30k in the bank and goes on regular trips abroad.

clothes of sand please read my final paragraph.

I also think a 12 year old being at home for only 40 mins with both parents working full time is a bit pie in the sky. If I do (fingers crossed) get full time work in a couple of months and finish at 5 or 5.30, DD will be at home from 3.40 pm until 6.40 pm or 7.40 pm if I work further away for my previous employer. I will also have to leave for work before she leaves for school. Not many people have full time jobs that finish at the same time as school and are as near to home as their child's school is. And that is based on working office hours, which lots of people don't do.

Now.... right now before any of this starts for every vacancy in this country there are 8 people unemployed.

That's before they put all of us who are considered unable to work (carers, people with disabilities or illnesses severe enough to not work eg cancer) back into the pot.

It's only going to get worse, and yet they are cutting the employment market even smaller through workfare.

It's a logistical nightmare.

Hang on.

It's SAHP not SAHM - dads stay at home too.

And its about being allowed benefits or not - not being allowed to be a sahp but whether ir no the state will subsidise you to do so.

I did read your final paragraph. But it is a bit irrelevant, because the proposals are not being set up according to your view of the world. Huge numbers of people are disabled, or have a disabled child, or are a single parent.

so how are the dc supposed to get to and from school? ....... at 12 for me that's not a prob, luckily the bus picks up quite close.... but definitely, some of my friends teens would not even get up/catch the bus if noone at all was there to make them.

Also then being left alone after school to do whatever they like just so their parents can make ends meet.

There are enough problem teens as it is!

GlitterKnikaz: "Can I just draw people back to the hastily glossed over issue with carers?

I mean.... there's been reference to "apart from disability".... but this ignores the fact that actually YES carers are expected to do Workfare"

Not true. See here. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-chapter3.pdf

"Individuals who are able to look for or prepare for work should be required to
do so as a condition of receiving benefit, and those who fail to meet their responsibilities should face a financial sanction. This is known as conditionality...
This approach will be introduced in existing benefits and Universal Credit.
Under Universal Credit, requirements will be set according to individual capability
and circumstance. There will be four broad conditionality groups:
? full conditionality ? jobseekers;
? work preparation ? people with a disability or those with a health condition
which means they have limited capability for work at the current time;
? keeping in touch with the labour market ? lone parent or lead carer in a
couple with a child over age one but below age five; and
? no conditionality ? people with a disability or health condition which prevents them from working, carers, lone parents or lead carers with a child under the age of one".

In other words, people in group 4 (which includes carers) are not expected to look for work as a condition of receiving Universal Credit.

OK, shitting myself now. Just saw this thread, I knew nothing of the plans for this.
I've just got home, opened my post and I'm informed I've had a 'tax credit overpayment' of £1300 that they want back by March.
I mean WTF? I fill in the forms correctly, surely its their job to work out what I'm due and this is their mistake? I don't have any money to pay!

BB, most disabled people will be eligible for workfare. It depends on the the type of disability.

What happens if you and your partner are both self employed and not earning NMW?

What happens if you have some really good weeks but also some awful ones where you earn nothing?

What if, together you don't earn the £19k you are expected to earn through no fault of your own but simply because the work wasn't consistently available?

It appears to be a real mess. What happens to the self employed who earn less then the minimum wage? I sometimes have a week where I earn nothing, even though I'm working. It's crazy politics. We need a demo!

I wonder whether mumsnet could invite Ian Duncan Smith (or another suitably versed government minister) onto mumsnet to explain how the changes are expected to work in practice? It seems to me that there is lots of uncertainity about which is, in turn, causing a lot of worry. I suspect that many people are worrying unnecessarily - but nevertheless, it is important that people can see what their position will be and either (hopefully) stop worrying or, if not, prepare for the worst.

Yes bradbourne, that's if the person you care for gets high rate DLA, if on middle rate you have to do workfare

The difference between middle rate and high rate is whether or not they sleep at night, so they could need to be watched constantly for 18 hours a day but as long as they sleep you'll still get middle rate.

I think it's okay to want to stay at home, but if you do so, you shouldn't get money from the state.
I didn't have kids because I knew it would be a struggle, I knew I wouldn't be able to support myself and them without using tax payers money.

I think that people should stop having kids unless they need them to work on farms etc.
Do something else with your life instead.
I know having a family is rewarding and the best thing most people will ever do, a dream, so worth it, but if you do want it, you should pay for that kind of lifestyle yourself.

One of the reasons my dp retired at 37 was because 3/4 of the 50% tax he paid on his significant income, went to the local education authority to pay for the education of children that weren't his.
So he quit his job and never looked back.
Fortunately, he had already made enough to do so but would have liked to continue working for a while longer because he enjoyed his profession.
This is in the USA, by the way.

If this new law is going to make folks think more than twice about how easy it will be to support a family, then I am all for it.