Put a question to Bridget Phillipson, Shadow Education Minister

My feed

to access all these features


IMPORTANT. To ask if MNers are aware of this re Universal credit&SAHP’s?

379 replies

UnsolicitedCockPics · 11/10/2018 09:20

So up til now on tax credits one parent can stay home while the other parent works.
And for almost 20 years it’s been seen as completely acceptable

An example is a family with 3 dc
The FT working parent earns approx £26,000. The SAHP receives approx £100 a week in tax credits

Not only on Universal credit will that amount be much less (approx 30% iirc) but the previously SAHP will be made to attend the job centre and job search as a condition to receive Universal credit

The aim is so NOBODY is on “benefits”

There seems to be an assumption from the general public that this will only affect people not in work. THAT IS NOT THE CASE

OP posts:
hibbledibble · 11/10/2018 09:23

Presumably this is only sahp with children over a certain age eg 3 years old (so entitled to free childcare).

Being a sahp is a lifestyle choice, if a family cannot afford to fund this lifestyle choice without benefits then it is not unreasonable to make seeking work a condition of receiving benefits.

dangermouseisace · 11/10/2018 09:29

When I was on income support around 7 years ago and my youngest child was still too young for nursery I had to attend the job centre, even though there was no obligation on me to work. So, for single mothers this has been happening for ages. Seemed like a waste of time then, and extending it is also a waste of time and resources.

If you don’t turn up they stop everything though, so it’s probably to increase the chances they can do that (cynical but prob true).

Ninoo25 · 11/10/2018 09:32

If they’re making people job search whilst claiming it shouldn’t it just be job seekers allowance? I didn’t know you could get money for being a SAHP anyway?!

UnsolicitedCockPics · 11/10/2018 09:33

Yes I believe it is children over 4 SAHPs will be expected to job seek

It’s bollocks IMO and unfair, after all it’s been allowed for the last 20 years (and I don’t claim anymore as we earn over the threshold but I have done and they were a real help to my family)

I am just shocked that so many seem to not realise it

Perhaps the people who perceive themselves as middle class cos their partner works and earns more than NMW and just assume things like this won’t affect them will get a wake up call

OP posts:
Notanotheruser111 · 11/10/2018 09:35

We have a similar thing here in Aus where when your youngest is 5 you are moved from a parenting payment to a payment which has job search requirements.

There are some benefits to this mainly women working more increasing their retirement savings maintaining financial independence but only if it is implemented alongside decent programs to help people get back to work and the creation of jobs that either pay you enough to pay for childcare or are flexible enough around school hours and holidays. I don’t think Aus has implemented it very well but we treat jobseekers pretty appallingly these days.

I’d disagree with SAHP being a lifestyle choice in all cases though I think that’s too much of a generalisation.

arethereanyleftatall · 11/10/2018 09:36

Yabu, this sounds completely fair to me.
A sahp of school age children is a lifestyle choice. They are not in work.

HellenaHandbasket · 11/10/2018 09:37

Out of all the things that are happening under UC, I don't really see this as being the one to be upset about tbh.

Mybackhurts1 · 11/10/2018 09:38

Very interesting! I’ve heard a bit about the new system and so far I am under the impression that basically they will be doing all they can to stop paying anyone anything!

AamdC · 11/10/2018 09:38

Assuming there are no disabillities why cant mothers work when there children reach nursery/school age ? Single mothers have to be looking for work , just because its been like that for the past 20 years things change .

user139328237 · 11/10/2018 09:39

It's not reasonable to expect the state to fund your choice to not work when you are perfectly capable of doing so.

Frouby · 11/10/2018 09:39

I hate UC, but do feel that it's fair that in a family with a SAHP that the SAHP looks for work. Lots of families have 2 parents that work, it's not that unusual. It's fine to be a SAHP if you can afford it but if you rely on benefits then it isn't affordable. And a lifestyle choice shouldn't be funded by benefits.

I would rather extra benefits be paid to those who can't work. So those with DCs with additional needs, or those with health conditions.

Mookatron · 11/10/2018 09:41

Heaven forbid people make lifestyle choices based on what is best for their kids, family and,in many cases, wallet, eh. Obviously well being is for the rich as well as everything else

Lovelygiraffe · 11/10/2018 09:41

Why should you get benefits to stay at home when your children are at school?

I worked even when I was a single parent why the hell should I fund you because you choose not to?

CookPassBabtridge · 11/10/2018 09:43

I think it's fair, if your child is school going age and you receive benefits then you should job seek. You can avoid this by not accepting any benefits.

If this applied to SAHPs of children under 4 then I would think it's shit. It's great to be home for the younger years and childcare is expensive so it would make things difficult.

UnsolicitedCockPics · 11/10/2018 09:44

Yes Helena handbasket you’re quite right, there is way, way worse happening under Uc 😔

I just feel that a lot of people aren’t getting angry about it in general because they simply don’t think it will affect them/their families (a crap reason to not get angry about something but hey ho)

Interesting though how much the attitude and perception has changed

DH is ten years older than me and has been married before, his ex wife SAHM for over ten years raising their Dc while they received tax credits and he worked. This would have been approx
1997-2007. and no one batted an eyelid

OP posts:
Snog · 11/10/2018 09:44

I think the principle of this is correct but am lacking the confidence that it will be applied fairly as the benefits system is so lacking in common sense and humanity.

For families not claiming benefits most cannot afford a SAHP. Why should this be any different for those in receipt of benefits?

MsHopey · 11/10/2018 09:44

Someone said something similar before, that a SAHP is expected to look for work when the "free" funded 15 hours becomes available.
I'm not sure how much actual cash the government is paying for these 60 hours a month, but it seems odd that they are trying so hard to pay for childcare when a parent could be getting (probably) less money to stay at home and give their children one on one care.
I've also heard that there aren't actually even enough jobs for everyone looking for work who are on benefits.
Not sure on statistics though.

UnsolicitedCockPics · 11/10/2018 09:44

Tax credits weren’t even seen as benefits

They were seen as tax relief for having a family

OP posts:
bigKiteFlying · 11/10/2018 09:45

I didn’t know you could get money for being a SAHP anyway?!

You don't it's based on household income and number of children - so single parnet or couple earning between them would get money as well.

I'm not surprised by this and it's certainly not the worse thing about UC.

MsHopey · 11/10/2018 09:47

On the old system my mom didn't work for 25 years. Had me at 17 and had another 5 kids, she only started working when her youngest turned 9 or something. I don't particularly think the old system was ideal either but it does feel shit that because my DH is on a crap income I won't get to spend as much time with my kids.
But that's life and we just have to make the best out of it.

Sockwomble · 11/10/2018 09:47

I hope this will not apply to parents of disabled children. Some, especially those of younger children do not claim carers allowance.

AamdC · 11/10/2018 09:48

No they were not they were always a benefit for peopld on low wages and even people on average wages got a little bit .

Lovelygiraffe · 11/10/2018 09:51

But of course they're benefits, I'm not saying benefits are bad, they're a necessity.

However if you're in a couple and your children are at school, there's no reason why you can't do at least some part time work i there?

Even if you want to convince yourself that it's tax relief, why should you get tax relief to look after children who are at school for 30 hours a week?

AamdC · 11/10/2018 09:51

I have a disabled child he gets midrate DLA so i do claim carers allowance if the government wanted parents of disabled children to work than there would have to be suitable child care.....

ginghamstarfish · 11/10/2018 09:55

It seems fair, as other PPs have said, once children are at school then it is the SAHP's choice. I don't see why taxpayers should fund lifestyle choices. You could just not claim benefit if you wish to continue. There are many other problems with UC and benefits in general, but this is not one to get worked up about as far as I can see.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.