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

[UnsolicitedCockPics]

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

Sorry however I do think it's good you are making people aware of the changes, as I'm sure they are not very forthcoming with this sort of info and it could land families in the sh*t.

Or... @Buswankeress how about pay fair fucking wages and then if a family decides it's best for one parent to stay home (as they may have 2, 3 or more children so working wouldn't even be viable with the cost of breakfast clubs, dinner clubs and wac) they can still afford to live and eat and turn their gas fire on.

yes, it'd be great if wages actually reflected the cost of living wouldn't it? Or absent parents had money taken at source to support the child they left behind, rather than running away and leaving the rp and the state to pick up the bill. Or the elderly had enough pension to heat and eat, or disabled people were treated with dignity. There's many things wrong with UC but expecting someone who can work, while they have another parent to care for them, or whilst at school is not one of them. The 13 hours is obviously not going to be achievable in every circumstance for every family, I get that. And that's where I think it will go wrong, however to say that you're (general you, not you personally) entitled to not work and be in receipt of benefits while the option to work and earn in instead is imo, wrong.

Or would you prefer to economically limit the number of children people have now too? Didn't China do that? How did that work out?

Just where do I say that we need to limit the amount of children someone has? I don't. I'm saying that if you have the scope to work, and earn the money that you are claiming then you should.

Just a thought 🙄

And how is it that a lone parent must work once a child is at school full time, and find wrap around care, find holiday care etc - all the things that face any working family, yet if you are fortunate enough to have support in the form of a partner these rules don't apply? Isn't that wrong? As an LP I have to work, and from DD being 5. Had I had a partner I'd still be entitled to stay at home and claim, despite having childcare right there in the same house

Just a thought 🙄

Arriving on this thread late and I support the benefits system being reformed to funnel able-bodied people into work if their children are without SEN and attend school. UC has a lot of flaws but this isn't one of them.

That the government should do is restructure the NI system (in a revenue-neutral way) to incentise all employers with more than 10 employees to ensure that at least 25% of their fte workforce in each quartile of the payscale is on family-friendly hours. As pp pointed out up thread, it costs more to employ 2 part time workers rather than one full time - the government can change that. It's also true that most family-friendly jobs are low wage and low status. If IT firms, law firms, financial services providers etc etc all found they could actually save money on NI by creating more higher-status and higher-pay part time opportunities then that would help get everyone more productive and benefit the whole country.

I don't think it helps that the original poster has posted some of the wrong information and I've tried to correct it a few times and it's mainly being ignored.
You have to either work 16 hours a week or be looking for work for 16 hours a week when you child is both 3 and 4.
Meaning BEFORE full time school has started.
I can understand the old system was flawed, as I've mentioned, I do think wages should actually be higher and pay a living wage.DH is on NMW and if that was boosted to £10 an hour we would be financially okay without any benefits.
But everyone keeps stating when your child is in full time education you should be working.
But they want you to work when your child ISN'T in full time education and I think a 3yo is very different to a 5yo.
I totally understand career women going back to work, no gaps in their cv and gives them more earning potential.
But as someone who has only worked in NMW jobs for 7 years I don't want enough to pay the childcare.
I've also heard of childminders and before and after school clubs having waiting lists, I don't think their are enough well trained child care staff to support the new system.

*earn enough 😅
Ofc I want more money doing my job!

Of course you should have to look for work whilst you claim benefits, it's not there to fund a lifestyle choice, which being a SAHP is. If you can't afford to live off one salary and your child is approaching pre school age of course you need to work. I thought that was blinking obvious?

I'm not sure what the problem with this is? If all of your children are at school and the family is on a low income- then it makes total sense that both parents should work.

Just because it has been one way for years, does not mean it's right.

OP- tell me why you think that a low income family should be entitled to have one SAHP when all children are at school?

As a PP said, being a stay at home parent is a lifestyle choice- and with all lifestyle choices, it should be based on wether or not it's viable. If your income is being supplemented by the government, then it's not viable.

• some children at age 3 are entitled to free nursery hours. 15-30. So if a parent has to work 16 hours, then they have sufficient childcare!

Given the cost of childcare, being a SAHP is not a lifestyle choice for anyone with Preschool children under 3. Children are an investment in paying for our pensions, healthcare and social care as we get older, so it makes sense to make sure they're not brought up in poverty which is linked so much with lower productivity in later life.

Yes. Your example is correct. My partner works and earns about £24,000 per year.
And I have one daughter (from a previous partner) and when she was at nursery they make me go to the jobcentre every 2 weeks to sign on and prove I was looking for work (even though I have had a job for the past 6 years, I left for maternity and then come back and was working 16 hours)
So the job centre said I have to get a job for 30 per week and they will pay 80% of any child care back. So in the end I was working 30 hours my partner self employed 40 hours, and I had to pay for my daughter to be in nursery 30 hours a week so I could work and then they ended up telling me me and my partner were earning to much to on universal credit. 😑.
Now my dd is in school I have left the company I was working for and me have gone self employed also cleaning. But I can physically only do about 16-18 hours a week as I do not drive and I am the only one to do the school runs so have to be able to finish the clean before I have to collect my dd. She's in year 1. And I need a bit of help with UC. but they will make me go to the job centre every 2 weeks to sign back on again. 🙄😑

But I can't get tax credits because the area I live has Uc. So they won't process me a form for tax credits. 😤

Given the cost of childcare, being a SAHP is not a lifestyle choice for anyone with Preschool children under 3.

Totally agree, although once childcare is provided or children are at school, being a SAHP is totally a choice.

We would be above the benefit threshold on my partners income only but I choose to work so that we can have some luxuries or extras that we would have to go without or very much pull back on.

If I chose to stay at home, that would be a lifestyle choice.

Given the cost of childcare, being a SAHP is not a lifestyle choice for anyone with Preschool children under 3.

Well, that's not quite right, is it? Clearly it isn't a choice for lower earners, but for those on higher incomes, it is absolutely a choice as to whether they stay at home or go back to work.

And yes, when the kids are at school, I think it's very hard to argue that parents couldn't go back to work if they wished, despite all of the helpless comments about school pick-ups and holiday care. Obviously, there are exceptions to that, such as parents of children with certain disabilities etc.

That depends on the childcare available in your area. If I was having to pay a childminder to drop my children at school and then pick them up after school I'd still be paying for a full day's childcare. So it still wouldn't be affordable to work.

Fortunately I have other arrangements, but the cost of childcare does not necessarily drop when the children go to school.

But @Pbm can't you see you had a virtually full time job and your child was in school. They also offered 80% of your child care. You then chose to cut your hours. Thats not what the system is designed for - it's is to get work-abled people off benefits altogther? There's no point being angry that the Gvmt won't fund your desired lifestyle.

Question!
I have 2dc. Youngest will be 1 in DEC, i handed my notice in half way through mat leave because i moved house and am completely unable to travel to work due to long distance so currently a sahm
Obv jc/uc told me i will be havibg meetings from when dd turns 1 and will be getting me on the wagon for looking for work ect.
Will they expect me to find employment straight away?
I have to look for childcare options too

MsHopey, what does your husband do, roughly? My son was a postman and that paid at least £10 an hour and now drives a delivery van for a food delivery company and that is about £10 an hour. Amazon is putting SE wages up to £10 an hour. Could your husband not find a job on £10 an hour? I amn ot saying he can but there are certainly here (SE) shortages of workers even at £10 an hour.

Xenia- Postmen earn a lot more than £10ph! Great job for a parent as they can do school pick up while other parent is at work. Great holidays and rest weeks/days. Lots of scope for overtime. Great long term benefits, pension etc.

Free stamps at Xmas too!

Great option for anyone to look in to.

The 15 or more free hours are no good if no provider will take your child.

@Xenia
He's a cleaner atm.
He's worked for Tesco and as a delivery driver for know-how (pc world/Currys delivery driver).
He struggled to get full time hours at Tesco as they are mostly part time jobs. The delivery driver job was salaried but was constantly having to work unpaid overtime to get the deliveries done so ended up being less than NMW when you worked out how many hours he'd done.
He's a cleaner for a supermarket now but he's subcontracted so gets NMW as his employer keeps the profits iyswim.
We're both unfortunately unskilled as I had a crappy home life and we moved out together at 19 and got jobs to afford the bills.
The only benefits we've ever had have been the last few months since my SMP ran out, we've always prided ourselves on working but it has always been for crap pay.
I do feel like we've wasted our potential a little bit.
There's not as many progression opportunities as people thing. I was passed up for promotions a few times in my old job and managers kids who'd only been working for a few months for the promotions. DHs company is trying to get rid of mangers to save money.
DH was a supervisor getting 40p extra an hour, but they demoted him to save money as their are now no needs for a supervisor, or so they say. Though he's still expected to do the role if the manager is away but for no extra pay.
I think most people know the job climate isn't very good for unskilled workers so pretty much treat you however they like.

My 16 year just got a little job and my dad said oh is she on £10

I said are you insane ???

I only get minimum wage same as an awful lot of people in retail

(She is on £5 on hour.... which she is very pleased with. She woukd have got £8 in another job she applied for)

He applied to be a postman (he can drive and is very active so the walking would acrually be great for him) but got no response from his application unfortunately.

Can anyone explain to me where all of these 9am-3pm jobs are, or who is going to pick my hypothetical school age kids up from the school gate when I'm at work?

It's amazing how many single parents seem to be able to manage to work at least part-time yet married parents can't. I bet you're one of those women who tuts at my children being in school from 7:30am - 6pm, aren't you?

MsH, sorry to personalise it with the questions. It sounds like he is doing his best. They are short of postmen down here. My son did it for 3 years but then his ankle was hurting and the delivery driving is much easier on the body I suspect although he loved being outside (It was not more than £10 an hour in either job but he did get some free stamps which I bought from him each year as he doesn't sent out letter - in both I think it was about £22k including a bit of overtime although he never maximises that as he doesn't have a family so does not need the money families need.

I am going off thread a bi t but I suspect there are regional differences in where it is easier to get jobs at the moment. Here in outer London I have noticed a huge change - many many more jobs coming up including full time jobs (unskilled) despite the huge numbers of immigrants we have competing for them and there are shortages of unskilled workers. My son was saying the other week how often people leave work and move to other jobs and it was the same at Royal Mail. Someone would start, not like the heavy bags or all the walking or get a better paid job but that will because we are in a prosperous area I suspect.

It may be worth your husband re-applying as the UK suddenly has more vacancies than for a long time.

On those talking about before and after school care it has always been difficult. One reason we had someone looking after our baby, 1 year old and 3 year old at home in our house was because once hte oldest was at school that person could mind the youngest 2 and take and collect the oldest from school so it was just one fee for the care in our house of the three (and later 5) children. 3 full time nursery places would have been very expensive, not that there were that many nurseries then.

Later with my twins although their school did have a before and after school club I just took them to school for 9am as I worked mostly from home by then so I could get up at 6am, do a fair bit of work before they even woke and then they could watch TV whilst I worked until about 8.45am and then walk them up the road to school. After school we paid someone to work from 3 - 6pm. We advertised and found a lovely older lady and she brought them back here to the house and looked after them until about 6 for an hourly fee. Later they went to the after school club when she stopped working for us if I were not here and that ran until 6pm.

Not sure if this has been mentioned so far so forgive me if I'm repeating information. The main carer only has to go to interviews or get work if the household earnings are under a set amount.

If the working parent earns above NMW then there is the chance they earn enough to cover both of you. So say your child is at the age where you UC expect you to be working 16 hours a week. If your partner earns 40 hours NMW + 16 hours NMW then you won't be expected to work at all.

Hope that makes sense.