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

I do wonder if people have actually done the sums on this.

The personal allowance is pretty high, £11,850 and might rise. It's 29 hours a week at NMW. If someone is working part time, they could easily be earning less than this but still being provided with childcare subsidy by the state. It's not actually possible to do a 29 hour a week job entirely during school hours after all, given that there are school holidays. And sure they'll be paying a bit of NI but again, could easily be less than they're putting in.

Even if we were to assume everyone in this position could find FT NMW work, which is clearly nonsense, 37.5 hours a week is £15,268. They'd be paying about £2300 a year in income tax and NI. That's not even a couple of hundred a month in childcare help. Low income working parents commonly get much more than that.

Now obviously, when someone does earn enough to pay tax, whether this is a net gain or not will depend on how much the family were getting beforehand. But there are clearly going to be cases where the former SAHP will work and will cost more than the amount they were getting in tax credits at home. And I know people will talk about it being easier to get back to work without a long period out etc, which is true in some cases, but cannot be assumed with low paid work in the same way as eg professions.

I understand the arguments about not subbing people after the child is in FT education and as a principle, this is not the most outrageous aspect of UC. I just wonder how much money it's actually going to save us. Can't say I'm particularly keen on paying for it!

Not UK, and not currently required to work until youngest is 7. I have to go to the job centre annually for a meeting to see if circumstances have changed, and once closer to returning to work what courses are available.

I don’t feel bad at all for not working. Chances are once I’m back working I won’t retire from work unless I become severely disabled, so I’m taking my retirement now.

I don't agree that the solution is to force wages up so that people don't need subsidised childcare. If you do it that way, then the single person living with their parents and no financial commitments gets a massive payrise to spend on luxuries and the parent in the same position gets a lot less in their pocket. It makes sense to have a redistributive system which has some of the money from the employer going straight to the earner, and some going to the government in tax who can then put a bit more in the pockets of the earners with the biggest amount of drain on their finances - and to have that taken away slowly on a sliding scale as you go up the income levels so that you are always better off earning more.

There should be more subsidised before and after school care to help parents of school age children to balance everything.

I don’t feel bad at all for not working. Chances are once I’m back working I won’t retire from work unless I become severely disabled, so I’m taking my retirement now.

Actually I read the calculator wrong, the person on 37.5 hours a week would be paying about £1500 a year in tax and NI. Still, only strengthens my point! I want to see more sums, basically.

There's a shortage of High Court Judges if anyones interested!

I bet that's good pay...no need for benefits in that case. 🙄

Well it's all relative. I wuold not be a judge as it would be a pay cut and plenty of senior barristers won't do it particularly if they have remarried and have two families to keep as judges' pay doesn't cover their London mortgage or rent and school fee costs and the cost of a full time nanny for their stay at home wife.

More down to earth in the SE there are often lots of jobs for things my son does - postman, driving a van etc. In other areas there will be fewer of those £10 an hour full time jobs.

Until the government sorts out the childcare funding mess there isn't the capacity for many SAHM to go back to work. I wont leave my kids with the only childcare locally that has space, as its appalling. Why should I work for a loss or at best break even (with childcare vouchers etc) if it means my kid being with people I don't trust for 3 or more hours a day? Id rather be a SAHM on a budget. The kids welfare is more important. If I could magically time getting a job with the start of a new school year I might have a slight chance of getting them into the school provision, and then yes, I would happily work. Nobody actively wants to live on a low income but sometimes its the best option in the circumstances.

Tbh I think people taking that view is probably the aim. Some will have no choice but to work, but others, particularly those getting smaller amounts, might be in a position where they can just cut severely back for another year or two and not claim.

It's just typical of the conservative government trying to control and dictate how people without privilege should live. Go to the job centre, work interviews blah blah blah. Lots of people currently receiving benefits are not STUPID!
They're trying to muddle through their family lives the best they can.

I do agree though that mothers who choose to stay at home when their children are in school should not be automatically funded by the tax payer. But there are many women who make this lifestyle choice and their partners choose to be the main earner while the children are in school. Don't undermine them either, their family, their choice.

They are mothers whose children are in school who may be starting up businesses, working from home, cottage businesses, writing etc. Many probably pay NI but no tax, don't undermine them either.

I just don't like the dictatorial nature of all this. Educate, provide opportunities, help. But stop bloody dictating (aimed at government) and undermining people.

@Xenia
The questions are fine. I'm not ashamed of our life I just think it's a shame people aren't paid a bigger wage.
We do cut our cloth accordingly but really can't get bills down much more as we still need some quality of life.
DH works full time and works hard, every penny he has goes on bills, I know there's plenty of dad's out there who do everything they can to not pay for their kids, so I'm lucky in lots of respects.

I don't agree that the solution is to force wages up so that people don't need subsidised childcare. If you do it that way, then the single person living with their parents and no financial commitments gets a massive payrise to spend on luxuries and the parent in the same position gets a lot less in their pocket. It makes sense to have a redistributive system which has some of the money from the employer going straight to the earner, and some going to the government in tax who can then put a bit more in the pockets of the earners with the biggest amount of drain on their finances - and to have that taken away slowly on a sliding scale as you go up the income levels so that you are always better off earning more.

Why should the single person, who has chosen not to have kids/get married and might be living with parents in order to save up and pay for a property have to pay more tax/receive less income so that someone who chooses to have kids doesn't have to pay more tax or have less disposable income? Surely if someone chooses to have children, then they have to factor in that they will have less money than someone who doesn't? Single, childless people are already discriminated against in the tax and benefits system, they shouldn't have to also subsidise the choices of those that choose to have families. They are also doing a lot more in terms of climate change by not increasing their carbon footprint by having children and not contributing to overpopulation so if anything, they should be rewarded, not punished!

pears, it's a difficult issue. I remember when a lot of families were getting £3k tax credits and paying £2k tax and NI the state decided that was very silly moving around of money (it was) so they got us up to the very high current single person tax allowance of £11,500 or whatever is (for those lucky enough to get a single person tax alllowance ( in current high tax UK I don't even get a single person tax allowance)). So each in a couple could earn that and no tax at all other than NI is paid.

However the downside is that thsoe who never had tax credits in the first place and have no children also save a lot of tax by having a large single person allowance (or up side if you were payijng the tax and had a smaller allowance). A blunt instrument.

MsH, it sounds like your husband is a good man and a hard worker. My van driving son says they are always looking for reliable people who will stay in the job but we are in the SE within the M25 so I think it's a very different jobs market at the £10 an hour level. He has not found it hard to get jobs at £10 an hour. It has got so hard they have just offered everyone a choice of shifts - mornings or evenings which is much better as your body clock can adjust and stick to the same pattern and he is working 4 veyr long days for the 5 day wage which is also lovely (if you have no children) as you get 3 days off a week - again this was by popular demand at work - in other words shortage of workers meaning workers have more power to suggest things and employers worried about keeping staff - a total change from most of my life when unemployment has been a massive problem for decades.

"If you do it that way, then the single person living with their parents and no financial commitments gets a massive payrise to spend on luxuries and the parent in the same position gets a lot less in their pocket."

Yep If they havent got living proof that they have had sex without contraception...................fuck "em

As a childfree by choice person who has been disgusted and really supportive to parents going through this shit it really pisses me off to see posts like that.

@Neshoma
Yeah I know. I was saying that I had a job that couldn't give me 30 at that moment in time and they were forcing me to pay for child care when my daughter was 3 to 4. Surely if it is the law to put your child in education when 5 I should have every right to see my daughter before. I wasn't moaning about not having them cater around my "designed lifestyle" I was saying they forced me to work 30 hours while trying to sort my daughter into school. And would stop me having any kind of benefit if I couldn't get 30 hours. Telling me I have to find a second job which can be travelling distance up to 90 minutes from my house. When my daughters school is already 30 minutes away. Not enough time in the day.
I am not arguing with you over something so stupid. I have a right to say how I feel. And my story about it.

I don't get any kind of benefit, and I don't want any. I was just saying when I was on UC that's what they used to do.

The problem with the system is more people are been refused dla and having to take it tribunal. Without mrc you can’t claim careers allowance .

There are children who need more support , don’t manage childcare who don’t get mrc so this idea it is black and white child disabled or not is nonsense.

I am guessing this is what the 30 hour care comes in for 3 year olds.

I am a Lp who works with a disabled child for now so it doesn’t affect me but I am low paid due to my child’s needs

What a sad society we have become when we view being around for our kids during the day as some sort of "lifestyle choice" which poor serfs should not be allowed, only the rich. Disgusting.

I don't see any incentive for Companies to consider adapting for part-time or job share to allow people back into work. Neither do i see any improvement on the nmw. Tax credits were brought in, wages stagnated or decreased relatively. Now it seems with UC they wish to phase out tax credits without increasing wages.
I work p-t and we don't get tax credits or u.c.

Kemer

I agree, looking after your own children is now considered a lifestyle choice, or worse, a luxury like you don't have the right unless you are rich.
But you are given money if you allow somebody else to care for them.
It's a bit sick really.

I'm in the same situation as you, AamdC - both DC are full time school age but DS2 is on a timetable of 2hrs per day. As I don't drive and get around on buses I'm free for about 45mins per day. I'm not sure there's a job that fits around that. And even if there was I don't know how we could afford the specialist childcare we'd need.

I would really love to work for a living (even a small one) and I fully intend to once circumstances change, whenever that may be. In the meantime I am selfish enough to want to feed, clothe and house my children.

But I'm taking the piss for claiming benefits whilst making a 'lifestyle choice'? Lovely

Sorry if I seem narky, I was in a Twitter convo about UC and the havoc it's wreaking and got called a 'bum' and told to 'go get a job' after they'd looked at my bio and seen I'm currently at home.

Fgs. Wrap around care costs money. For part time or low paying jobs the wrap around care takes up most if not all of those wages. For the sake of what?!

For the sake of not being at the mercy of the benefits system and arbitrary government policies? For th sake of being able increase your hours and wages once your children don’t need wrap around care, thus providing a great role model for your kids plus more independence in case you no longer have a partner to help pay for things? For the sake of your self-respect?

What a sad society we have become when we view being around for our kids during the day as some sort of "lifestyle choice" which poor serfs should not be allowed, only the rich.

But for the vast majority of people, their children are at school during the day and there's reasonably priced childcare around. Of course there are some who aren't or can't and due to the nature of things on MN you hear about the unusual situations a lot more than you hear about the majority. Choosing not to support yourself when you have the time to do this is a lifestyle choice surely, and if it works for you financially great. But we can't wave a wand to get back to the "good old days" when you stayed at home just in case your children were ill or because you didn't want them in childcare after school and thought it was normal for a family to be able to exist on one wage. That ship has sailed and I'm quite glad when I look at the experiences of previous generations of women in my family.