Mumsnet Logo
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:

UnsolicitedCockPics · 12/10/2018 21:10


Yes this is what I’ve been trying to say

In the 90s they were sold as a tax relief type thing. And it was seen as completely normal and acceptable to be on them

Families could earn a LOT before the cut off

OP posts:

flopsyrabbit1 · 12/10/2018 21:13

Romany you still havent answered my ??


RomanyRoots · 12/10/2018 21:23


Two apologies Grin I missed your question and didn't know you were being tongue in cheek.
Having claimed tax credits since their initial conception under all the guises I have never felt more deserving or better than anyone else, or those on welfare benefits were scroungers, so you hit a nerve a bit.

As to what I'd call them, well "Tax credit" a credit from tax, I suppose.
My point from initial post was TC were never sold to us as benefits, they weren't classed as benefits.
Now they are classed as such and those claiming who don't work are vilified.
The system of UC is no better and isn't working for many people and it's disgusting what this gov have done.


Justanotherlurker · 12/10/2018 21:31

The present and past TORY PM's have fucked up tax credits and the benefit system.
When DC was PM he moved the goal posts so the mc/rich people were no longer entitled to TC.

Not sure how that is a fuck up of Tory's to be honest, if you are to look at it conversely then the threshold was set far to high that it plays into the stereo type of Labour wanting to get as many people reliant on the state as possible. There wasn't a massive outcry from the Labour back bench when the upper limit was reduced to what ~£35K initially? on here however you had the many I will be happy to pay more tax brigade moaning about not getting Tax credits on there earnings of ~£50K so job done on that one.

You are also glossing over the fact that since 2010 all parties have said the previous benefits need an overhaul, I mean Rachel Reeve said they would be tougher on benefits than the tories and still fucking lost, JC ran on a manifesto that wasn't going to undo many of the changes that the past Tories implemented and lost, and people think it all started in 2010 and conveniently ignore the technicalities when it suits and just brush is off as not true labour or echoes of 1930's germany whilst ignoring its routes isn't set in propaganda or channel 5 documentaries.

Then came the curtain twitching speech because the mc were jealous of poor people for some reason.

As stated above, the curtain twitching starting long before the Tories came to power, to pretend that the middle class is a tory strong hold is naive, the problem both parties had was the working class becoming the curtain twitchers and it started long before the shit Chanel 5 documentaries started


RomanyRoots · 12/10/2018 21:38

Well, we'll just have to beg to differ.
I know when our payments changed, I have a record of it.
I know which PM talked about mc losing money, and curtain twitchers, they were the same, whatever you think you read on here.
Yes, mc were happy to say they'd pay more tax for those on welfare benefit, but also found a voice against sahp's because they could no longer afford it.


Justanotherlurker · 12/10/2018 21:51

The system of UC is no better and isn't working for many people and it's disgusting what this gov have done.

This shows the political spin on the argument, Labour as a party are not arguing against UC in principal as benefit reform received cross party support.

The nuance of argument is lost when it becomes a team sport


Justanotherlurker · 12/10/2018 22:00

Well, we'll just have to beg to differ.

So your argument boils down to, "no you"

Well done with your political insight and making claims that its all a tory conspiracy. After all, politics is totes legit if we treat it as a team sport and blame it on muh right wing media


Lavalamped · 14/10/2018 00:14

Seems completely fair to me. You don't have to find work and can continue to be a SAHP, however you won't be paid to do so.


FruitCider · 14/10/2018 09:21

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.

The most expensive wrap around care I've read about on here is £25 a day, or £125 a week.

Minimum wage is currently £7.83 an hour.

£7.83 x 37.5 hours = £293.62 a week before deductions, £264.71 net salary per week.

That means after paying for childcare there is still £139 a week left over. I really doubt UC provided that much so the argument that people are worse off is a load of rubbish unless they are paying more than £53 a day in childcare 🙄

The problem is people don't want to work because they feel it is their right to stay at home, not because they can't afford to do it.


buttybuttybutthole · 14/10/2018 09:46

Is that for one child or a few. Say twins? What then?


FruitCider · 14/10/2018 11:40

Is that for one child or a few. Say twins? What then?

That's the max childcare costs - I pay £11 a day for wrap around care so twins would work out less expensive. Working parents are also entitled to 30h a week free childcare once their children are three years old. Spacing children where possible and making sure adequate childcare is available before having children (when possible, I understand unexpected pregnancies and multiple pregnancies happen that cannot be avoided) is pertinent. My child was planned and I didn't have a child until I understood what childcare provision was available and I could afford the costs. It's one of the biggest decisions of your life so I'm surprised more people don't research the options in this way.


Lazypuppy · 14/10/2018 22:32

@FruitCider i completely agree! I planned when we would start ttc to ensure i would get the enhanced maternity pay, i was in a flexible job, with access to a discounted nursery to keep costs down etc.

Me and my partner also worked hard for promotions to get us to decent enough salaries so we knew we could afford a child.


GrabEmByThePatriarchy · 15/10/2018 12:52

You can do all the due diligence you want but if you're eg looking at the availability of childcare when TTC, you're trying to research something that's going to happen several years into the future. 4 or 5 years if we're talking people who are now expected to look for work when the child turns 3.

You've no control over what happens in the meantime or indeed demand locally: might only take a few extra families moving into an area after some probate sales of houses previously occupied by one single person to make what was previously a surplus of places turn into a shortage. This is before we consider things like people only being able to find work that causes childcare to be needed outside of the hours offered locally, when previously that wouldn't have been a problem.

I'm not saying it's entirely unpredictable. There are situations where it's possible to be pretty sure. If you live in a very rural area, there's no nursery around and no demand for one when you TTC, one probably won't open in the near future. Or you might work in a secure job for a company who have a crèche. But there's a pretty big middle ground, even in urban areas where there might be a lot of options but even more demand. I live in an area where there's no shortage, but even then, the childcare landscape locally has a changed a lot since I was pregnant with my first. And my first is in Year 1, so we are not talking a particularly long time ago.

So by all means research and plan, that's never going to be a bad thing, but let's also be aware of the limitations of that approach.


Lazypuppy · 15/10/2018 12:58


You can do all the due diligence you want but if you're eg looking at the availability of childcare when TTC, you're trying to research something that's going to happen several years into the future.

Not several years, i've always planned to take 9 months maternity, actually back to work next week.

No you can't plan everything, but there a lot of people who don't even seem to consider the how they will support themselves in the future, then moan when they realise their company only pay SMP, or they can't be a SAHP.


GrabEmByThePatriarchy · 15/10/2018 13:34

It is several years. If your baby is about 9 months old and there isn't going to be a SAHP, you're looking at childcare needs for another decade or so. The research you've done in the past year or two isn't necessarily going to give you a reliable picture of eg wraparound care and holiday provision when your child is 9.

People should check their company maternity pay in advance yes, certainly, but that's a separate issue to childcare availability.


Stormtrooper1986 · 15/10/2018 14:22

I have a 7 month old, work nearly full time and so does my partner, why should I pay for people just to sit at home and receive benefits . If people genuinely cannot work due to a disability etc then fair enough! If your child is getting the free childcare then yes you should go to work !!


Lazypuppy · 15/10/2018 15:19

@GrabEmByThePatriarchy i found a nursery, thats 3 and a bit years sorted. I bought a house in an area with 10 primary schools i'm in the catchment for. Some that were good aren't anymore etc, but there is always plenty of choice. All offer wrap around care of some form, the secondary school, my daughter will be making her own way there and back. And i have family and flexible working for school holidays.

Yes things can change, but i've planned as far as i can so neiher me or my partner will have to stop working


GrabEmByThePatriarchy · 15/10/2018 16:10

Yes precisely, you've planned as far as you can. But this is a decade long endeavour, minimum, and the availability of childcare also rests not just on other people, but on the wider economic and policy landscape too.

Someone who's 10 years ahead of you, who has a child in Year 6, would've been TTC in 2007-8. The environment was just completely different. There were Surestart nurseries. There were fewer free hours potentially on offer, but some nurseries have gone bust attempting to offer them and also pay the increased minimum wages and pension contributions now required.

Those are just a few examples. Who knows how things might look in 2029? There might well be fewer childminders because of the new UC rules about self-employment (there were a couple in my area doing it with just one or two kids basically as a means to claim. I know someone who was planning to do just that when her youngest went to school but because of the new rules has now decided to retrain instead). Nurseries in some areas are finding it much easier to offer free hours than others. There are people who want to replace the free school meals for infants with free breakfast clubs, if they get their way then wraparound might improve. So many possibilities.

In an urban area, one is hopefully better insulated from fluctuations like the only local nursery going bust or similar, but even then I'm sure we all remember eg seeing those parents in Cardiff queuing for the breakfast club places a few weeks back. And not everyone lives in urban areas anyway. So the point being, people can plan and research but there are going to be occasions when this doesn't do them much good.


Xenia · 15/10/2018 16:29

If we could plan ahead in the 80s for our first babies most people can today when there is so much more provisoin for childcare (we had to put an ad in the local paper to find someone prepared to come to our house to look after a 2 week old baby full time - we found her before I gave birth)


buttybuttybutthole · 15/10/2018 18:06

Not everyone is a born planner Grin


kazwelch · 15/10/2018 18:12

When my husband was on the Dole 6 years ago, I got a part time job 7 hours a week I still had to go of a interviews with them & them telling me I still needed a full time job.


MyDcAreMarvel · 15/10/2018 18:12

Planning ahead for someone to look after a two week baby full time is unlikely to be an issue!


GrabEmByThePatriarchy · 15/10/2018 18:33

Your plans were for full time nanny care in London though Xenia. As long as you could keep earning the income, having the childcare you needed was within your realistic control.

The same is not true of people who are on lower incomes, hence UC, who may of necessity need to rely on things like breakfast clubs and being able to find a free hours provider at the earliest opportunity. Or people in less populous areas who don't have access to the variety of options potentially available in built up areas. It is silly to pretend otherwise.


Luangwa · 15/10/2018 18:37

I wish people would stop talking about a "free" 30 hours a week childcare! Its not free - its funded by other tax payers, and that cost has to be factored into this discussion.

The Rowntree Foundation issued a report in 2016, saying that the aim of early years care is to give children high quality care, to put them on a level playing field with other children; and reduce poverty - but it says

"Most children do not experience childcare of the required level. Children living in high unemployment areas are also less likely to be able to access childcare that covers their parents' working hours. State support for childcare is not effectively targeted at low-income parents, leaving some struggling to afford childcare, and gives poor value for money.

From 2017/18, the majority of childcare providers income will come from the state. However, the current system provides little accountability for this funding, with very limited ability to ensure it provides childcare that benefits children's development, or support parents' employment."

As for the highest costs of £25 per day or £125 per week for wraparound care - is that for children for school age, because a quick glance at the fees sheet of a local nursery here, shows:

  1. weekly rate Mon - Fri 7.30 am to 6.30 pm 0 - 3 years £352.75; 3 - 5 years £266.70

2. daily rate 7.30 am to 6.30 pm 0 - 3 years £77.80, 3 - 5 years £65.30

I cannot see the point of forcing a SAHP, claiming £100 a week in tax credits out to work say on NMW, so that her DC can be in sub-optimal childcare of 30 hours a week, looked after by other women on NMW! If deductions as per *Fruitcider" are £28.91, then that is nowhere near going to cover the full cost of 30 hours childcare a week! Its cheaper for the country to give the SAHP £100 per week; the person who may well be the most responsive caregiver for the child, and it puts less stress on some families.
Please create an account

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

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?