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:

SEsofty · 11/10/2018 11:07

Are you sure about this? That sahp get something under current system other than child benefit, and not for all, which is almost two hundred a month for three children.

Surely no one plans on the basis of having children and assumes that they will get state support?

That’s why disability benefits including careers allowance are so incredibly important because no one can plan on having a disability and it is right that the state is able to assist with the inevitable additional costs.


LittleBookofCalm · 11/10/2018 11:08

can't you get another hour longwalk?
that is ludicrous


flamingofridays · 11/10/2018 11:08

now that is stupid longwalk you shouldn't be penalised for having a job!


Gromance02 · 11/10/2018 11:09

They were seen as tax relief for having a family Why should you get tax relief for having a family? If anything, people without children should get tax relief as they are saving the state money - no children to educate or use the NHS. Totally back to front.


hurricanefloss · 11/10/2018 11:13

it is not impossible to find childcare, there are many options

Not always. Not where I live.


flamingofridays · 11/10/2018 11:15

what so its absolutely impossible? there are no nurseries or childminders? at all?


Feefeetrixabelle · 11/10/2018 11:15

I think yabu unless it affect sahp with disabled children. In that case it’s perfectly reasonable for one parent to work while the other takes on the additional carer duties for the disabled child(ren). In that case they should receive either carers allowance or an equivalent.


LividAtDolphins · 11/10/2018 11:16

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

No, it's because we don't see why you would be angry about:

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

Because when they're over 4 they're in school! Why should you continue receiving benefts??


thighofrelief · 11/10/2018 11:21

I don't understand the government's reasoning in putting so many measures in place to penalise women who would prefer to stay home with fairly young children who require a great deal of expensive, subsidised childcare. It must cost more surely? If it's a cost cutting exercise it doesn't make sense, so is it lifestyle control from above? If it costs the government more for someone to be in work than sahp but it is mandated (financially) anyway what has been achieved?


Figgygal · 11/10/2018 11:24

This country is broke in case you haven't noticed it maybe We could afford tax credits for people 20 years ago to allow people to choose to stay out of work but we didn't face the pressures that exist today. This country cannot afford to support peoples lifestyle choices any longer.

I genuinely get why people do choose not to work our childcare bill this month was pretty much £1000 and that was for four days and with our eldest being in school.


Santaclarita · 11/10/2018 11:24

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

That's a bit rude. Do you mean that any mother who works isn't doing well by her child?

There's no reason why if your children are in school why the mother cannot work. Before school, yeah it's often cheaper to have one parent stay at home because childcare is expensive. But once at school? Not much of an excuse anymore.


thighofrelief · 11/10/2018 11:29

Figgy it isn't saving any money though if the government is subsidising so heavily for someone to work. It's costing more in some cases therefore making the country poorer.


bigKiteFlying · 11/10/2018 11:38

I agree it's not at all easy to fit around school hours and holidays and yes a better infrastructure to facilitate this would be good idea.

However, this has been coming for a while there definitely an expectation in the zeitgeist of being able work full time/pull in a decent wage but also be completely available for children and elderly relatives often at short notice and if you can’t it’s a personal failing not a structural problem.

It 's clear they don't want anyone to claim anything as well.


abacucat · 11/10/2018 11:38

I too think it makes no sense for low paid childcare workers to look after a child rather than the mother, if it does not improve the families standard of living.


thighofrelief · 11/10/2018 11:39

If Sally (LP) is a cleaner on nmw and her 3 year old twins Billy and Mandy have state subsided childcare nothing has been saved by the government financially.


thighofrelief · 11/10/2018 11:42

If you take emotion and fairness out of it and just look at the figures they don't make sense.


Mookatron · 11/10/2018 11:45

santaclarita I actually tried (and failed) not to imply that in my post by deleting the words 'they feel'. I admit I did fail though. I don't think that.

However, there are lots of possible reasons it might be better for one parent to be at home even when the kids are at school. Financial reasons could be one. Emotional reasons another. Every family is different.


peardropexplodes · 11/10/2018 11:46

I don't have a problem with this. If you decide to have children and be a SAHM they are you responsibility and you shouldn't expect your lifestyle choices to be subsidised.

It is also unfair since families not entitled to benefits have to work in order to get the £100 that the lower income family is getting which kind of defeats the point of higher earners working and bettering themselves if they are not going to necessarily be better off working.


bigKiteFlying · 11/10/2018 11:49

Honestly figure not stakcing up wouldn't. surpise me .

I've heard similar about student funding:

Student get into more debt, univerities see less money but more students and the Government pays out more.


Santaclarita · 11/10/2018 11:54

santaclarita I actually tried (and failed) not to imply that in my post by deleting the words 'they feel'. I admit I did fail though. I don't think that.

However, there are lots of possible reasons it might be better for one parent to be at home even when the kids are at school. Financial reasons could be one. Emotional reasons another. Every family is different.

I was hoping you had just worded it badly.

Both parents having a job brings in two wages though. And once they are in school, yeah you may need a few hours a week of childcare but it's still better than paying for full days all week. Jobs are getting more flexible too, could work 4 long days and have an extra day off. Or be able to work from home in the afternoon.


Believeitornot · 11/10/2018 11:54

If anything, people without children should get tax relief as they are saving the state money

That makes no sense. Children turn into tax paying adults....


thighofrelief · 11/10/2018 11:55

pear but the working is having to be subsidised more than staying home would be. There is no saving.


Figural · 11/10/2018 11:57

Regardless of anyone's particular views, what everyone claiming benefits, thinking about claiming benefits, or has taken the 'virtuous' action of not claiming benefits when they might be eligible, absolutely needs to do, is check whether the benefit(s) involved provide the claimant with National Insurance credits. JSA and UC both provide you with NI credits.

Even if the subsequent benefits payment is pennies, then CLAIM IT. If you are eligible for a benefit that carries National Insurance credits and decide not to claim, you are reducing the amount of state pension you will get when you retire. See this page (HMG) for basic info.


peardropexplodes · 11/10/2018 11:59

Yup, tax credits are basically a bung to employers so they can pay low wages and know their employees are topped up by benefits paid from other taxpayers. The same with housing benefit - it sets a floor on rents and pays the mortgages of BTL landlords.

The best thing to do would be to raise the threshold at which point tax is paid so people keep more of their money rather than paying tax and then claiming it back via tax credits (which often pay more than they have paid in taxes anyway).


Bluelady · 11/10/2018 12:02

Pear, that's absolutely spot on. Tax credits and housing benefit both mitigate against decent wages and affordable rents.

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?