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:

festiveissues · 11/10/2018 12:03

Well I’d refuse
I have a big family and lots of issues going on plus I have asd
There’s no way I’d job search or work because I need to be at home doing housework , admin for the school, hospital appts etc etc, looking after children before and after school and keeping myself calm and in my routine


Ninoo25 · 11/10/2018 12:03

I think that if there were more part time jobs with flexibility around school hours more SAHPs would work once the youngest was school age and that would reduce the benefit bill by far more than what they’re planning. A lot of SAHPs want to work, just not to the point where they get so little time with their children. I’m a SAHM and where I live jobs seem to be all or nothing. There are well paid jobs in the city about 2hrs from where I live. A lot of families in our area have at least 1 parent working there as wages are so much higher, but you would also typically be out of the house 7am-7pm and that’s if you leave work on the dot! Jobs closer to home don’t really pay enough to cover childcare and have enough left over at the end to make it worth it. As a result there are a lot of people (mainly women) working in the local shops and supermarkets who have previously had high flying jobs, just because it’s the only way they can make it work around childcare. A lot of others don’t work as the part time or flexible jobs just don’t seem to be there. I imagine most people in our area don’t claim the tax credits as it’s quite an affluent area, so most are probably over the threshold.
I think it’s more important to focus on trying to reform the jobs market first to make it work better for households where 2 parents work.


Ohyesiam · 11/10/2018 12:07

I’d that the case? ( historically). I remember starting s business and having to work over 16 hours a week to get family tax credits about 15 years ago.
I’m sure being a fully SAHM wasn’t an option.


Nousernameforme · 11/10/2018 12:09

Tax credits weren't really introduced to help people they were brought in to help business's so they didn't have to pay people so much.

I get ctc and from next year i imagine it will be changed to uc. So i will have to look for work which in turn means my asd son will have to be put in a senior school that is ill equipped to deal with him (Thanks austerity). Then of course when he gets expelled, I will have to quit my job to go back to home educating. We will be in the same situation just with no money for food as that is what our ctc goes on every week.

My partner works shifts so I can't simply get a job around his hours, otherwise i would already have one. And no you don't really get childcare for pre teens with asd.

But hey lazy scroungers like me deserve what we get.


SusanWalker · 11/10/2018 12:15

The problem with this will be if a child has a disability like autism that has not yet been diagnosed. If a parent is being called to the school on a regular basis or the child can't cope with school followed by after school club. It's quite hard to meet the threshold for middle rate care, at which point you can claim carers allowance, especially if you don't yet have a diagnosis or much paperwork to back up your claim as you are at the beginning of assessments.

I know this won't affect the majority of people but it will affect some. I am an LP and was in that situation. I was working but ended up suicidal. DS couldn't cope with school, let alone after school club, he wasn't sleeping so I was going into work on two hours sleep, I was having to call in and say I couldn't go into work as DS couldn't go to school. He was on the waiting list for an autism assessment for two years. I still had to go to court and appeal for middle rate care. The whole thing was horrendous.

If more people claim carers because before they were happy to just claim tax credits and not bother them that's also going to cost the tax payer more money.


Nousernameforme · 11/10/2018 12:22

Well we are going to have to try and claim both dla and carers now.
At the moment we manage so we haven't.
We are not the only ones


MyDcAreMarvel · 11/10/2018 12:26

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

That’s not actually true assuming the sahm has a child under 13 as a household they need to earn nmw x 60 which is approx £24.5k so the Mum could continue to be a sahm and receive UC.


MyDcAreMarvel · 11/10/2018 12:27

Sorry too meant to be in bold.


MyDcAreMarvel · 11/10/2018 12:27



WaitroseCoffeeCostaCup · 11/10/2018 12:28

When our DC were small, DH worked during the day and I've done evening/weekend work so that our DC always had a parent at home. It can be done.

Lucky you. So do a lot of people. It doesn't always mean they earn enough to be able to stop claiming tax credits!


OddBoots · 11/10/2018 12:29

thighofrelief - the subsidised childcare isn't really as much as it looks like at first when you factor in that 15 a week term time (in England) is universally funded so even the children of SAHPs can get it likewise a school place is obviously universally funded.

Long term the government also need to factor in the retirement costs of people including SAHPs. Many SAHPs don't built up private pension savings, working people are now being opted into private pensions so our future retirements are going to be viewed from the point of a state pension being a smaller and smaller top up to people's own provision.


BarbaraofSevillle · 11/10/2018 12:33

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

I don't think this is the case as only a minority of people are entitled to tax credits, ie those with DCs and lower than average household income. No DCs or household income above about £30k, ie 2 x FT NMW equals no tax credits, unless 3+ DCs, so plenty of people will be working for low wages without top ups.

Back to the point of the OP, it was probably an unintended consequence of the tax credit system that unless you can get a well paid job (£30-40k+), there was little difference in take home pay whether you worked 16 hours a week or full time, so lots of people worked minimal hours, or one partner worked full time and one SAH as a lifestyle choice.


SEsofty · 11/10/2018 12:40

Tax credits were to tackle and prevent child poverty without addressing the cause of the problem. Low wages and high rents


RomanyRoots · 11/10/2018 12:49

Will people stop saying that sahp is a lifestyle choice, it is no more so than working.
Some people can't afford to sah, some people can't afford childcare to make it worth working.
It's been well over 20 years that we have been able to sah to raise our children, more like 30 years at least.
I've been claiming for at least 25 years.


Gromance02 · 11/10/2018 12:54

That makes no sense. Children turn into tax paying adults.... Only net contributers if they earn over £27k.


SEsofty · 11/10/2018 12:56

Having children, like any other expense and how you choose to look after them is a lifestyle choice


OddBoots · 11/10/2018 12:57

It seems like one of those things like early retirement that only worked out for one generation. My parents could afford to have a SAHM and for my dad to retire early but their own parents couldn't afford it (both my grandmothers did piecework at home) and we couldn't afford it. Maybe if our country could get back to being more economically successful it will be afforded for future generations too.


Justanotherlurker · 11/10/2018 12:57

Only net contributers if they earn over £27k.

IIRC it is ~£35K


abacucat · 11/10/2018 13:03

Living standards were much much lower when SAHM were more common. And working class men worked long hours. Rents were also cheaper.
You want living standards to improve, then support council house buying. That reduces house prices and rents.


thighofrelief · 11/10/2018 13:06

Can someone tell me what iirc is please?

What is the figure for a net contributor? £27k or £35k? Does that mean that every single person who earns less than that costs the economy more than they put in?


Barbie222 · 11/10/2018 13:06

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 not an entitlement is it? We need to stop thinking this way and start thinking about the nuts and bolts of what we can afford and what we can't, or it just sounds like whinging. Lots of people here aren't thinking outside the box or seeing the bigger picture. And no one is forcing people to work - just removing a tax break. Things like this happen in life and you have to reevaluate your situation and make changes. As a pp said there's a lot worse about universal credit than this.


peardropexplodes · 11/10/2018 13:12

Ironically it is the financialisation of society (fraction reserve banking)(and feminism) that has encouraged the growth of 2 x wage earners which means that banks can lend out more credit (debt) for mortgages (and make bigger profits) which in turn has pushed up house prices which means that 2 x wage earners are needed to service said mortgage ad infinitum...


lifebegins50 · 11/10/2018 13:15

I don't claim however I don't think anyone chooses benefits as a lifestyle choice, where are the flexible jobs that enable a parent to look after a sick child or school inset days?
In recent times jobs that were available for "mums" have disappeared as employees know it costs more to employ a p/t person rather than fulltime.
The assumption with most work places is for longer hours than contracted.

I really don't think anyone should begrudge sah as the benefit is only there if you earn a low wage.
Most people would like a well paid job that also allows them to be a parent to dc.
Dc do need support, all the studies show family life is more stressful and children's mental health is suffering.

perhaps get employers to be more supportive of family life and you will see real change.


peardropexplodes · 11/10/2018 13:19

In recent times jobs that were available for "mums" have disappeared as employees know it costs more to employ a p/t person rather than fulltime.

Not true. It actually benefits businesses to hire part time workers as it means less employers NI to pay and they can employ 2 x part time workers (who will be subsidised by tax credits) without the cost of extra NI that they would pay with one full time worker. Suits both the employer and employee (who gets a similar income to a full time employee because it is topped up by tax credits but only has to work part time).

That is why there has been such a growth in part-time jobs (which they Government can use to fiddle the employment statistics and claim we have full employment when in reality a lot of employment is low paid, part-time and subsidised by benefits).


BarbaraofSevillle · 11/10/2018 13:25


While obviously I agree that women should be allowed to buy property in their own right it didn't necessarily have to follow that both incomes were taken account of when approving mortgages.

Banks could have lent based solely on the highest salary, whichever partner that was and that would have meant that house prices wouldn't have risen so much and it wouldn't have been necessary to have 2 incomes to buy a property.

People buying on their own would have found it easier and as it is probably quite rare for 2 earner couples for both of them to work full time throughout the entire term of the mortgage (so no periods of unemployment, illness or SAH parenting, parental leave etc) less likely to struggle in periods of lower income or higher costs such as high childcare costs.

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?