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

All our local job centres have closed down I find it strange how they are closing them all down but still expecting people to go to them meaning they have to fork out more money on travel,
When things are already low

So how many 100s of 1000s of families are we talking about? Any idea where all of these millions of extra full-time jobs are going to come from?

Even at minimum wage you wouldn't need to work anywhere near the 30 hours children are in school to earn £100 a week.

jack Childcare workers

I'm not sure in the UK, but in many countries, the minimum wage was fought for and brought in on the idea that it would mean one person could support a family and prevent company vouchers and such. That's been watered down in almost as many places though, frustratingly enough for labour rights on trying to hold businesses accountable.

UC and its changes from tax credits have not been communicated very well. The way it's being rolled out and portrayed pretty much seems designed to panic people because it is so often showed as the old system rolled up to make it easier when it is quite different. It would be better if they weren't needed for those in work, the governments that have been seem to prefer low wages for businesses to pay out and topping that up so people survive over legally requiring higher wages. The reason why there is payment for families or childcare or the lack of effort of loopholes in corporation tax or so many other things is because of what those that built and maintain these policies are trying to encourage to happen, not because that is how it "should" be.

Quite a lot of rhetoric behind it does somewhat ignore the fact there are not the jobs and there will never be 100% full employment of 'working age people' even if that were desirable which is highly debatable. It is a cultural shift for many from childcare outside the family being seen as a luxury to a parent being at home being seen that way. The idea of SAHP doing fuck all and a privileged choice is a big shift for me, and reminds me of places where the same is said of education and health care and business regulations that are seen as basic here. It does seem odd this shift back and forth between whether the businesses people work for or the government is ultimately responsible for ensuring people don't starve and it seems to hit a middle at the moment of 'neither, good luck with that' and demonizing those that struggle and those that complain, and point out that while there is more that could be done to help mothers into work, this doesn't seem meant to help anyone do that, just aggressively punish them if not able to jump high enough.

Yes, there will be plenty of jobs in childcare for these women.

So, we can get women into full time jobs, upon which they may be eligible for tax credits and to do that we need to provide childcare which is then subsidised by the government, and the childcare worker who is now looking after the child and paid at a rate that means they are eligible for tax credits while maybe their own child is in childcare which is subsidised by the government...

Yup, that's a real money spinner.

Great post fuzzy

Lol elementree sadly that is very true

It’s all ideological bollocks isn’t it and will almost certainly cost more than it saves

People with three it more children before the cut off can’t claim UC anyway can they?
That’s only temporary while the IT systems are updated.

I've no particular attraction to a policy aimed at encouraging more people into the workforce, when we as a society don't actually require the wage labour of all our adults to profit, and when in many cases it's not going to cost any less once childcare subsidy is factored in. Thus I see no reason to advocate for it.

But it was hardly a positive thing when people wrongly thought it wasn't a benefit, and had so little idea about where it came from that they could believe it was a tax refund when it's never had anything to do with how much tax you've paid. We should think critically about work, benefits, care of children, what we need and what's best for us as a society. That involves us understanding that tax credits are benefits and money spent on them is money that can't be spent on something else, just as it involves us critically interrogating the idea that people working must automatically cost less than they would at home.

Elementree

once again it will be the women providing the care, not the men going pt to allow the woman to study or have a career themselves.
Y
ou little women who have been sahp's must go and look after other peoples kids, and pay for somebody to look after yours.
Gosh, parents will have their places reserved before they are born, like
they do with posh schools
if you work in after school care, you can care for your own kids in the same club, pay for it, out of the wages you receive for looking after other people's kids.
The world has gone mad, the government own our kids from birth now, so
They are all to be institutionalised by the state

I’m all for benefits when people really need them, but why are we still in a place where people are being subsidised by tax payers to stay at home and not work? I don’t get it, why would anyone feel they are entitled to free money when they are perfectly able to work and earn their own? The country doesn’t have enough money for this to happen, it should be being spent on those who actually need it like the disabled, single parents who have no partner to top up the household income, NHS funds, schools.

why are we still in a place where people are being subsidised by tax payers to stay at home and not work?

This clearly isn't happening.
The gov decide where they use the tax you pay, which is no longer your money when you pay tax. Who they decide to give it to is up to them not a sahm, wohm or dad.
Nobody receives money to sah, low income families receive tc top ups whether they work or not.
Both parents working will receive more tc than if there is a sahp, unless you exceed the cut off for your situation

HTH

I think this is a sensible move. There is no reason why taxpayers should subsidise the lifestyle choices of women (or men) who choose to stay at home when their kids are already at school.

I would far rather put more money into benefits for carers and people with disabilities, many of whom are genuinely unable to work and have been utterly shafted by our current government. Now those people really do deserve a better deal from the state, and we should all be fighting for them to get it.

I do accept that there are some parents who are caught in a pre-diagnosis trap of having to attend loads of appointments/ meetings without qualifying for any benefits. I think we perhaps need some sort of special assistance for people in that situation to tide them over until a conclusion is reached.

Keep those worker bees working and to hell with if it’s the right thing for families.

I don’t agree with benefits to stay at home with your kids, but it shouldn’t need two big wages to just exist either.

They are all to be institutionalised by the state

Not at all. As long as you don't require the state to pay for your children, you are free to stay at home and look after them, home educate them or whatever.

It is rather strange to complain about the state "owning" your children while simultaneously expecting the taxpayer to step up and pay for them.

Actually, given the amount of net income which is required to be a net contributer, how is it economical to force sahm's out to work, to be eligible for tax credits and achieved via subsidised childcare and then take a paid role which means that one other person remains on job seekers allowance.

So when you say The country doesn’t have enough money for this to happen, in respect to sahm's in receipt of tax credits, I would really like to know the logic.

Because it just doesn't make sense to me. Because the alternative seems far more expensive.

If this is the case then it needs to extend to non resident parents in separate families who pay child maintenance.

Currently non resident parents can give up work and live off their partners income to avoid paying child maintenance.

To follow in line with these changes, non resident parents who are not working through choice should be made to sign on to job seekers allowance. But that's a whole other thread, sorry.

Elementtree I don't think it is 'forcing SAHMs out to work'. If people can afford it of course they can stay at home of they wish, but it is a choice not an entitlement. I completely agree that when children are young they may benefit from a parent being at home, and it may not be economical for people on low incomes to pay for childcare full time. But once the children are in school of course people should work rather than relying on the government.

Tax credits has the same rule. Sahp ONLY if the youngest child is under 3. This isn't just 'Universal Credit' fgs.

Alphabravo, since when? My family claimed tax credits in the past while I was a stay at home mum with children over 3.

I’ve just googled that and no tax credits don’t stop because you don’t work and the child is over 3. It even says on the gov page you don’t have to be working to claim tax credits.

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?

Or are we all supposed to go and work in Tesco and do 10am-2pm shifts on a zero hours contract and earn too much then as a household to be eligible for tax credits, but now the wages from job are also covering wrap around care because suddenly 'zero hours' means 38 hours at work on next weeks rota.

Anyone? 🤷🏼‍♀️

It depends if you are claiming as a couple or sp.
We've claimed about 25 years. We get more if I am working than not, obviously with the same circs for both.
Not everybody can afford to live on the top up, so they work ft instead, which usually takes them over the threshold anyway. It isn't a bloody wage, and nor should it be.
A lot more people are going to suffer, unless people are just going to go into forced labour (childcare) Nothing would surprise me, it's sort of like that now. Colleges are full of 16 -18 year olds doing childcare, straight from school with low grade GCSE's.
I live in an area with lots of degeneration, so I see this a lot, plus live near to a college, that I taught at