Do you judge single mums who claim benefits to be able to stay home with DC?

[username00000]

Specifically DC before school age.

I definitely wouldn't judge. I worked when mine were little and it was hard for not much reward. I never earnt much, and I certainly cost the taxpayer more in top ups than I would have done if I'd been unemployed. The vast bulk of the top ups went on rent and childcare too. So the taxpayer was really just paying other people, not me ie various landlords, after school clubs and holiday clubs and so on.

Was it a good use of taxpayer money? I dunno really. The rent money basically funded other people's property investments. The childcare money allowed other women to get a low wage for looking after my children so that I could also earn a low wage.

Most days I was frazzled. You don't have to be a captain of industry to find working stressful when you have a household to run as well. In fact arguably it's more stressful: there certainly wasn't any "outsourcing" of cleaning, ironing etc and with low paid low status jobs comes a real sense of precariousness, where you panic when the kids are ill because they can and do sack you, you can't say no to staying longer even when it means you'll get financially penalised by the childcare, getting anywhere whether to work or nursery takes longer because you're on the bus, you're at the mercy of so many different things that you have no ability to control because you just don't have much money but still you are expected to do everything faultlessly.

So I absolutely understand why people would not want that for themselves or their children. It's a poor trade.

I think it has been built so that people aren’t penalised for going over the 16 hour a week hours cap.

I think it has also been designed to be flexible, to fit in with the zero hours contracts work patterns. So a claimant can work 20 hours a week one week and 24 the next (for example) and not be penalised.

I’ve read that this is what is supposed to happen but don’t know if it actually works in practice.

DH and SciFi

Definitely a real post, as I said we are all different. If you want to have 7 years off, then take them and live accordingly.
I've been a sahm for 30 years, it was best for me and my family.

Romany how can you be a sahm for 30years let go at some point! But seriously that is an awful thing to admit.

@harolds
You’ve touched on another good point.

Housing benefit is paid to the landlords of those on a low income (it may pass through the bank account of the claimant but it is essentially paying for an asset of the landlord). I wouldn’t have an issue if this state money was being used to build more social housing but due to our messed up housing market it isn’t.

I think there's a typo, if I read correctly it's 3 years, going for a total of 7 years

with a business for 4 years but clearly not paying tax on that one

You could also ban people on benefit from going abroad and keeping their money for the local tourist industry instead of bringing currency abroad whilst you are there

In fil's care home the Matron told me that the pay is good, the contracts very fair and there is lots of flexibility.

Of course she did. Bollocks! I have countless friends in that industry - you're expected to take any shift on a 24/7 schedule, the pay is shit, mostly zero hours, many expect you to spend the night there for no extra pay, inadequate training and support for the highly physical job it is, often left alone with violent patients. It doesn't pay enough for the expected job and often has shitty conditions, with cuts cuts and more cuts to the social care budget. That's why they can't fill the vacancies and have high turnover.

I think it has also been designed to be flexible, to fit in with the zero hours contracts work patterns. So a claimant can work 20 hours a week one week and 24 the next (for example) and not be penalised.

I’ve read that this is what is supposed to happen but don’t know if it actually works in practice.

It doesn't work well in practice. It's punitive in practice. What happens is the system cannot accommodate such flexibility so the UC just stops for weeks and weeks or more because the person's work pattern is fluid.

MyDH

My business doesn't make money yet, I'm just setting up for the next few years.

SciFi
What do you mean, let go? Two are adults, one left home with own family, other to leave very soon, with his fiance, and one dd still dependant who boards.
May sound awful to you but has been best for my family, especially dd.

Is universal credit not supposed to solve this problem.

Universal credit has made it worse imo. If your assessment period ends near the date you get paid, and you get paid early, you're very likely to be entitled to nothing the following month. So they close your claim, without any warning.

Then, when you find out you haven't got the UC payment you were expecting, you have to start your claim all over again, provide all the evidence and wait 5 weeks (minimum) subsisting on just your wages and child benefit.

It's highly unlikely you'll be able to pay your rent in full. As soon as your rent is 2 months in arrears (which it will be: as UC pays in arrears, almost everyone relying on it is a month in arrears most of the time), your landlord is likely to issue a notice seeking possession. Homelessness beckons, and if you and your kids end up homeless because of rent arrears, the council won't help you because you'll be intentionally homeless.

And that, dear readers, is one of the reasons I moved out of homelessness prevention and into benefit advice.

@romanyqueen
People like you are what has made the benefits system unsustainable and unpopular, amongst those who contribute, resulting in both a more punitive system and less money and resources being available for those people who are in situations they can’t help, such as the disabled.

@lakielady
Thanks, I receive some top up benefits but I earn 28k so am not on the radar of the DWP (yet anyway!).

The thought never crossed my mind.

I have enough going on in my life, to concern myself with other people's decisions.

Yes. Everyone that can work (and doesn't have the means to rely on private assets/income) should work. Benefits should be the safety net for those with no choice, not those making a lifestyle choice.

It depends my neighbour boasts about her benefits says things like why should I work when other people can do it for me, she also boasts about never missing a school event, having a sparkling clean house, always being there when her kids get home from school. She loves to tell us how shocking it is so many woman dont take care of themselves. Her kids are 6 and 9 walk 20 mins to and from school alone across a busy road so she has about 34 hours a week to herself to clean and do her nails.

I judge her mostly because shes a free loader who could work and chooses not to.

I also have a neighbour who lost her husband very suddenly 2 years ago kids a similar age and her husband died in front of them so she's taking her time before going back to make sure the kids are really settled before she changes things up again I don't judge her at all.

What I find most annoying is the assumption that single mothers must have low paid jobs and/or be on benefits, most women work before they become single parents and carry on working.

LoveTheLakes

So what? I filled in a form in 1994 sent by HMRC under John Major government. Strangely enough the word benefit wasn't used i have continued to complete annually.
When I did 8 hours a week as a bookkeeper for my dh, we got lots more tc with me working and classed as employed. I don't do this now, he does his own, but I do help him for free, sometimes if he needs me.
So maybe blame the government for us being in this position.

I work, have disabilities and am a single mum. I’d give anything to give up work and focus on my health and my kids but unfortunately this isn’t an option for me as I have a mortgage and the benefits system isn’t set up to subsidise people who pay a mortgage.
I don’t judge exactly, I’m just very very jealous, frustrated and exhausted !

I became a single parent of 3 when my youngest was 1. I moved (through necessity) to a rural area where I knew no one. I found it impossible to juggle childcare and work at that point, the help from working tax credits towards childcare did not cover the commute there and back, and made it financially impossible.

I stayed at home then did an Access course in the youngest's preschool year. I started uni the same year she started school. It has been life changing. I have a career now, my earning potential is greater and I can offer my children more opportunities.

Stay at home OP, make a plan, and put it into action when the time is right.

@romanyqueen
You don’t feel guilty about depriving the disabled, carers of the disabled, single mothers of young children etc of money?

Piss takers like you are what has made the benefits system unpopular and now it is being dismantled so the genuinely deserving are living in poverty.

LoveTheLakes

Didn't you just say you got top ups.
All the money saved from austerity and those on 60k who used to get benefit, didn't go to those who needed it.
This government have shafted the disadvantaged, not me. I don't care what you think as you don't know my circumstances, if it makes you better to blame me, then go ahead.

@romanyqueen
Piss takers like you aren’t popular on this thread, or in real life.

I work full time and receive child benefit, plus some help with childcare for my youngest. I am not scamming the system.

There was no help with childcare when mine were little, if you didn't have the money or free help from family childcare wasn't possible. It was few and far between too, not many providers about there.
It was as expensive as now too.
I'm not scamming any system, all our income is given to HMRC, we're all legal, no scamming here.
You are lucky to be able to work and it be best for your family.
I would have done the same had it been best for mine.

I think plenty used tax credits as Romany did and then people wonder why changes etc were introduced.

Eight hours is just enough to add to a partners sixteen to make the twenty four needed together for the minimum number of hours. Usually minimum wage only taken from the SE. IIRC, one bought a house pretty much this way on MN.