To wonder why UC claimants don’t have to work until their babies are three, when virtually everyone else has to?

[SeeYouLaterCrocodile]

I don’t know anyone who’s stayed off work until their kid was three. The vast majority go back after a year because that’s what they can afford. Why should they be working to pay tax for the jobless to stay at home for thrice as long?

🤔

In a sense no you aren’t unreasonable, however that’s the age historically that the funding kicked in for childcare. It wouldn’t have made sense financially or otherwise for those on UC with children under the age of 3 to work (for them or the government).

It’s from nine months in September, but I haven’t heard of any corresponding changes to UC.

I think you're annoyed at the wrong people.
I'm not going to work properly until my children go to school (I'm not on UC)

Surely it depends what they used to do? Some jobs (eg retail and hospitality ) demand full flexibility including nights and weekends which you can’t get paid childcare for.
It’s probably set at age 3 because that when subsidised hours started so it became financially possible for some work.

You may have given the government the idea to lower the work requirement to 9 months now that it’s the age where funded hours kick in.

I imagine it's because it's cheaper for the public purse, and therefore a more prudent use of tax to pay them UC to stay at home with their own child than it is to pay childcare costs through UC so their child can be looked after in a nursery. It certainly won't be because the government decided to wantonly splurge your hard earned taxes on making their life nicer than yours.

I would guess it's probably more cost effective for the government to pay benefits to the parents than to subsidise childcare for that age range, but I don't know for sure.

Cross poss with @5128gap

Great minds and all that!

It was 6 when my DC were small, and I think it had previously been higher than that.
And anyone can 'choose' not to go back to work. They'll just have to adjust their life accordingly.

I thought it was because that was the age the childcare funded hours started. They’ve changed now and will be 30 funded hours from this September so I assumed the requirement for working would also change to match, but I’m probably wrong.

I think decades ago, single parents could claim income support until their child was 12!

On a basic level usually the people who need UC are not ones going into well paid jobs after having a child. They’re the ones doing the jobs that keep society ticking over, invisibly working long hours, dealing with the public, doing dirty work. If they go back to work earning minimum wage then the tax payer picks up the bill anyway. Also those jobs are by and large not child friendly hours.
It’s a good job they are having kids, because we are running off a cliff. So on paper even though they shouldn’t be having kids- we need them to. Funding childcare from 3 months would be a better solution.

My child got 15 hours free at nursery from the term after his third birthday. (A few years ago now) So I assume it's to correlate with those sorts of rules. I am aware there's a plan to change the childcare system though.
I didn't work at the time, my partner did and I was at home. Not judging anyone who does or doesn't work with a 3 year old.

Most people on UC also work. It's a top up.

Can we stop with the benefits bashing on this website already?! Picking on the poorest and vulnerable AGAIN. Blame the politicians instead.

Quit your job, claim UC, stay off til your kid is 3 if you're so jealous.

Problem solved.

I have a feeling that it used to be 16 at one point!

Well many, many stay at home on UC AND also take advantage of the free nursery hours. So your value for money justification goes out the window.

We can't afford the giant welfare bill in this country, so I agree Op. I was back at work when my eldest was 6 months old, as we couldn't afford it.

So many people just expect the state to step in now and something needs to change.

Yawn….this again.

When you're on UC, you have to jump every time they click their fingers. No matter how unreasonable their request is, or how ridiculous, there's no arguing.

Complying with every single meeting, at the day and time they specify can be incredibly difficult. It also can be very onerous to prove that you've been looking for work and complying with the "commitments".

I don't know about you, but I'm happy to give parents with young children a pass. It's bloody hard juggling work with raising a toddler, and there are very few jobs that have child-friendly hours - assuming you have childcare, of course.

Raising children is an important job and if parents want to work part-time or stay at home until the child is three, I don't think that's a burning issue. There's plenty of other problems with our country's finances, so punching down on parents who are on a low income feels like a shitty thing to do.

Yes, that’s why.

Not with children under the age of 3 they don't which is what the threads about, unless they're disabled a carer, or about to start a job.

Oh good, it had been five minutes since the last benefits bashing thread, was getting worried people had given up on it. But this one has the bases for a full wind up, both disinformation and a bit of stirring!

It’s not a case of signed off from working until the child turns three, there is a build up for when the child reaches that age with back to work meetings and such. It’s not as easy as simply just ‘going back to work’, the cost of childcare and what work you are able to do have also got to be considered. Not everyone can get a well paying 9-5 type job, not everyone had a spouse or family to help out.