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?

The Spring financial statement is going to be about cutting benefit entitlements. There's no other choice, having already increased tax on the well- to-do, IHT and pensioners. Or the Government can add a penny on the pound to income tax for everyone, and it would still be much lower than income tax in the 1970s, when even the lowest rate was 33% plus national insurance. There is a reason that old people get a bit salty. In our youth (yes, we were once young) our basic rate of tax was a third higher than now.

Hmm. The happiest children in the world are Scandinavian, the part of the world where high quality childcare is most heavily subsidised and children are highly encouraged to go from age 1. These countries are successful by instilling the notion that all adults should work to pay taxes and help provide the best public services in the world.

People not on UC really don’t understand it.
It sucks. The system is hard to use and easy to make simple mistakes that mean you don’t get your payment for that month.

I am a single mum to twins and another child. I went back to work when the twins were 9 months old because UC isn’t enough to live off. I am a teacher with a mortgage so really don’t fit the classic view of a benefits claimant.
UC help me pay my massive childcare bill so that I can work. But UC have full access to my bank statements and I recently had a review where I had an hour long phone call going through my spendings for the last 4 months. I also have to pay the childcare costs upfront and wait a month or sometimes longer for the money back from UC. This works the opposite way that tax free childcare uses which adds the 20% upfront.
please research properly before stating some of the hurtful opinions on this thread.
there are more UC people in work than out!

If that were true children from families on benefits would have better outcomes. It is nice for the mums but the kids would do better with the professional input nursery's give. Being able to provide for your child is good parent 101.

Absolutely not, bad enough that women are still forced to stay with crap men because facing financial difficulties or losing their family home is to hard to recover from. It certainly shouldn’t be reverted back to the typical set up. Hopefully in a society that realises that a woman’s worth is more than childbearing, it gives more power in the future to understand that if a woman decides to have them, everyone should be bloody grateful. And as someone who’s generally anti identity politics, I think your identity dig at the end is pretty pathetic.

Yes good point

Indeed

I'm a single mum of 2 in a professional job and get a UC top up. If I quit my job I'd be eligible for £1k of benefits a month which might sound like a lot but it wouldn't cover my mortgage and bills let alone food and school uniform etc.

There’s a link between mental health issues in teens/young adults and early start at a childcare setting/being separately from the mum at an early age. 1 to 1 care, ideally with a stay at home (and emotionally stable) mum is optimal.

👏👏

In March 2000, I went back to work after six months. I was self-employed so would not have qualified for support. My maternity pay lasted six weeks. DH had a new business, so I earned several times what he earned. So I worked, we had a nanny from 9-6, who brought her toddler with her to work for us, and DH picked up the hours before I got home, often at 10:30 or later.

Before that 2006, it was 16. You had to start thinking about it when they were 13, but we're under no obligation till 16.

https://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/4271/

Massive generalisation though. Every family is different. I enjoyed my time with my child at home but she was crazily active- I could not stimulate her enough if I tried. Being at nursery was brilliant for her- the activities, the play time, the socialisation. I wasn’t cut out for setting up activities for 10 hours a day every single day. Having a balance is a wonderful thing. The phrase ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ is very apt. Children never used to be raised with just their mum alone for the first few years- they would be surrounded by a variety of people . That really doesn’t exist very often anymore.

Not true.

Edited to add that it only affects a single person under the age of 35 who would usually only be entitled to the shared house rate. They would now qualify for the one bed rate if they got PIP. Otherwise the LHA still applies.

What on earth is the last part of that post about?

I don’t think children need to or should be simulated 10 hours a day. It’s good for them to have a bit of a quiet time or even to get bored. Sounds like maybe being a SAHM wasn’t for you and that’s ok. I do think though that staying at home with children up to 3 years old (for those wanting to be SAHMs) should be more normalised in this country.

Is that a question to me or OP?

Plenty of people do/did exactly that. Including me. It's bloody hard but it was my choice to have a child and my job to support them.

If any of her kids are in receipt of dla she won’t have the work commitment

I'd be very surprised, two are adults and working, the youngest is fit and healthy, no SEN that is apparent.

My 7yr old grandson is autistic and has ADHD, has an EHCP but in mainstream school, his single parent mum manages 25 hours a week at work and has her own challenging mental health issues.
I think in many cases it's a 'won't work' rather than a can't work.

Well we can’t afford the current levels of welfare if we are to defend ourselves, so you’ll probably fund some fairly radical welfare cuts in the pipeline.

Where are your sources for this? As in, peer reviewed journals?

My son is autistic and in receipt of dla, we both work full time, I just know it removes the requirement from uc to search for work but doesn’t mean you can’t work

I didn’t go back to work until my youngest child went to secondary school (so 15 years). Admittedly I didn’t claim any benefits but obviously I believe in children being cared for full time by a parent in their early years.

BUT it concerns me that some people seem to have children in order to stay in the benefits train.

I don’t think there is any perfect answer sadly.