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?

It was 16 when I had my first. Living on benefits is incredibly tough.

I think we don't value the importance of mothers these days.

I went to work early on, but I can't imagine being annoyed at mum's of preschoolers not "working". Looking after young children is an incredibly important job.

It’s true though. You set your life up before you have kids as that’s what you’re told to do. Career and mortgage first then kids. DH earns too much for us to be eligible for UC but not quite enough to cover all our outgoings. Yes we could downsize our house or not have bought at all but there’d be no chance of a council house for us and rent on a smaller house would be more then our mortgage where we are in the south east. One our joint income we are very comfortable but on just DHs we would be in that squeezed middle bracket with none of the benefits being on UC brings. So no, not that easy to just have one stay home.

@Overthebow ok and what if you don't earn enough to ever be able to get a mortgage? When me and ex dp were looking we were eligible to borrow 100K which would buy us precisely nothing in the city we live in.
How long do you put off having children until this miraculous middle class job appears?
Or the housing market crashes?
There are not enough 'careers'.
You will have your house at the end of your life to hand onto your children. The people renting won't. That's your reward.

I couldn’t agree more

It's over £2000 a month for nursery fees where I am

It's obviously cheaper for the government to have a parent stay home until compulsory education

Maybe this is where they will make some savings on the welfare bill?

Yes, but a lot of mothers barely cover childcare costs when they go back after Mat Leave. That isn't really the point. It's demoralising when people are gutted about sending their 1 year old to nursery, handing over 90% of their wage for the privilege of them crying at drop off and bringing home the plague, and those on benefits get 3 years!

My neighbours a few years ago , husband a decorator paid cash in hand and declaring 12k income, , so no tax paid. Wife sahp for 3 years with child who is 8 now . They got their rent paid , a significant portion of 1500, child tax credits,child benefit and I don't know what else. Boy goes to school now , wife also works cash in hand , declares the basic.

Reality is they live well, they go to Poland several times a year for holiday .

Their son attends multiple clubs and takes music lessons.

I'm not saying this is everyone .. but a lot of people know how to game the system. With employer NI. Increases, this will encourage the black market more and the welfare bill to rise.

@App13 if I had £ every time I heard things like this... well I wouldn't need UC anymore. What you're describing is benefit fraud and not the average UC claimant. It would be like me saying 'I know a man, he was a solicitor and he was actually working for two firms at the same time; so you know all solicitors are really well off!' What you're describing is a criminal activity.
Have you ever considered living like them? If so what stops you?
I'll tell you about my situation. I had a month off work unpaid whilst I was waiting to start a new job. Single parent, Two kids, no living costs, £955. That's the reality. That's the life of Riley people envy.
If I had my rent paid, I wouldn't actually be loads better off. Because they don't pay full rent. Yes I feel for renters who don't get UC and are just over but I don't feel sorry for homeowners. It's not like anyone conned you, you bought a house, you knew that the mortgage was yours to pay. And I say that as a homeowner.

@App13 FYI child tax credits don't exist anymore. Most people get child benefit. You're describing a situation which would be impossible to replicate now as UC mandates work searches and gets much more info from DWP, like I said, they even check your bank statements for unexplained income.

This thread is disgusting. Maybe if people minded their own business and kept out of others? Never judge life can change in a heartbeat as I have recently found out

There would be hardly any threads on MN if people stopped asking questions and for the opinion of users.

My post was replying to the pp who was saying people could be SAHM if they changed their lives and didn’t understand why higher income families can’t always afford to have a sahm. My point is it’s not that easy to be able to afford it and a sahm is a luxury to many people.

Every child should have a parent with them during the day up until the age of three. It used to happen. That's how I grew up.

I actually partly agree OP, on the basis of the new funded hours being lowered to younger ages. But the availability of childcare is certainly a big problem.

I totally understand the arguments that for some parents the paid for childcare would equate to more £ than the UC the gov is paying, but I think we need to consider longer term benefits of having people in work. It could be that the added work experience means that by the time the child is 4ish the parent could have been promoted or moved to a role with better pay, due to having more experience. They might be paying into a workplace pension (some will opt out) which will help for future pensions, as we're all aware the state pension as it currently stands isn't sustainable for future generations. More people in the workforce can help increase UK productivity over time. There's schools of thought that working parents provide an example to their children in terms of organically instilling work-ethic into future generations (certainly debatable at young ages though as arguably kids won't really know!). Basically, the issue is more than just a comparison of what is costs in £ to fund childcare hours vs UC.

To be honest, this is what i was told by the said person doing this. She also has multiple friends doing the same. which she too alluded to. they obviously arent putting the cash in their accounts. why would they? they just pay cash for anything they can.

But you don't have to go back after maternity leave. You could go on benefits and stay at home until your child is 3. No one is stopping you.
The problem is, you wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle that you have now.

I completely agree and written this word for word. Certainly, because I went to work very quickly, albeit part time, I now earn about 3 times as much as I did when I had my first child. If I had stayed off for 6/7 years to cover them both to school I would have gone back nervous, to a more junior role and would have found harder to start climbing the career ladder again. So even though I worked for free essentially as my childcare was taken up by my salary, long term I have earned it back and I can invest that money in children.

That’s great from a career pov but it’s not great in terms of child development. The effects of early childcare are often not seen until later on in life. As a society, we need to stop seeing children as a burden and a barrier to working. Most people don’t appreciate how important those first formative years are. With some effort, you can rebuild you’re career but you can’t go back to your children being babies and toddlers.

I'm on UC I'm a carer for my 18 year old son with SN Also have life changing injuries from a accident in 2013 so I don't work. But hey feel free to swop.