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?

A relative of mine is on UC, her youngest is 13, two older adult kids both in work. Council house tenancy but hasn't worked a day in her adult life since she had her first at 16.
I believe she pulled the youngest out from school and deregister him to 'homeschool' him which maybe how she is staying on benefits.

She is fit, young (compared to me) and healthy. I don't understand how she manages not to work and she most definitely isn't.

Exactly as UC pay up to 85% of childcare and that’s expensive for under 3 years . It’s much cheaper for the taxpayer / government to pay UC and allow one parent to be a sahp rather than paying thousands in nursery fees

If it's so great why don't you go on UC and live that lifestyle?

I’m with you OP. Even if it is more efficient to keep them at home than pay for childcare, it’s good for people to get back into the habit of work. If you want to stay at home with your children, fund it yourself.

What’s with the benefit bashing threads today?

I home educate my dc it’s not accepted as a reason to not work under UC . I get carers allowance as they have SEN but if you are just home educating a child who isn’t getting dla you don’t have work commitments turned off

All parents or just those on UC? I have a 4 year old and a 1 year old and I don’t get a pass, I have to work. I don’t see having to work once a child is 1 is too much of a hardship seeing as lots of us do just that.

Wasn't it 12 years under Brown's tax credits?

Home ed doesn't entitle you to additional benefits.

The way you wrote the post indicates that you think being a stay at home parent is easier/more desirable than being in paid work which isn't true for lots of people. I think time and happiness is more important than money, especially a measly bit of money added only because businesses don't pay their employees decent wages. The government is basically subsidising businesses who don't pay their staff properly. They also pay lots of UC to landlords indirectly paying their mortgages for them while refusing to pay claimants mortgages directly so they can have secure housing.

It did i had a friend maybe 20.years ago who had two kids mid teens and was able to stay home.

Ooh this thread will be great for my Mumsnet Bingo card... Benefits bashing and probably only another couple of posts before I can cross off SAHP bashing too!

Yawn

I went back to work after 2 weeks, I guess anyone else taking 6 months off is just bone idle

Meh, I stayed at home for years under the old style tax credits whilst my kids dad worked.......you could also argue what's the point in having kids to pay someone else to raise them ? Especially for those in low paid work where the cost of childcare for the government will far exceed the cost of tax credits and any tax paid will be negligible.

I agree op. As most people do in the real world. It’s not benefits bashing to say it, at all. I think we make it much to easy for people to languish on state handouts. The longer they go on for, the harder it is to return to any kind of professional employment and a life of dignity.

Try going back to work with a one year old who doesn't sleep through the night yet, still breastfeeding, with zero partner to share the household, parenting, mental and financial load with.

Not all uc claimants are single mothers!

These benefits bashing threads are awful. Is this something to do with the government slashing the welfare bill?

This!

The other thing is, let's say a child has SEN and struggles with nursery, and the parent is already putting in extra work meeting those extra needs (which do show up in babies but not always recognised by medical practitioners), most SEN issues wouldn't be recognised externally until the child is around three plus, so it would be unfair to push a parent into work who may actually end up having to be a carer, and whose child could take a while to get approved for the DLA, which would trigger the carer status.

I agree with you OP. We have so much protection in place for pregnant employees and those returning from maternity leave that there’s no real reason why those on UC shouldn’t go back to work after a year.

This is a situation where people who are lucky enough to get social housing are the winners. People who have tried to provide for their own families by buying a home before having children can’t afford to have a SAHP for three years because they have to pay for the roof over their heads. It’s simply not fair that others who are taking more from the system can have the luxury of a SAHP paid for by those who have to work.

No, but these rules protect those who are, even if the benefit bashers don't like it...

More than 50% of the "giant" welfare bill is pensions and related benefits.

😁 It's not dignified to care for your young children? Gosh, and to think I did it without sticking my hand in the state's pocket.