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 really has been.

These posts just bring out the worst in people, absolutely no compassion at all for anyone else. I cannot get over the vitriol that some people spew towards anyone who dares to need benefits, or even worse, has a disability.

It's just a race to the bottom while all the big companies and mega-wealthy businesses laugh up their sleeves.

It is a piss take but it's paid with the welfare of the child in mind. In this way, you could argue that the children of unworking parents sometimes benefit from more time with their parents, as being separated from them during the early years has been shown to adversely affect development and mental health later in life. However there will be more variables that affect these too, such as those not working will be less likely to have studied to a high level, and will be more likely to live in poverty. But it is quite unfair that there are different options for most working people, who are back in work within a year.

Quite ...I'm questioning why I had to work through having chemo to pay my mortgage and not risk repossession yet some perfectly fit and able women with teenage children don't have to work. I don't understand it at all.

Sounds like you didnt really want to go back to work, but were under financial pressure

Did you explore the benefits that the government offers to financially support people to enable them to look after young children, or did you not bother and just chose the path of least resistance? Obviously if you have a high salary and have overextended yourself financially you just have to suck up your poor prior financial decisions.

Sounds like you have got your finances better sorted for your subsequent children so that you don't have to work just to keep food on the table, regardless of what is best for you and your child so well done you for bettering your circumstances and properly investigating your options.

Have a cookie.

To be fair there is a massive issue with flexibility within jobs. Even your bog standard minimum wage supermarket jobs require weekend and late evening work or your application is automatically denied. We're stuck in a situation where you need 2 incomes to support a household but few jobs allowing for school hours or weekends off. Also, retirement age has gone up meaning less grandparents around to help out. I honestly don't know how it can be fixed

Its the same reason working class women did not use to work in the daytime until government helped with childcare costs. Unless you have family who will look after your child for free, nursery cost is usually not much less than take home from minimum wage job.

You have an idealised version of life, some of us are educated, work long hours and get barely paid above minimum wage, in the NORTH !!

And we don’t get universal credit either .

It was 16 when my oldest was little.

What perfectly fit and able women with teenage children don't have to work?

That's not how UC works at all.

This is from the government UC page - if you have teenagers you're expected to work for 35 hours per week.

I'm sorry you're having to work through chemo, that must be absolutely rotten. But you've got your facts wrong re mothers with teenagers - they are absolutely expected to work full-time.

@LadyLapsang I can imagine!

You’d have to be single to qualify for any UC payment until your child is 3.
If you had a partner (joint claim) working, youd be entitled to nothing, or very close to nothing,
apart from Child Benefit, which even those on a good income are entitled to & most claim.

You must question even more why NRP/childless men manage to didgeridoo work. I think that the focus should be on re/extra training for the over 45s, to get them back into work, rather than look to Mum's of babies and toddlers. Then penalise employers that no longer do fixed shifts and want complete flexibility for a min wage 16 hour a week job. Another problem is that our high streets are being turned into hospitality destinations and retail etc is a trek away, without adequate public transport.

We have a falling birth rate, if the poor/young stop knocking out children, we'll be in shit street.

I think the answer to your question is very obvious OP. How do you think somebody on UC could pay for childcare?

Its now 3, someone up thread commented it used to be 6. Years ago it was 12 and prior to that 16! Times they are a changin' (Cheers Bob Dylan)

It won’t be this way much longer. Plenty of people are going to start losing their jobs or see their rate of pay drop drastically and they just don’t realise it. Sure people like the op here won’t be sneering at themselves when they’re applying for benefits. They’ll be crying about how unfair it all is and how they deserve help.

article here on why the word benefits needs to be abolished btw.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/budget-2015-why-do-we-call-social-security-payments-benefits-they-are-a-right-not-a-reward-10371354.html

Have you applied? You could be entitled.

The misinformation on these threads is always staggering.

Not true.

On the other hand, I don’t know any mums who went back to work full time until their kids were in secondary school. And I’m sure when my kids were younger, single parents weren’t expected to go back to work at all until their kids were 12. I was surprised recently when I found out it had dropped down to 3 years old

so let me get this right, you think we should be living in a backwards country where mothers are forced to leave their 6 month olds in childcare all day? Strange view

I completely agree too! The benefits system is not sustainable as it is. It is stretched so thin and those most vulnerable are just falling though the cracks as there isn’t enough. We need an overhaul and people need to make decision according to what they can and cannot afford.

Absolutely incorrect! We qualify when we are BOTH working due to high rent/childcare costs.

My Husband walked out on me and my 2 children both under age 3 last year. I became a single parent. I work in a profession where i have to confirm every year I am working to keep my registration up. I went back to work part time because I need to work for my mental health and also my registration.

I earn £1500 per month
Childcare is £1504 per month
My private rent is £900 per month

If IC didn't help me I would be f**ked.

Even though UC pays 85% of childcare costs?

But some people always will work. I had two under two. My partner and I were food retail workers (you know those types Mumsnet sneers at until a pandemic happens) we got full tax credits. I went back to work when my son was seven months.
We didn't get UC due to our 'earnings' and so I wouldn't have worked until my daughter went to school.
The more childcare is subsidised, the more women go back to work. It's not rocket science.
Many women who stop working when little Elise is born never go back. I would bet my popcorn that there are statistics to back up the theory that the longer women stay away from the workplace, the less likely they are to get back into paid employment.
Work ethic is work ethic. I have to earn a wage. It's fundamental to my self esteem. For others it's not. No judgement!! We're all different.