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?

Terrific Twos is 15 free hours for children whose household income is under 16k (I believe) a year. It’s to give children from impoverished backgrounds a good start to the education system and gives the parents an opportunity to start building up to the 3 years expectation to go back to work. I believe if your child has other factors involved they can also have pre-3 free 15 hours free childcare. Not every childcare setting or nursery offers it though.

As long as parents then dont expect grandparents over 45 to provide free childcare Which they wont be able to do if they are working..........till 67/68 now

exactly. If one person in a couple meets the AET as well they are allowed for the other to stay at home that’s their choice and some families have circumstances where that works out best for them .

They could be - it would depend on their housing costs.

There is a real shortage of childcare for younger children around here.

We didn’t find a childcare setting able to accommodate my youngest for the full hours we needed, until just after he turned two. We looked at splitting his time between settings (various childminders and nurseries) but the availability didn’t line up. We aren’t eligible for universal credit anyway. But no amount of sanctions / pressure was going to move us up the waiting lists. He attends a school nursery part time now. They admit children from the term after their second birthday. But they only offer half as many 2 year old places as they do 3-4 year olds.

Before the government can insist people work from their chid turning 9 months, they need to ensure there’s childcare spaces for everyone.

The miseducation on this thread is so funny.
'Well you get..' no you don't
'Well I know someone who...' no you don't
'Well I was told...' no you weren't
Honestly it's embarrassing for you.
If you think you're so much worse off, give up your jobs, sell your houses, go to the emergency housing service, go on UC and just see what it's like.
No security. No reliability. No compassion. You miss an appointment because you had to pick your vomiting child up from school, you are sanctioned. Doesn't matter if you left a note on your journal. Work searches, bank statements vetted, and they find so many reasons to not pay the 85% childcare. I spent over a thousand last summer and I got £309 back.
I work full time. I have a degree and a masters. I put my kids in every breakfast, afterschool, holiday club going. I miss all the stuff you other working mums do such as assemblies, sports day, Friday afternoons in the park. So you resent my £176 if you want.

I assume it down to the lack of childcare - children are expensive.

Yes it was, I had DD1 in 1999 and I claimed Income Support as a single parent, and they didn't expect me to seek work until she was 16. At some point it was lowered, perhaps when she was about 10? But by then she started getting DLA so I could continue getting IS as a Carer with no work requirements (until I was migrated to UC, but I still have no work requirements).

I put in our situation when my ex started working as a teacher on turn2us. Putting in the same claim on the income he started on and myself not working/no childcare fees/no DLA claim gave us 1k a month UC (though was probably a couple of hundred less due to inflation). So yes, BS.

Ive always wondered if its more about idealogy than money because surely it costs more for them to pay wage top ups and childcare than out of work benefits but you have just answered my question. They make it break even by not paying all the childcare they are supposed to

Er because from free there’s free childcare which means people dont find themselves working at a loss. Obviously.

Interesting you find it fair. It’s women it hits. 71% are lone mothers.

Those amounts are already for outside London. There’s no way you can afford to live in London if you’re benefit capped. Someone with three kids would have about £40 a week to live on after private rent.

Working doesn’t remove the benefit cap unless you earn over £793 (after tax and NI). This is 16 hours per week at national living wage. How do you pay for childcare if your kid’s 0-3 years and you’re on minimum wage? Or even if your kid’s over 3 and you only get free nursery for 15hrs a week? Or if they’re school age and you have to work in the holidays?

And the benefit cap bears no relation to average earnings.

I work with women too afraid to leave abusive partners, if they’re the main earner and they’re SAHM or p/t, because they’ll be benefit capped and end up homeless with their kids.

Also people who can’t work because their children are sick, in and out of hospital etc.

UC may not 'pay' for another child but it removes the work search requirements. Also once one child grows older and not on claim, the next one takes it's spot and does get the entitlement. The reason people are being asked to prove provider bank statements etc is because of the high levels of fraud and inaccurate claims.

Yep, and that was appalling and grossly unfair to people juggling work and family and paying taxes so others can stay home with their children. There needs to be a more even handed approach so everyone can spend enough time with their children with they're tiny while not burdening everyone else unfairly.

Where has OP said it’s so great?

There was zero help with childcare back in the day. It was without single mothers largely without family support who did not work until their child was 12. Because they could not afford the childcare. Afterschool and breakfast clubs were incredibly scarce. You had to pay a childminder.

The ignorance of the privileged. Let them eat brioche.

I’m going to disagree with this, most people can’t just choose not to work, I would love to do this but we cannot afford the mortgage and bills without my wage. I have a 20 year old car which I use for work and I work hard for what we do have (as do most people reading this) I can’t /won’t move to a cheaper area as my dad has terminal cancer and I want to be close to him in his final years. Please check your privilege before you make any other mums or dads feel rotten

Even now, daycare only for pre-schoolers.

What do you do with a 6 year old during 13 weeks of school holidays if you only have 4 weeks leave or on zero hours? Only option is childminder.

And childcare no good if your child is sick, no family support and you have to get to work.

No wonder the birth rate is falling They need to be very careful

Exactly. I was back at work when my lass was 1 as a single parent. I didn't get any benefit help with cost of the nursery or my mortgage.

The benefit cap.in London is at the equivalent of at 31,000 salary which isn't unreasonable.

I was a universal credit claimant and went back to work when my child was 8 months. I could have stayed off work, but I would have had fuck all beyond the very basics and I was fortunate to have a good childcare provider and a flexible understanding employer. You are unreasonable, and also probably a bit of a tosser.

Well said 👏👏

So I'm a single mum with no support from ex. I lost my job while pregnant too. I was and am now a high earner so never had any UC. I'm so dependent on help from my parents to maintain working 5 days a week even though my child is at nursery 3 days a week. I would not have succeeded in getting back into work without significant help from them. It took me 6 months and 50 interviews to secure a new job - having been in my situation, I don't understand how an unemployed single mum without family support is supposed to secure a job. The amount of time and effort resources needed to interview and secure a job when you have no childcare just doesn't stack up.

Tbh I think it's probably not worth it for a lot of women in that situation with under 3s.

I get what you're saying but if you start off unemployed when you're pregnant it's a very difficult situation to get out of.

It's just another example of where the benefits system creates poor incentives. We need to change it to incentivise people to have children they can afford. If the system was reversed and people got a bonus from the government for earning X whilst they had children we might see a change in behaviour. Obviously this wouldn't be popular as lots of the population seem to think benefit claimants have no agency of themselves.