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?

Brutal for Mothers Top Trumps.

IMHO mothers shouldn’t be expected to ‘get on with things’. It’s cruel and disrespects them. You only have to look at threads on here to realise how broken and exhausted many mothers are. What are we paying tax for if that happens?

I’d happily pay more tax for mothers to be entitled to be with their baby for the first 12 months. And I’m skint. It’s because I’m a feminist. And being a mother is an important and undervalued job.

Was quite normal when I had my eldest. Had 16 weeks maternity leave then

Im assuming they will be expecting the grandparents to do that even though they are working till 67

The State eating itself

I had to go back to work full time when my twins were 20 weeks

I can see your logic OP but you'll be crucified for it. It will be interesting to see if in future it will be reduced to 9 months in line with childcare funding

Yes but times were different then - it was called social security as in ‘security’ in case you fell on hard times. It was for a long time seen as very shameful to claim it.

I personally feel that benefits are for those who fall on hard times. Those who lose their jobs and those who are disabled and carers. I feel passionately about looking after those who really need it. It should not be for those who chose to potentially put themselves in a Situation where they have to claim such as those having children when they can’t afford them.

Because paying for childcare for a 1 year old so a single mum can work full time isn't going to be cost effective to the tax payer.

It wasn't that long ago that single parents didn't have to work AT ALL.

I’d far rather force parents of one year olds back into work than go on with dire public services.

I’m an economist and you have to think of a governments decisions like this:

Want to spend more on X? What are you going to cut or which tax are you going to raise to fund that? You cannot just go on giving hand outs to everyone one just because it’s a nice thing to do.

Do you want to cut the CAMHS waiting list for actively suicidal teens from 6 months (current wait where I live) to 6 days? Of course! Would you force parents of one year olds into work to pay for this? Of course! I’m not being nasty or benefits bashing, just highlighting how much better a use that money could be put to.

Maybe not in the short term but of course it will in the long term. It’s a year out of the job market compared to 3 years. It’s parent getting used to going back to 9-5 working as opposed to getting used to 9-3 working.

I’d far rather force parents of one year olds back into work than go on with dire public services

Paid childcare for 4 kids vs a Morrisions wage will cost ££££££££££££ more than out of work benefits How will this help public services

They’d probably rather not be on UC and be able to go to work to a decent job and provide. Be thankful you don’t understand it at all.

Also, it’s a bit sad that someone full time looking after a baby until they’re 3 is seen as unusual.

Or require wealthier people to pay more/stop evading tax?

Or strip everyone who profited from PPE etc scandals during COVID of their assets to get our hard earned money back?

CoL is really sinking in and hitting working people very hard. When you are slogging in your guts out for the same disposable income as someone on benefits it feels unfair. As life gets harder and money gets tighter and the taxes you pay seem to be going on shit services (NHS, education, poor roads etc) and there’s constant rhetoric about the cost of benefits claimants it is frustrating. Especially when you hear about the increase in people being off with anxiety, ADHD, autism etc it sometimes feel like the weight of the world is on the working populations shoulders. The same people who go back to work early as they can’t afford long Mat leaves, spend ££££ on nursery fees and who’s pensions have been slashed.

Quit your job then and live the life of Riley on benefits. Then people in work can complain to you all day about having to pay for roads, hospitals and your children's schools. Also taxpayers pay for subsidised childcare as well you know.

Well furlough wasnt a gift from a magic fairy either and yet that never gets mentioned.

@Ottersmith that’s such a pointless answer everyone gives. ‘Quit your job and go on benefits’ imagine if we all did that. I don’t want to be on benefits.

How many, where are the stats?

I would much rather support single mums to stay at home with their babies, than fund nursery hours to merely outsource the same care to someone who isn't that child's mother, and force that mother out into some crappy minimum wage shite, when she'd obviously be better-placed loving and caring for her own child.

I am sad that our nation so devalues parenting. I wish we could offer all parents far longer off work, so the family unit is stronger.

What do you mean "get" social housing? Do you have any clue how social housing works? I was working full time when I rented a social housing flat. And paying my rent. Yes it's cheaper than private rent, as it should be, the whole point is that it's affordable. But then you have crackheads and smackheads for neighbours (amongst some really lovely salt of the earth people).
But obviously when you buy a house at least you will own it one day all being well!!!

When I had my first baby I could have been on income support until my child was 12. Personally I think it is too young now. I think one parent should be able to stay home until the child is 5. Age three is when nursery benefits the child rather than the adults and age 5 is when it becomes easier and more affordable to juggle.

its More expensive to pay for someone else to look after the child/children.

I worked as a single parent from 9 months

Firstly, not sure you said that in your post? Depends what you class “low income”. My husband is on 40 grand and I work too (part time but between 15 and 20 grand). So I’d say not low income…

The way funding works is around a min wage earner working 16hrs as minimum to be eligible. If you earn double min wage you can work 8 hours and still get 30hrs childcare. You are better earning well rather than being on UC.

The wealthy in this country already pay far, far higher proportion of income tax than any other comparable country. It’s the basic rate of tax that is massively lower than other countries here. We are already massively too heavy in this country, which is why the wealthy are leaving. If we want to pay for better public services through tax then the inconvenient truth is this only works if we ALL pay. It cannot just be ‘someone not me’ who pays.

The question is why are they jobless in the first place? Unemployed prior to the kid or gave up once they were pregnant?

40% of UC claimants ARE in work. Don’t believe the rhetoric intended to pit one struggling family against another. You’re looking in the wrong place for who to blame.

Look to wealthy people, with their secret little buy-to-lets squirrelled away and their second homes, while there’s record homelessness. Being a greedy guts is now apparently a virtue.