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?

its "easier " to stay off when your renting or council house as housing element of UC pay most (if not all in some cases)! of the rent.

Mortgaged get zero help, so those folk have no choice but to go back to work earlier after mat leave. Just like I did.
sucks but life.

But that becomes an issue when a person has a baby and then another just before that child turns 5 and then another when that next child turns 5 and before you know it that’s 15 years of benefits.

Is that quadruplets or two sets of twins? Either way seems a little unusual to have 4 kids needing full time childcare.

Oh good, it had been five minutes since the last benefits bashing thread, was getting worried people had given up on it. But this one has the bases for a full wind up, both disinformation and a bit of stirring!

This. Not sure why all the Tories are posting today but you all need to fuck right off.

Exactly and when babies / toddlers first start nursery they are off CONSTANTLY with every illness going!!!
And also nurseries don't cover shift work. And who's going to do all the pick ups and drop offs?
In the grand grand scheme of things having 2-3 years off full time working is not that bad if you are committed to raising your baby right.
People with smoking related illnesses are off work for years or indefinitely, shall we now deny them NHS taxes because it's "self inflicted". Same mindset isn't it.
MOST Mums want the best for their kids and that will involve aiming to earn more than UC as soon as they are physically able to.

But more mothers cope. Not working and choosing benefits instead should never be a choice anyone should be allowed to make.

You by no means get all your rent pay if you rent privately. Far from it. Local housing allowance is frozen again.

And anyone can 'choose' not to go back to work. They'll just have to adjust their life accordingly.

exaclty. I don’t get it. You are as free to stay home as anyone else OP. Quit your job and live off UC until your child is 3 if you think it’s so envious and great?

You say ‘has to ‘

No one forces those who don’t claim UC to go to work before their child is 3, no one enforces work . It’s just that on UC if you have a child under 3 you don’t have to work- in terms of you won’t be sanctioned / you don’t have to search for jobs etc. It’s not like there is a law saying if you aren’t on UC then you have to work? If you aren’t on UC and you have a child under 3 and don’t want to work then don’t do it. Obviously , you may not be able to afford that but those on UC do not get extra money because of not working,

If you are meaning that those with under 3’s on UC don’t get pressured to work but those without under 3’s do - that’s because of childcare . You get funding once a child is 3 . You do not before .

Who do you think ‘chooses’ benefits? Have you ever tried to live on benefits?

One of my adult children lives in Norway. Married with a one year old.
Full time private nursery cost them £198 per month including meals.
Many nurseries also cater to shift workers

I know people who choose it.
I work but have a low income.

Local housing allowance does not apply if you get PIP.

If I earned 30k I could claim £162.35 per week, that's as a single parent with 1 DC still in full time education. My rent is really cheap for this area too. If I had to move my rent would be at least £300 more, probably closer to £500. So my UC would also go up.

I agree. Some people definitely choose it.

I am struggling to think of a time when I agreed with an OP more than this one.

Look into the household benefit cap.

Not if you rent privately. It doesn’t cover even the bottom third of rents.

exaclty. I don’t get it. You are as free to stay home as anyone else OP. Quit your job and live off UC until your child is 3 if you think it’s so envious and great?

I have to give up work as paying childcare for twins and a toddler was more than my take home pay - I didn’t claim UC because DH worked -

What makes you think one wage supporting 5 people is any better and UC?

I tried to check my privilege, but I think it fell down the back of the sofa.

And that's exactly my point. You can 'choose' to give up work. You'll have to also give up the mortgage and car and move into a rented place and walk. I'm not saying for one moment that you should FWIW. And I'm sorry to hear about your dad. I honestly don't think people should have to move away from their families/support networks.

I was told on here a few years ago that i should move 'up north' to a cheaper area and therefore claim less UC. The fact I was a single parent with a full time job and family who provided childcare for my antisocial hours for, what amounted to the cost of feeding them for those days, was apparently irrelevant. As was the fact their dad and younger siblings were here.

Like I said, no one should be forced to move away grin family unless they choose to.

I think this is OPs point though. That parents of 1 year olds should have not working and claiming benefits as an option. They do currently, but OP thinks that that is wrong.

Yeah and then years later the same moaners whine that you live too far away to care for elderly relatives

My UC would go up. Not by as much as my rent, but it would. Sorry, that wasn't clear in my post.

I know this because my LL thought he was going to have to sell up recently so I had to see what I could afford.

You're the fool if you're palming your kids off to some random whilst you work 40 hours per week basking in your self worth

That’s no always doable. If you already have a big mortgage, for example.