Working expectations for parents on UC

[BlackCatGreyWhiskers]

AIBU to find this really frustrating? Basically there is no expectation for parents to work until their child is age 3. So if a family has more than one child that could be several years.

Whereas maternity leave is only 9-12months.

Especially as universal credit claimants can actually get help towards childcare expenses.

I don’t understand why there is a mismatch between the employed and unemployed?

When I went back after maternity, my pay was around £1500 and my childcare £800, then after I went back with my second my childcare went up to £1200. So I earnt next to nothing for 5 years before the eldest started school.

Same. We really must compare golden medals some time.

Do you think everyone is exactly the same as you?

Decades ago when I had my DC, there was no requirement to work for many years. I think maybe officially it was 12. Not sure.

I stayed at home with my DC until they were both full time in primary. Benefits weren't generous but enough to live ok. Then I got a part time job during their school hours. Then I studied while they were in the latter part of high school and started my career after that.

Looking back, do I feel in any way ashamed or embarrassed. God no and the opinion of MNers today is so irrelevant. I got to raise my DC the way I wanted and never had to use child care outside of school. Sure I had some tax payer money, but I pay plenty in taxes now. I pay more in tax each week than I used to receive and I've done so for a longer time. At least I can feel I got something out of it!

People who get angry about it are resentful. With good reason granted. But the people you should be angry at are employers who don't see taking time out to care for young DC as a "valid" reason for a career break. If it was the norm then it wouldn't be an issue.

Blame the government for selling off all the low cost social housing so people have no choice but to buy somewhere or spend a huge chunk of income on rent. The fact that childcare is so expensive. All the things that mean that both parents have to work to afford it.

No individual is responsible for that. Personally I do think the support should be in place for women (or men) to stay home with their young DC should they choose to do so. It would feel a bit bleak if all parents only got to spend the first 12 months with their child, then they all got shipped off into full time childcare.

You can argue that people can have the choice if they can afford it. But relatively few people can get high paying jobs. If everyone earning under 50k disappeared tomorrow, society would collapse! I don't think the answer is to put everyone in the same shitty boat. We should be trying to make things better for everyone.

If the feckless fathers were made to provide for their children, that would help somewhat.

Yes, for those that know how to work the system, it’s quite a money spinner. 🙄

Without outing myself, I've seen quite a few benefit claims (not mine) and I was quite shocked at how generous some of them were, especially those to mothers with 4 or 5 kids (who often struggled to get a penny from the fathers). That said, it was generous in terms of not having to worry about paying for food or electricity or basic clothes, not in terms of designer labels, regular holidays or newish cars. A lot of them still ended up in debt though, for various reasons.

The Child Support Agency wrote off an estimated £2.5 billion in unpaid child support, that money was mainly owed by fathers and should have been paid to mothers. If people really want to help children, they could start there - other countries such as the US allow wages to be sequestered. Why don't we do that?

So going to work full time and having £300 / month after paying for childcare is appealing?

Did I say that?

It now seems you need to take zero responsibility for your own childrens costs. I know many people having more kids when already relying solely on UC. Having more kids when they are on free school meals and also get vouchers outside of school times. If you can literally never afford to feed the children you have without support how is it seen as appropriate to have more children?
These are not people in DV situations forced to have kids against their will. These are regular people who 'always wanted a big family'. Yeah- me too. Cant afford it!

I thought the UK did allow wage sequestration for CS debts, or at least we did in Scotland. The problem is if the father doesn't have any income (other than benefits).

Generally, on Universal Credit, you can claim the child element for up to two children.

@BlackCatGreyWhiskers You think all employees have income protection insurance? Absolute rubbish I’m afraid. It’s very very expensive. How much does yours cost each month? Or is sickness benefit a big fat perk for you? Anyway, you are right about working mums finding childcare costs a lot but dads can share the cost can’t they?

They're bang out of luck with the two child benefit cap then. Unless they're fortunate enough to have disabled kids or been raped by a stranger (partners don't count). You'd think someone would have told them before they went to all that trouble.

Yawn. You are quite welcome to give up your job if you wish.

Not appealing but the reality of working and paying for cc
Been there, got the t-shirt

If free school meals have been mentioned you have to be on a very low income to claim them in England. Thankfully it is being changed to all parents on UC next year.

But surely the question should be whether, on a societal level, it should be an acceptable choice to stay at home when it is funded by others. And funded in part by those who aren’t able to take the same time off to spend with their children.

This thread could go on forever, you can’t argue with stupid.

OP you have a lot of learning to do around this area judging by your posts. Chat GPT is great for getting your head how the country / world works - it’s not appalled when you make silly mistakes and you can ask it to “explain like I’m five” or whatever age you choose.

Unless you have started a new job or increase your hours you have to pay upfront for the childcare before you are given up to 85% back. We have used this but we have absolutely struggled to pay the nursery fees even with it. It isn't always as great as it looks.

Why didn’t you get a job?

This is worded well…..

Technically if your partner earns a certain amount then you can stay at home for longer than three years because you have no work commitments. This works well for us because my youngest can't do full days at nursery (possible SEN).

Maybe read more about UC before you rage, OP.

The point is that people (the majority) aren't on UC by choice. It's because their earnings are low for a variety of reasons (single parent, low household income, illness, disability, caring responsibilities etc). You weren't eligible for UC because your household income was above the threshold, nothing more. If you were a single parent or you husband earned less or had reduced capacity for work due to ill health/disability and had to take a low paid dead end job, then yes you would have been entitled but you wasn't. If you wanted it that bad then you should have just quit your job, divorced your husband then you could have stayed at home for 3 years with your kids. You had the choice but obviously chose the better option and went back to work which would indicate that you must be aware that the majority of people on UC are struggling far more than you, your husband and kids. You do realise that the 'UC story' is rarely if ever 2 healthy adults in average or above paying jobs raising their kids with government assistance? You can be mad that Statutory Maternity Leave/Pay is not 3 years without drawing comparison to those on UC whose circumstances are nothing like your own.

You are also wrong in that 2 unemployed parents can claim UC and not work until youngest is 3, lead parent is exempt but the other is required to find work and of course if their earnings push them over the threshold, then lead parent no longer qualifies.

Well, much as Mumsnet is wholly in favour of Her Body, Her Choice when it comes to reproductive issues and somebody doesn't want to remain pregnant, the inevitable flip side of this that is sometimes overlooked is no compulsory or forced terminations.

The two child cap has coincided with a significant increase in terminations and a fall in birth rates already in any case. So that was a success, even if not intended by all proponents of the policy. But it was absolutely intended to reduce the number of children born to certain sections of the population.

However, being more obvious about it wouldn't be accepted by most normal people, what with women's rights being somewhat critical here.

Agree this is worded well. Had I known claiming benefits and staying at home was an option I might well have taken this option. Having young children in nursery and working is very, very hard. Especially as we were semi permanently ill with nursery viruses for the first few years