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.

the same people who spend your lives twitching every time a child Laughs in your neighbours garden are seemingly jealous of council estates.

ok then.

It’s basically two-tier parenting.

Exactly this is what I meant. We get the HAF sessions and you get given a code which you put in when booking your sessions.

Simply not true anymore, although I do know this used to be the case. Now you get a 5 year tenancy at a time. After 5 years if you have attempted to better your life and earn too much - you risk eviction. None of us are currently guaranteed the state pension, who knows what will be available in the future. As soon as the child turns 3 and you have to look for work, you then start being benefit capped and for a lot of people this pushes them into extreme poverty, so that free meal might be the only hot meal that child is getting that day.

its so funny because reforms base are mostly on benefits as are their constituencies.

Absolutely. People have no idea the stress some families are under daily. We have self referred to SW for support with our youngest after I had my Adult Carer Support Plan put in place. Honestly, be grateful if you don't have disabilities within your family everyone. Life is tough for many of us. Don't grudge it please, the tiny bit of support we do get for our disabled children. None of us asked for this.

Where do you live where 'a large proportion' of folk are in social housing?
There's a dire shortage of social housing and many UC claims actually go towards the ridiculous private sector rents (often in ex-council houses purchased at crazily low prices and then rented out at crazily high prices, to line some landlord's pocket).
Comments like yours are beyond ignorant.

She was part of a family unit, and so her partner's income would also be considered.

I wasn’t - that’s when I went back to work at 12 months.

I don't pay any attention to 'reform'.

My DH has an older child with severe SEN (is teenage, can’t toilet, read, write, limited mobility). Don’t assume. To add I’m not
going to elaborate on that because it’s not something I want to discuss - feel free to start a thread though.

Those a different thing to the free sessions people get during the holidays. I’m guessing you’re on about some childcare voucher.

Unless your council do things very differently and they issue vouchers rather than a code for their HAF programme. Which does sound a bit problematic from an admin point of view sending all these online/paper vouchers out when they can just send a unique code the parents pop in every time they booking a free place which will be the same code every time. I still have the same code as I had a couple of years ago.

Not true. UC pays for the "assets" of hundreds of thousands of landlords. They literally get a property or more, paid for by taxpayers!

PP has commented on this thread because it's relevant.

Why bother starting a thread about working expectations of parents on UC then? Some of us can't work for various reasons...so rely on UC with no expectations to work for the foreseeable future and will continue to need support from tax payers for several years to come.

You didn't start a thread supporting those with different life circumstances but to bash them with a stick. Let's be honest!

OK, that's a valid point.
What I mean is that they won't pay directly towards a claimant's asset/mortgage.
By paying toward a claimant's rent they are subsidising greedy landlords assets, I agree.

Although ironically landlords are taxed on that income so it just works its way back around.

The problem I see with the benefits system isn't the benefits, it's the fact that low paid work compared to being on benefits in a CBA benefits often win. I don't blame people for choosing that path, it's often the rational choice. And if I had to choose between 40 hours a week in a chicken factory or staying at home with an abundance of free time and perhaps marginally less money, I know what I would choose.

I know some posters will come along and talk about careers and progression etc etc. For many, many people though, all they will ever have is just a low paid job. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, is almost always backbone of society essential work that they're doing. There needs to be something more than poverty as a reward for them though. These jobs are never going to pay well and frankly the state shouldn't be topping up their wages. What we should do is build council housing and put working people at the top of the list so they can benefit from cheap, good quality housing making their wage livable. At the moment, at least in my council area, you're more likely to get social housing (of which there is far to little) if you are not working. So yet another instance were claiming benefits brings advantage over working.

I didn’t and haven’t criticised the disabled. No where have I said and actually I’ve said quite clearly I don’t disagree with benefits, I don’t doubt the need and wouldn’t want to see them abolished. I acknowledge there are vulnerable groups who need support and in my view that’s the measure of a civilised society. My DSD will always need the states support, although my DH also works hard and plans to the best extent her can to support her future.

My issue, as I’ve clearly laid out and repeated over and and over - is the different expectations of one group of parents vs another to return to work after having children.

But your comparing a single mother on benefits to a couple who both work. It's not the same.

Not unless they're taxed at 100%. Always fun to see people trying to justify the state purchase of houses for private landlords.

@user1476613140 and I would add it’s a constant source of concern re the benefits system. We’ve seen overnight respite services close and a reduction in support available to families with children with SEN. DSD has retained most it because they’re so high needs and their eligibility long established (went to a SEN preschool etc, never entered mainstream) those caught in the middle - maybe mainstream but really need a specialist place suffer the worst and if we, as a society, support everyone who COULD work, but choses not to we’re contributing to the situation for those vulnerable people. It’s the Turkeys looking forward to Christmas!

Do you not see that supporting every Tom, Dick and Harry is spreading the provision available thinner for those who really do have no choice?

Buy To Let mortgages are usually interest only. The landlord will make their profit on the increase in the house price when they eventually sell, and some may have some each month after paying the mortgage and other costs. But rented properties don’t generally get ‘paid off’.

Right now anyone undermining the concept of the welfare state like you set this thread up to do provides grist to the mill of those who'd like to see it severely curtailed and ultimately abolished. Guess what....that includes disabled people being deliberately kept impoverished as our government attempted to do. Stop dividing people into deserving and undeserving claimants.

No, I think you’ve taken what I’ve said personally and applied it to a context I didn’t intend. Long and short - I’d like to have had the option to stay home with my kids longer and feel a bit slighted that as a parent who was torn between working, earning and wanting to be an active parent and primary care giver.