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.

Actually if you read my post you'd see I was talking about the private rental sector. Not "UC claimants" who you see as a subspecies.

What percentage of that is housing related and specifically what percentage is paid to private landlords?

@ForWittyTealOPi don’t know, I was just correcting the PP’s reading of the figures relating to the report they had attached

The whole system is shocking. I have an 18yo who has been in my care since they were 17. They have been able to claim UC since they were 17 due to their circumstances. It is an extremely small amount of money, then they take back 55p in every £ they may earn in a part time job. Before they were 18 this meant they were only earning £3 something an hour, they were working in a bar and then having to get a taxi home if we couldnt collect them so if their shift was only 4 hours they were hardly earning anything after taking out transport. It doesn't encourage people to find work at all but also doesn't support people enough who need it.

They are lucky we look after them as their own parents dont, they are in full time education and undergoing various diagnoses at the moment so perhaps they can get more help eventually.

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.

They are two different groups, which explains the different treatment. One group is returning to work the other is seeking employment.
You've decided they should be treated as if they are the same. The differences have been explained to you, repeatedly, you just don't want to hear it.
You also forget that the more tiers and rules a means tested benefit system has, the more it costs to administer.

I didn't say it was unique to UC recipients. 🫣

There in lies the pronlem : pensions and pension related benefits is roughly 25% of the population, and with an ageing population and reduced birth rates this is only going to get bigger, and more strain. The whole thing needs a reform. I'm just glad it's not me because I don't know where to start.

Oh ok. It would be really interesting to know that. Because it's such a good argument for massively increasing social housing stock.

Apparently it's 20% but the gov website does not differentiate between pensioners and working age when it comes to housing.

We need more more immigration for a start, never popular among people who moan about UC claimants.

Still, that's a lot of money to transfer from the public purse to private landlords. I wonder why it's never been addressed?

Agreed, seems like those in the private sector are the winners here.

Actually I think one of the biggest issues is the rapid increase in working age benefits. There are 13 m pensioners, but the total in pensions and pension age benefits is only very marginally higher than that spent on 7.5 m working age claimants. It’s not sustainable.

@ForWittyTealOPyes I think there should be a huge building programme for social housing flats that are actually affordable. All of the new build developments near me are completely unaffordable houses which are priced at over half a million. Or luxury waterside flat developments. How is that affordable for low earners. Safe, spacious, well built and well sound insulated flats seems a lot better to me, with sales and rental prices that can genuinely be afforded

You are wrong. The VAST majority of those people are taking more than they give/have given.
The vast majority are not and never have been a net contributor.
look up how much tax the lowest 50 percent of earners contribute today compared to the benefits .

This is correct, unfortunately.

OP has a right to a voice and an opinion. And millions agree that we want a social safety net but we are sick of the state being the co-parent for millions of people who make sh-#t choices or can’t did deep and adapt or have personal responsibility.
hence why we have had nearly 1 million new UC claimants in the LAST TWELVE MONTHS!
So I agree with OP that we need to redraw the lines of where the state is obligated to step in and support, and where it’s down to the individual.

Of course she has a right to a voice, but that's not the same as a right to decide who deserves support based on inaccuracies.

It’s called democracy - we literally vote on these kind of things. I personally don’t think people who have children for the sake of getting benefits and housing are deserving imo but I feel we are going off topic somewhat.

Why is that relevant? Are you suggesting that affordable housing should only be available to people on benefits and working people should be precluded?

I agree with this.

It is a complex picture though, I.e. some of those claimants may be people who are incapable of working due to health reasons or disability, and that really should be who it is ring fenced for. NEETs need looking at in my opinion. It’s not acceptable to be out of work, education or training if you are a fully abled young person, and we need to start breaking the welfare-dependency cycle. If there are no suitable jobs in your area, then you need to start considering relocating for one, or considering training or an apprenticeship in a role or industry where there are significant skills gaps.

This is just a part of the picture of course.

Our country cannot keep haemorrhaging out money when there isn’t real need. I do think some people need to get a grip, and I appreciate I’ll get backlash for that, but there’s no other way unfortunately.

We can’t tax the wealthy too much as they’ll simply leave and middle classes are quite literally so squeezed, no wonder it causes so much resentment in our society. We need change.

Quite the contrary for me. Since Brexit theres lots of unskilled roles that we struggle to fill. Pickers in warehouses, pickers of vegetables, staff in meat processing plants. I’m all for economic migration.

It is being addressed - councils are actively trying to increase their housing stock, 106 agreements oblige developers to offer housing to affordable housing providers. One issue is the right to buy - which obviously costs more to replace for Local Authorities than it brings in in capital receipts. So it’s a bit like treading water for authorities.

Absolutely. We live in a country that provides a free education! We’re not third world. There’s no real excuse for the level of claimants other than it’s encouraged by policy.

Sounds perfect for some unemployed people in the UK! 👀

Have they abolished right to buy yet? Absolutely ridiculous policy.