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.

Yes. And I still think the system is broken.

You've deliberately tried to push the narrative, you know that word you like, of being worse off than you actually are - probably to promote the idea of 'poor you' subsidising others. 😒

I see that. But it doesn’t help the individual. If she was renting, she’d not have the same worry.

Doing exactly what you're criticising?
Why did you decide to puck on UC claimants then, and not folk in your situation? Ah yes, pushinhmg a narrative. 🫣

You still have to pay rent on council houses, they are not free, and if you dont pay your rent you get evicted. And if a council tenant needs to go into a home they have to give up their house.

Eh?

What disincentives work is low pay, long hours and a dearth of affordable childcare. UC claimants aren't responsible for that, and claiming your legal entitlement isn't milking the system.

Rightio. 🫣

The poster I was quoting referred to the 85% of childcare being paid. That specific scheme is only paid to people who are working. The 2 year old funding is a different scheme.

You could have claimed some cost towards your childcare through the tax free child care scheme.

however I do agree the benefit system is not fit for purpose. It needs a major over haul and unless unable to work due to disability/illness it should not be a lifestyle choice. I know people will say you don’t get much, but if you get UC, rent paid for and reduced council tax it’s roughly equal to someone’s take home pay in a minimum wage job (which I also think should be raised and some minimum wage jobs such as cares and nursery staff should be paid more)

Assuming she was a homeowner, had no disabilities and had less than £6k in savings, a SAHM with one baby would receive £608 a MONTH to live on if under 25, and £692 if she were over 25 for herself and the baby.

If renting, in my area she’d get an extra £589 a month toward the rent (market rate here is about £900 for a two-bed flat, so the extra £307 would come out of the original £600 odd). She’d also get £104 CB. So potentially that would leave £100 a week to pay all bills, food, clothes, transport and other living costs.

I couldn’t run a house and raise a child on that pittance but nothing is stopping you giving it a go.

If she returned to work, it would cost the government more in childcare than it’s costing them to keep her sitting at home.

Except I haven’t. You’ve done that, in an attempt to discredit me. I’ve just provided rough figures.

My point, was, and remains, that employed mothers are expected to work after 9-12 months whereas there is no such expectation for Mothers on UC. It’s in black and white on the screenshot. Are you disputing that?

Found a payslip from April 2020, my salary was 23861 (FT annual salary of £39k which must be why I thought £35k which I accept was wrong). Take home was £1519.45.

For the umpteenth time, OP, myself and others aren’t criticising individuals, we are criticising a system which disincentivises work, which disadvantages women, and which subsidises a low-pay economy to increase profits.

Why am I making the system work for me? Because I like free money, like you, presumably. Is me being entitled to free money in exchange for working less beneficial for society? Absolutely not.

I’m not going to engage with you further because you seem to just be looking for a fight rather than bringing up any valid discussion points.

Pressed post too soon but the 2 year old funding is only relevant to a minority of children who are disadvantaged, not every single UC claimant.

No it's not, it's an example of why there needs to be a robust safety net for people who become ill or otherwise unable to work. There used to be but unfortunately we've elected successive governments who have dismantled the safety net, portrayed ordinary people as scroungers and pitted everyone against each other.

The only thing I disagree with here is the use of the words 'starting to'. 😬

But you don’t have to go back to work after 12 months if you don’t want to, I have 2 friends who chose not to go back after maternity leave as they wanted more time. That’s a choice everybody has, but lots of people like you & I want to maintain our careers, progress in careers even, I want to keep my lovely house, I want to take my children on holiday, so I made my choice just the same as you did.

I could have made a different choice as I say,
my friends did, we all get to make a choice.

I understand your frustration OP our local mums FB page has weekly sometimes even daily posts asking how to fill in the forms so that 'nobody else is bringing up their child and they get the money they deserve'.
Yes there are a lot of women who rightly need UC and there are also women who know how to play the system.
As a working mum it used to get my goat a bit but I soon realised this would leave me with a forever feeling of being annoyed.

But the benefits trap is a very real thing and so is the difficulty obtaining work after long periods off.

My best advice would be let it wash over you, concentrate on your set up. Long term your position is highly likely to be more stable as well.

There's no moral case for keeping the two child benefit cap and frankly people who think there is have a right to be ashamed of their lack of compassion and of their inability to think in the long term.

We're saying 'you do it', knowing it's a stupid response to OPs equally stupid points.
I'd have thought that obvious.

She's not renting though, she has an asset.

It's not been hard to discredit anything you've claimed. 🫣😬🫣

Oh, you are.

Over the years, successive governments have chipped away at the rights of children to stay with their primary caregiver when young and are encouraging parents to put them in childcare for longer hours, younger and younger. All these ads for 30 free hours for under 1 year olds sits badly with me. When did life become like this, both parents having to work to the bone just to make ends meet, and chuck their babies into childcare from such a young age?😠

@Boredlass someone I know worked part time as a carer before deciding to pursue a career in the beauty industry (which I think is fantastic if someone wants to improve themselves). She spent 2-3 years in college obtaining her qualifications and soon after was offered a job at a spa. They offered her a full time contract, but she declined it as it would have affected her benefits, so she continues to work 18 hours a week. While it's wonderful that she attended college and all, she’s essentially in the same situation now, just with a different job. It really doesn’t make any sense. Her kids are 7 and 15.