Universal credit - Child element details

[Orwellian]

I just had a look at this; ssac.independent.gov.uk/pdf/uc-draft-regs-2012-memorandum.pdf

If you scroll down to page 9, point 45 it says;

"The child element comprises of two rates; one rate for the first/only child and then a reduced rate for second and subsequent children.".

So it looks like what is currently child tax credits will no longer be paid at the same rate for each child and will instead (within universal credit) be paid in the same way that child benefit is now paid. I wonder what the rate will actually be for first children and then for subsequent children?

The work focused interviews are already in place for those with DC aged 1+?

My Ex-P left me when DS3 was 4mo. I had to have a work-focused interview before I could put in a claim for Income Support, which I had to attend with an ebf 4mo. (They were also rude about me bf'ing during the appointment, asked me to wait till the hour long appointment was finished. I refused, and fed him anyway, and pointed out that had I been employed, I would still have been on Mat leave, and would not have been called into work...)

I had another when he was 10mo, and another is booked for later this month (he is 17mo). So some jobcentres actually insist on you attending BEFORE your baby is a year old!

I still got told I would face sanctions if I didn't attend. And I'm not alone locally. Maybe they have run out of other people to sanction in order to meet their targets?!

Oh crap. I have just left my partner and am now a lone parent (two children). Due to antenatal depression I gave my job up last October and currently get maternity allowance.

I am panicking, not only do I have to pick up the pieces of my life, dealing with depression, a new baby and a distraught son etc. I now have the added worry of not being able to cope financially.

And just how the f*ck did the conservatives end up in power when we voted in liberals???

well when i change from IS to JSA my son is five,i have to attend/sign on ever week

why do i as a single parent have to go in weekly but everybody else every 2weeks,isnt that discrimination to a single parent

fare play if everybody went in weekly but as im aware its just single parents weekly,work that one out

CTC will be paid calendar monthly rather than weekly, as an element of UC. Your current amount of CTC will be protected until you have a very spurious change of circumstance.

Could be a house move, increasing or decreasing hours at work, changing employer for a new job, moving house, a partner moving in OR OUT, your youngest DC reaching either their 1st, 5th, or 12th birthday, and many other equally dubious 'changes of circumstance' that will result in the loss of your 'transitional protection' if your UC award would be LESS than your current CTC award.

Your UC award will be less if you have two or more DC, as under TC's, the child element is the sane for each DC, whereas under UC, you get more for the first DC, and less for the second and subsequent DC.

But you might get more of your childcare costs covered than under TC's, so that makes it all better...

Thekidsrule - at least you GET JSA. I won't when DS3 turns 5yo. Because I am 'too disabled' to fulfil the seeking FT work criteria. Yet I won't get ESA (the replacement for Incapacity Benefit which I did get, at the highest rate) because I am classed as 'too able' for it...

So if I can't find work of 24 hrs plus and anyone idiotic enough to employ me with uncontrolled epilepsy requiring frequent time off sick with no notice, then I will have no income at all.

A weekly signing would be a small inconvenience in return for support while I scrabble around for an employer willing to employ someone with a disability that the DWP and crappy ATOS refuse to recognise...

so couthymow have they stopped your ib now and wont agree your disabled enough for esa,how do you cope financially??

bad times

Aaaaaah - claimants IN WORK will be exempt from the benefits cap. Does that mean FT work though? Or 24 hrs? Or 16 hrs? Or 8 hrs? Is it ANY work?

A lot of my friends work as MDA's, and work for roughly 12-15 hours a week. They have taken these jobs as they are during school hours, but they don't get help with their childcare costs at present (which they will under UC).

Thekidsrule - right now I am 'protected' by the fact that my DS3 is under 5yo, so I am on Income Support.

He won't be so young forever, and the Government have NO intention of closing this loophole. According to the DWP, and DIAL, I was the first 'customer' in the COUNTRY to bring this loophole to their attention, when Ex-P left in June last year. I don't believe that for a minute NOW, given my research since!

But yes, I have daily panic attacks about how I will support my 4 DC in just 3.5 years, if I am unable to find work of 24 hrs a week or more (That even my Neuro stated that I am not fit to work that many hours...) before then. Add in a 14yo with disabilities that I will have to support WITHOUT ANY INCOME FOR HER AND money taken out of my HB for having a still dependant 'non-dependant' living at home, and is it any wonder I am freaking out?!

And I cope with Call Me Dave's. 'big society' by relying on charities, because even my local SS adults with disabilities team can't help.

They came out 4 years ago, did a care needs assessment on me, told me I needed a carer for two hours a day, and someone to do my ironing and mow my lawns, and get a wet room fitted (I currently have to PAY a carer to sit with me while I have a bath, out of the normal rate of IS...)

They told me that I NEED these things...But that they can't PROVIDE them for me as I am under 60yo, and their entire budget for adults with disabilities is taken up on care for the over 60's. Only another 29 years to go before they will help me...

Ah! The In-Work exemption for the UC cap is the monthly equivalent earnings of 16 hours a week @ NMW.

And all childcare payments made will be outside the UC cap, so you will still receive the full amount of financial relief towards your childcare as if you had not gone over the cap.

hell couthy thats bloody awful

your head must be in a permanent spin

Ok, they fuck with the disabled, yet they are going to recognise Kinship carers for the first time?!

About bloody time too, kinship carers will be put in the no conditionality group for the first year after they become kinship carers.

nite,will catch up on any more comments tom

Like the Exorcist my dear!

I think the figures above do include childcare but that is only for 2 children as the oldest are beyond that age.

Regardless of that I still think it is wrong that she can claim that much when other families work more hours and struggle. You have only to look at other posters on this thread to see that.

Pickgo. She has been very open and vocal to friends about not working more to minimise income so she can get more in benefits and off ex-partners (and has offended several other friends in the process). I do understand what you say about the children's needs but they are well supported by extended family and their life is probably less traumatic now than before the divorce.

Will bear in mind the FiftyShits suggestion for my next namechange

at fiftyshadesofviper changing her/his onscreen name to fiftyshits.

I am going to start an OU course in October, which will hopefully give me more chance of getting my arse off MN more often getting paid work before DS3 turns 5yo. My aim is to be working at least 16 hrs a week by the time he is 3yrs9 months, and upping that to 24 hrs by the time he is 5yo. I don't want him in wrap around care more than 2 days a week until he has been at FT school for a term, and those figures add up. It has been my long-term plan since Ex-P left just over a year ago, but I wanted to enjoy my last baby while he was still a baby before taking on additional work through studying.

Most people I know that have been on long term benefits HAVE worked in the past, but are currently unemployed for the following reasons:

Caring for DC's with Autism that are often excluded from school, so the LP has to be at home with them (and I'm talking about from YR, inclusion is bollocks IMO).

Relationship breakdown resulting in resignation as Ex-partner was the childcare.

On short hours and unable to find other work to make the hours over TC level (so claiming JSA with a deduction for earnings).

Working between 10-15 hours a week, and as above, claiming JSA or IS and declaring their wages.

Studying as they left school with NO qualifications.

Caring for a paralysed partner, AND a DC with disabilities.

Caring for a partner with Cancer.

Resigned from job as DC has leukaemia and is a Lone Parent.

Caring for a DC with disabilities, but not claiming Carers' Allowance as she would then be unable to claim Free School Meals for her 3 DC, which would cost her MORE than the Carers' Allowance.

In temporary accommodation after being in a refuge after fleeing an extreme DV situation, and her case is still ongoing through Crown Court, and she is trying to deal with 4 DC who will NEVER be allowed to see their father again...

Anyone want any more examples of why some of the people I know are on benefits, and CLASSED as unemployed?

I currently get £80 a month maintenance for my DD (of which £20 a month is arrears for the 12 years I got nothing, he will be paid up when DD is roughly 28...).

I get zilch, nada, diddly squat for DS1 from HIS father.

I get £75 a week for DS2 & DS3 from their father, but he pays extra over and above the bare minimum the CSA says he should because BOTH DC have medical problems that have associated extra costs, yet neither receive DLA. DS2 has severe asthma that means I use extra electricity running both his nebuliser and a Hepa air filter, AND he has two different muscle problems that mean he is unable to walk the two miles to his school, so I have to take him and his brother to school by bus, and pay £7+ a day for the privilege. DS3 has severe allergies, he is on a Dairy, Soy, Nut free diet, and his milk costs me £90 a month on TOP of what the NHS will prescribe, and his food is dearer too.

I have 4 DC, and I wasn't getting that amount of TC's last time I worked PT as a lone parent, even including my extortionate childcare costs and the fact that my earnings back then were £90 a week for 22.5 hrs over 3 days...

That's another thing, most jobs here are for either : 12, 15, 16, 22.5 or 30 hrs a week. It would be virtually impossible to get a job here for 24 hrs a week, you would end up doing 30. Wonder if that's the same in most areas or if it's just locally?

Over, actually what happened in the last boom is highly pertinant - we have a welfare budget that has grown massively for decades and if people arent taking jobs when they are avaiable that is highly significant. Of course its not the fault of recent school leavers but I dont think the concept of fault is useful here.

We have a trillion pound debt. £32k per household. £2k pa on interest just to services the debt. People choosing not to work when there were jobs. Of course there will be jobs again and we need to fix the system so people take jobs as and when they become available and we dont repeat past mistakes. As now we have an already massive debt.

Fiftyshadesofviper - yes, your friend may be well supported by her family, and she may get a larger amount of child maintenance than most.

But the base level of benefits for Lone Parents HAVE to be set as if that person has no family support, and receives no maintenance. Because there ARE lots of Lone Parents out there that don't get any other support.

Ok, that may mean that in a few, more unusual cases, there are people like your friend who will end up reasonably comfortable financially, that is the exception, not the norm.

There are relatively few people receiving that much maintenance that still claim top-up benefits like TC's, because they don't believe they need them, so they don't claim.

You can't make a sweeping generalisation that ALL claimants of TC's get that amount of maintenance and still choose to claim, that is just untrue.

And there are people out there that get no maintenance. They aren't so jealous of people like your friend that they want benefits taken away from hundreds of thousands of people.

Most people on benefits would understand that her Ex obviously has a high paid job, and therefore she gets more maintenance than they do if their Ex is in a NMW job. You get paid more for working as a shop assistant in Harrods than you do in Aldi...

My dd is 12.
Her school day ends at 2.50pm
She walks home 2 miles on her own and is home alone until 6pm
She is a latchkey kid as dp and I both work full time.
It may not be ideal but it's hardly the end of the world.

snog no its not and I know lots of parents that have to do that to survive financially, however with these new proposals I am worried that even with a FT job I am not going to be able to pay my rent as I have recently become a lone parent.

These benefits laimants live in another world of ease and don't know how the other half of lone full time working single parents are. They need to toughen up, grow a skin, put up with things. They haven't had it hard enough in a sense. If some of us are bakc at full time work when our babies are 2 weeks as I was, expressing during the day, up every few hours at night and can manage there is no reason anyone else can't.

They have just been molly coddled by a far too generous welfare state and the thought they may actually have to do what huge nmbers of working mothers do seems beyond them. It's going to be a wake up call and do them a lot of good.

I have never had a tax credit. No housing benefit. No state benefits. I support my children alone. It's not that hard. You just have to be prepared to work very hard. I have not not worked for more than 2 weeks over nearly 30 years now so not surprisingly I earn enough.

Hardly sounds like a 'world of ease', Xenia! Easy for you to say when you have admitted in the past that one of your advantages has been perfect health, and AFAIK, your dcs are all healthy too. I can't imagine how single parents with disabilities or kids with disabilities cope - it must make it incredibly tough.