Lone parents - universal credit / changes to working hours re. budget / Jeremy Hunt?

[catsinwater]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/22/jeremy-hunt-universal-credit-benefits-mothers-30-hour-weeks

Anyone read this yet? Although my child is 10 it could have a massive impact on my life as a working single parent. I feel really sorry for the people with younger children, it's difficult enough for many lone parents to work the 16 hours a week (I struggled with health issues and stress related to the burden of being a LP when my son was younger and it's not even easy now so goodness knows trying to do 30 hours a week).

I am really worried about this!

I am just about getting by and work a lot of hours in my self employed job but am worried that I will be made to take a job for less money to push me up to the difference of 30 hours, which will set my career back massively as well as my mental health and reduce my hourly wage etc (even if I am working more hours).

What do others feel about it?

Yes it'll be 22 hours per week over the year. So if people need to work 30 plus add in commutes they will need to pay for the extra hours. As it stands, the existing 15/30 hrs from 3+ doesn't cover the cost so most nurseries charge a top up fee on that then further hours in full. I think if people are claiming UC they also get to claim back up to 85% of childcare costs though! So the cost to them for a few more hours wouldn't be a lot, compared to everyone else who gets either a 20% discount through "tax free childcare" or no discount at all.

It's simple really..

Poor families don't deserve parents at home to look after children. They don't work hard enough. They need to work every hour god sends because god forbid any single tax penny goes to them. God forbid society looks after the disadvantaged.

Only the rich deserve to have parents at home. Only the rich get to have choices. Only the rich deserve this because they work soooooo hard.

(Sarcasm)

In your situation op I really wouldn't worry. I'm self employed and claim uc, at the age of child I claim for I am required to 'work' 20 hours per week. Basically they calculate that at minimum wage I should be earning x amount per month( can't remember exact figure but for me it's in region of £600, child is 5) that figure is my minimum income floor. If I earn more, they base my payment on my earnings, if I earn less they use the minimum income figure of £600 ish. They're not actually interested in the number of hours you're physically working if you're self employed, it's all about your income. As long as you earn at least the equivalent to minimum wage for the hours they require, then you're not expected to take another job.

It's not about this though, is it? The vast majority of mothers aren't rich enough to stay at home, so they work and pay tax. Including lots of lone parents like me! Why should they work full time and get less time with their children to pay higher taxes so to fund other mothers staying at home with their children when they don't need to? How would that be fair?

It's one thing if people have such severely disabled children that it's literally impossible for them to work. But basically you are arguing that the very wealthy should have the choice to stay at home, and the poorest, and that everyone else in the middle should have to fund it for the poorest while not having that choice themselves. That makes no sense.

It's also not the best way to improve equality or reduce poverty. Changing tax allowances and thresholds would be a far better use of the funds, to help single parents build a better future for their families by making work pay more.

But if someone works 16 hours now how many employers will just increase them to 30???
Or are they saying you should take a second job on to increase your hours???
This is crazy for lone parents amd a logistical nightmare for people and it's Ok saying the 30hours will be for 1-2-3 year olds but there doesn't seem to have been any extra provision for wraparound care or holiday clubs and round here trying to get spaces for these is quite difficult especially holiday clubs.

Nind I have a teen with MH issues I need to watch like a hawk too. I work 3 days a week but around that I'm run ragged sorting her out. She was away for a week last year and I only had DS to deal with. It was life changing realising how easy some people have it with easy going children.it's the only time my house was tidy in a decade.

For UC it's based on wage rather than hours. So if you earn the equivalent of minimum wage at 30 hours a week (or however many hours it states, depending on your circumstances) that's enough.

You don't need to quit your higher paying job to go to a lower paying job, just to be working enough hours.

The link isn't true. I confirmed with a friend who works for UC.

I'm really disturbed that it doesn't seem to be recognised or acknowledged that the role of a parent is valuable or in any way 'work'. Parenting is somehow described as though its optional and portable - an inconvenience- an enjoyable hobby that gets you out of paid work - the inference being that because its unpaid it doesn't need to be done and is not important or valuable..... how insulting.

And in cases where there is only one parent present it is mostly women. So in a round about way saying the work women primarily do neither worth paying for which is one thing- but is also discounted as work entirely because its unpaid. This is wholy inaccurate, oppressive, discriminatory, exploitative and plain blindness.

I have a child of 5, a single parent. I have to pay 100% of the childcare upfront, I'll soon need to increase my working hours by almost a third to 30 hours, I do all the school runs/collections from after school club, cover any sick days, all the uniform preparation, homework 90% of, all activities I both pay for and transport + another million tasks that add up to more than the average full time job with no finishing time. And now .... now I am told I am fortunate to do both roles of mother/father and worker but its not good enough and they'd like me to do even more paid work on top. Because I'm a grabber.

Meanwhile her father can work full time, come home and relax, spend his wage on himself (minus a pitiful maintenance contribution of £200), not be judged or asked to do more unpaid parenting or paid work and also receive no childcare bill or any suggestion or means to enforce that he should pay half the chikdcare bill given that he is also absent as he is also at work and unable to parent as well. But at the same time he is equal to me as a 'parent' in the eyes of the law but isn't liable to do half the parenting or pay half of the bills. And can simply not bother.

I see this as an attack on women particularly, on nature (because reproduction and the desire to have children is nature and takes two parents) and on children because they dont immediately generate income. Their need to be nurtured and parented ignored because a more lucrative alternative is for them to be dumped in a church hall and then picked up by an exhausted parent and thrown in bath then bed straight away.

I suspect this is about greed and an attempt to reduce single parenthood instances and possibly towards population control as we are overpopulated - dare I say maybe reducing the population isn't an unwanted side effect? particularly if those reproducing are going to take from the system rather than give to it. Survival of the fittest, right wing fascist policies made by those with nannies and privilege the majority of us could only dream of.

If being a parent and not being able to fund everything is wrong and it needs to be discouraged by way of suffering why aren't they bullying both parents then? Why are they letting absent fathers reproduce elsewhere (Boris Johnson) and not properly provide for their children or share responsibility for Childcare without punishment but hammering the single mother left holding the baby?

When women fought for the right to be equal it wasn't about the right to do paid work or shouldn't have been. It should have been about the work they do being equally valued, acknowledged and appreciated. I imagine many a home would crumble without womens xontribution and then society would....Sadly it isn't equal only if both men and women do the same amount of paid work because there are rafts of unpaid work that needs doing thats not valued by society enough to attract a fee.

This is about greed and income tax - fair or not fair. Evil or not evil. And kids will be dumped in school halls too tired to do their homework after a longer day than adults have to and the adults in the church hall will also be paying tax. Win win for government men and coffers but lose lose for women and children. It's depressing and is going to cause a lot of mental ill health and breaking down of families even more.

It makes my blood boil. If it were primarily men who were single parents I don't think they'd dare to suggest bringing in this dismissive policy at all.... I don't think those making the decisions get that raising a family on your own is the hardest job of all encompassing quite enough work thank you all the same.... and if its the money you worried about make both parents pay....

Makes me boil.

And what is more- our children will be their future work horses that aren't ever allowed to enjoy motherhood or do what comes naturally.

An average woman with a baby and working husband is farmed out to work and forced to leave her baby in much the same way because the government has worked out a man's wage doesn't need to be enough to live on because they can get two for one if his wife also has to work.

A woman without a working husband is now forced to do almost full time paid work because her endless toil and unpaid work Is disrespected in this case as well.

Mothers working or otherwise dont need to be turning on each other or feel resentful that they have had to leave their babies whilst other mothers haven't had to. The point is motherhood should be valued and acknowledged by society regardless of situation and children certainly should be... this government are fixated on greed and cutting things and reducing everything down to pounds and pence. Instead of using money as a vehicle to structure and run a successful society.

It saddens me me that only very rich women will ever get to be with their kids :( the rest of us will be denied this human experience. Working or not we are on the same side saying our kids matter the most to us... even though they can't yet be financially exploited. All womens work and all motherhood is being disrespected in all cases. No matter what their home situation.

It’s ridiculous in my eyes. School is only 9-3. So with job 9.30-2.30 that’s 25 hours a week. I have no help (no parents or siblings or kids dad). What am I supposed to do? There is already 2/3 years waiting list for after school club in my area - that’s gonna be even larger now parents have to work that many hours. It’s so unrealistic for some. Like we are not already depressed and struggling emotionally and financially (btw I do work 20 hours a week but struggle to find more or better paid job with my circumstances). Also kids go sick and then what? I’ll be ok job centre every other month?

I started as self employed (illustrating business) two months in (I had prepared a lot of illustrations designs for printing textiles etc) and because I found there were no help with start up grants for people over 25 I hit a brick wall to get stock made in manufactures. (Up front costs) I didn’t want to get a loan from the bank. I also replaced my Apple Pencil last month (had since 2020) so it put me behind. I also had a medical issue making me Very ill and family funeral. My work coach was so rude and basically signed me off self employed as unemployed to get me into this. She put me down so badly infront of my child and now I am dreading going. Seems they can treat you like utter crap

@Jennyven true and let's not forget all the school hols and inset days to cover.

I think things that are missed is how many young children aren’t diagnosed with Sn very young - medical issues that require regular treatment don’t always meet the threshold for Dla-

I worked ft when my Ds was 7 but it was making me ill .. I had to drop to 4 days a week . My child has Asd/ adhd so I would be covered but didn’t get Dla till about year 6…

I now work 32 hours a week.. that is sometimes too much ..

I couldn't agree more.... there are still single young people who refuse to work. Dont pick on the single parent just because they are hard working and accountable! I get what you mean re children being exhausted and home work being a dollop of work too far....children aren't machines and nor are their parents!

In some ways I'm glad that my savings mean I can't get UC top ups. I'd hate to be controlled like that. As it happens I'm a lone parent with a remote flexitime job on a 37.5 hour week contract. But that's my choice

I know everyone has different situations. I've worked since my children were 3 months old because I couldn't afford to take any longer off work.
I used to work somewhere where there was a bus to work and whilst I was on my own working 30+ hours (pre getting 30 hours free childcare too) with two early years children I could hear other mums on the bus talking about work and how they wanted more money but they wouldn't work more than 16 hours as it would affect how much they would receive in benefits.
I didn't even know anything about WTC until it was too late to see if I was eligible and I was gobsmacked that you could get financial help and income or savings is not taken into account and even though the scheme has been closed for 6 years, people are still receiving it. I read on another thread recently someone had saved 35k whilst on WTC.
I used to think I was a right mug doing what I was doing scraping by each month and worry about affording things whilst the mums on the bus were laughing about going out when they weren't working. I kept telling myself I would be better off in the long run, but a decade later i still am getting no extra help financially and watching everything I spend even more as wages have stagnated and costs have risen.

That's a very valid point divorced diva. If we are going to dump our children in childcare to generate money and more jobs we want some financial reward for the huge losses of not being there for our kids enough. But wages as you say are stagnant and there isn't enough to pay all the bills and have a life on one wage. It's not so much that benefits are generous - certainly not universal credit. Its that wages have been suppressed out of greed whilst prices have gone up out of the Same greed. Childcare also needs to be massively overhauled if they are planning to privatise parenting. Like they need to offer balanced meals and not just 'a snack' and wash and iron all the uniforms and a million other tasks that parents rightly do because children need it. It's not about pitching one mother against another - I think that's crucial. Its about having no respect and placing no value on parenting.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635441

Please sign If you feel a child needs a present parent and that parenting counts as important work!

There is only a finite amount of money with differing government departments all needing more money. The NHS needs more, Education needs more etc. 25 hours working for a parent of 5-12 year olds is very reasonable. That's only 5 hours a day or 3 full days a week. 30 hours a week if a DC is 13 is also very reasonable. That's only 6 hours a day. I think it's worked out at minimum wage so it might be they can work a few hours less each week if they get paid more than minimum wage. The benefits bill is just too high and has to be trimmed. If a parent is disabled the same rules quite rightly don't apply to them. I think it's fair given some single parents work full time and care for their DC alone or pay for care. Also from April isn't there more subsidised childcare hours for pre school children. This will allow their parent to work more.

I agree with the changes. Unfortunately, too many people see 16 hours as a target. Our town Facebook group is filled with posts needing a job for “16 hours”).

30 hours is not full-time. It still can be done in school hours.

People seem to forget that lots of parents (single and coupled) are back at work full-time. They don’t get any state help and also have to fund large childcare costs. These are not people on massively high incomes (31k for one child), and they then have to pay taxes.

Too many people (women) predominantly also don’t think about protecting their future self financially. Mumsnet is full of posts of people whose kids are leaving home, they have a drop in income as losing a proportion of u/c. No idea what to do as they’ve spent 18 years in 16 hour per week jobs that fit round the kids. This change will hopefully encourage more women to think about getting jobs which have more potential in terms of earnings in the future.

I'm a single parent working full time. I used to manage 30 hours by working 9-3 5 days a week. Min wage jobs cleaning hotels/ care homes. More people that work and the more demand there is for after school/ breakfast clubs and working life is easier.

Realistically speaking one part-time wage is simply nowhere near enough to support a family.

There are some very good holiday schemes around costing £28 a day for a full day of Sports. My DD works 28 hours a week. In the holidays she looks after her friends 2dc 2 days so her friend can work and her friend takes her 2 DC on a different 2 days. All kids go to the Sports club one or 2 days a week. She and her friend make it work. They can't afford not to.

Do disabled children not go to school? If the parent is disabled I don't think they will have to work but if child disabled and school aged it shouldn't stop you working. My Foster son is disabled and attended a Special school but I still worked because he was at school. He did have medical appointments but if I had to take 2-3 hours to attend his medical appointment with him I just got permission from work and did some catching up at home in the evening even though I was tired.