Universal Credit implications for long-term SAHMs??? Help please!

[CSLewis]

Hi, I've just read the Mumsnet summary about Universal Credit, and read that parents of children aged 5-13 will be required to seek work during school hours, though I think those with a baby under one may be exempt.

Does anyone have any further details about this? It feels to me that a parent of young (primary-aged) children is being forced to return to the job market, regardless of whether they judge it to be in the best interests of their family

In the absence of a delete button, think of that post in the context of SAHPs of pre-school children (who have also been criticised on this thread). I bet that's where the policy boot is headed next anyway.

The reason that I am worried about the decision maker thing is that it was suggested to DP to apply for a 20hour job in a town 30 miles away at a time when we had no car. It was a dead end job too so it couldnt even be called career progression.

Im worried that the job offers/suitability wont always be sensible.

I'm saying that the Government should not be in the business of poking their nose in and social engineering (and yes I do know that's what they do every day). I'm saying if there is no net gain to the taxpayer of enough significance to offset the potential harm to individual families, then they should stop wooing Daily Mail readers and leave people alone.

wannabe

My dd is home educated. I don't think you would take your 4 year old to our jc/ benefit office. There's a few square feet near the extractors that are pretty stench proof.
I'll send you directions though and I'll take my dd if you bring yours, lol .

That's a good point actually. What if the DC is home educated? What does the UC policy say about that I wonder. No doubt the answer is to ship the kid off to school so their parent can return to the factories.

Brilliant post gaelicsheep.

I am in NI morethan Im hard as :o

You see all this is very weird to me. The idea of a job being suggested to me that is clearly unsuitable. The idea is that you go and look for a job that works for you. There is a sort of implied passivity in that post.

A leave well alone government is not likely to go hand in hand with a generous welfare state.

By nkf, if someone is deemed not to be trying hard enough because they can't find suitable jobs (of which there will be very few) the worry is that they will be forced to apply for/accept highly unsuitable jobs or sanctions will apply. Civil servants are not renowned for their common sense.

But nkf

So you're saying it's right that the Government should make people's lives difficult merely to satisfy their voters? Obviously there is already a precedent for this with the attack on disabled people so it's no surprise. But what seems to lie behind all this is a sour grapes attitude. It's displayed on this thread time and time again. Why should people on benefits get to have a SAHP when I have to work? That's the bottom line, whereas actually in many cases (not all by any means) the family chooses to have a second earner to maintain a certain lifestyle.

I can see that there is scope for things to go wrong. But I don't accept that fears that it might go wrong are a good enough reason to say that there should be no limit on benefits. I also think that people who have been out of work for a while often have a greater number of fears around work thant those who have been in work.

And I still maintain that you are better off if you can keep state intervention in your private life to a minimum.

Was your last question aimed at me?

Yes, in response to your point about a leave well alone Government.

I don't see what is so difficult about looking for a job during school hours. And trying to make it work for you and your family.

No, that was my response to the person who thought the government should leave people alone. I think the sort of government who leaves people alone probably doesn't preside over a welfare state. There are plenty of countries that have hardly any taxation and no benefits. To be honest, the attitude smacked of "give me the money and shut up."

If there is no net gain to the family, and in fact it may cost them money, then they may well feel there are much better uses of their time and energy. It is their decision to make, especially if there is no real advantage to the Government either.

But is it their decision to make? Once you take money from an organisation, you usually lose something. And that is usually some say over how you use your time and energy. Personally, I think when too much of your income comes from benefits and not from salary, you lose out more than if it's the other way round.

Got to get back to work now, but it was me who said the Government should leave people alone. Their role here is to get value for money for taxpayers (obviously it's more complex than that) not to make people behave in a certain way to suit a certain small-minded section of society. If they are not going to save on expenditure or gain tax revenue from this policy then they should mind their own business and let people decide what is best for their families. Now as it happens, they probably will save money as my original analysis of costs versus savings forgot that the policy only applied when children would be at school. But the basic principle still applies.

Am I missing something here? Do people (mothers) get paid to stay at home??? Why do I bother going to work?????

Currently you get tax credits on a sliding scale parques.

It isnt THAT great....I brought in far more when in work which was why I went. Only when it became impossible did I begin to rely on tax credits and other benefits.

Parques - no, you were right the first time with "people". Only you can answer your question, probably because society has so devalued the role of parent/homemaker that you think you have to, whether it's in your family's best interests or not.

Re home educating - sorry but again, I don't see why anyone should be subsidised to do this - the state offers a free place in a state school for all children, if you decide to go elsewhere, you have to fund that decision yourself, i don't see why the state should anymore fund someone's choice to home ed than they should fund their choice to use a private school.

The point here isn't that you won't be allowed to have a SAHM, or a home educated child, or anything else, it's just that you won't get any extra money to do it.

I'm sorry but I think some posters on here are coming across as workshy.
If you can only work between, say, 9 and 3 (including travel time) because of school hours and you have no other form of child care, those are the hours you will be deemed available for work. If you can't find work to fit in with those hours you won't lose your tax credits.....or are some posters saying they don't want to work or even look for work?

What are these riches we are talking about then? Anyone know? Bearing in mind there is already an adult earner. What is the maximum big fat salary being paid to these people?