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

Bollocks will I be giving up my job thankyouverymuch. What a mindblowingly stupid idea.
We have two incomes, we don't need to we WANT two. And that is our prerogative having worked our arses off for almost 25 years.
We don't live in a communist state, thank feck.

Gaelicsheep - 'I think it's quite clear on this thread who has and hasn't ever had to deal with the DWP.'

See my post above

If the DWP is as bad as it's being presented, then all the more reason to ensure that you never or as rarely as possible have to deal with that organisation. Honestly, wouldn't an employer be better? An employer just insists that you show up and do your job. You don't have to tell them anything about your private life. And they don't make judgements about your childcare. You do.

Interesting... How things change when the boot is on the other foot.

Come on then? Solutions please.

To be fair to the DWP, the advisor I saw when it became apparent I needed to give up work in order to care for DS was fabulous. As was the advisor I saw more recently for a "work focused interview" (after 30 years of employment lol).

No complaints about them so far from me.

I have never had to sign on before and I don't intend to now, so I guess around June you will see my comments of destitution on here.
Luck just isn't on our side for the new UC, so ho hum, skint sahm for me.
I'll let you all know from friends what the system is like.
Apparently you are ok if you don't need to make any changes. Well my ds2 leaves full time education after A levels and we are the first to trial UC. I will not be looking for work so will either lose the lot or be no worse off depending on whether the online calculator is right or wrong. TBH I'm sick of all the speculating now, we'll just have to wait and see.

Morethan, you seem to look down on those at the job centre and dont want your daughter to see them yet you are a claimant and your daughter is from a family on benefits. Or doesnt it count as you dont drink?

Its quite clear than many see it as their right to not work and it is provided you pay for that luxury yourself. Childcare has never been so abundant and thousands use it to work 9-5 etc, people dont need term jobs to land in their laps. Thousands of parents juggle childcare and working, having children doesnt render people incapable of working.

johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/how-universal-credit-will-create-a-latchkey-generation-of-hungry-children/#comments

I suppose that I am thinking about this whole subject from the perspective of the children of this generation. Society in the future will be made up of the children of today, whom the changes referred to in the article above will most affect.

How many people think that a child aged between 1 and 4 is as well off or better off with a childcare professional than with one of their parents, for most of their waking hours?

"latchkey hungry children" oh please. Thousands of parents work and whilst some teens may let themselves in those that need childcare the parents simply arrange.

I dont see why it comes as such a shock to many that if you choose to have children the government expect you to support them. Hardly a novel idea is it.

Why wait and see? Why not get out there and look for a job? Or work for yourself? Why be so passive?

Oh yeah, forgot - you don't actually want a job but want me to pay for you to SAH when I don't. Tough.

My suspicion is that these changes won't save a brass farthing....I think much of it is purely ideological. That's my thought and until this Govt prove otherwise I will be suspicious.

It will go towards instilling a work ethic in future generations of parents and children.

It's emotive stuff but it's not convincing. Single mothers with kids over 13 forcd to work - gasp - up to 35 hours a week!

Latchkey kids - we've all heard that one before.

And then all that ludicrous the BBC is like Pravda in the Soviet era stuff in the postings.

Fair point mirry but only if work is actually there and available. I have always worked apart from the past year so for DS it's normal but as he is autistic the jury is still out with regard to what if any work he will do .....he has lots of ideas though.

An interesting point is children wanting to be nurses, doctors, train drivers etc etc who along the way lose that hope and ambition? Is it because Mum doesn't work or is it because of other issues? I don't think it comes down to just parents not working.

I will be interested to see where they place my friend though who has a long term mental illness due to a very abusive childhood. Working is just not feasible for her at the moment...and may never be due to her periods of severe depression. She does get DLA and ESA though so might be considered as not suitable for work anyway.

And what on earth is wrong with an ideology that states that parents support their own kids, Jake?

Of course it's ideological. The Tories believe (have always believed) in a small welfare state and low taxes. This should come as no surprise.

Exactly. And I agree wholeheartedly with them as do millions of others.

Nothing if the work is there auntmaude but it's not about that is it? It's about demonising people who have to claim anything. I have only had to claim benefits for less than a year (after 30 years of employment) and yet I feel guilty about it because the papers are full of "scrounger" type comments with regard to benefits. When I hand my "free prescriptions card" over at the chemist I feel guilty. The woman behind the counter doesn't know I worked for the last 30 years...she just sees a benefits claimant ...a scrounger according to the papers she reads or the programmes she might watch. That is what disturbs me......and if we save nothing and the work still isn't there then all that happens is we have more people deemed worthless by society.
That's what I mean by ideology.....everyone should work and if you don't then you are a scrounger type ideology.

Just how I feel about it. If work is there and people can do it then fine. Sometimes though people can't work for varying reasons and its not necessarily because they want the tax payer to fund a SAHM lifestyle.

...and can I say yet again WE DON'T HAVE A TORY GOVERNMENT....it's a Coalition and a shit one at that. Honest to God I do not know who I would vote for if a General Election were called tomorrow. They are all as bad as each other....

These changes are not Tory...they are Coalition...a mixture of Conservative and Lib Dem who say they need to make changes in order to save money when the evidence so far seems to show it's going to cost more to implement than it will save.

Happymum.

Read my threads about my jc/benefit office. In addition I will not be signing on as I won't be available for work. I am honest and won't play the system if I don't intend to work. I have nothing against signing on just that I have never had to do it. I worked pre dc and have been a sahm post dc. If I felt the need, of course I would sign on the same as everyone else. I would just not take my dd as our offices are not fit to take dc.
In addition, I haven't seen any posts where a sahm has said they have a right to be paid to sah. In fact I don't know any who are paid to do this. I receive tax credits from dh who gains them from being employed. I have never been paid to stay at home. Maybe what you are hearing is people saying they have the right to sah if they want to and to provide their own childcare and in my own personal situation my dds education as well.

Will anyone answer my question? Which was not about me, or you, but about our children.

Are children better off, or even just equally well off, spending most of their waking hours with a childcare professional rather than one of their parents, between the ages of 1 and 4?

Oh save me from the , " But there are no jobs !" bleat please!

There ARE jobs. You have to look for them. The chippy in our village advertised for someone to work 6-11 weds- sun. Perfect job for someone who needs to find child friendly work. It took them four weeks to find someone and it's a youngish lad working a second job.
My babysitter has just said no more sitting as she has just got 4 nights pub work in the village pub.
What people mean is there are no easy, sit on your arse jobs between 10-2 paying £15 an hour.

I think the stereotyping of benefit claimants is a separate issue. Why do you feel guilty? You should only feel guilty if you have done/are doing something wrong, not because of a newspaper article.

What is this crap about instilling a work ethic? These are families where one parent already works, probably all hours god sends to do the best they can to support themselves. How bloody patronising can you be?

The opinions on this thread are quite staggering. You all seem to acknowledge it is all window dressing and a paper exercise to please the chattering classes because the jobs aren't there anyway. None of you is prepared to contemplate losing your precious second income to provide jobs for those more needy (the ones stealing your hard earned cash). You fret about your taxes being wasted on "scroungers", yet you're quite happy for your taxes to be wasted on administering this piece of political hot air.

I think that about sums it up doesn't it?

Millions of children of professional and non professional families alike manage just fine, CS Lewis.

Just seems it's the kids of the poorest who get to be brought up by their parents 9-5.