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

anotheryearolder - do you guarantee regular hours? And pay a living wage?

NHS gaelic

My job was advertised as full time. I went and asked if they would consider someone part time and they said yes. Now it is not strictly within school hours and i have a cobble of childcare to cover the few hours out of hours but it is a job, and with effort and planning i can do it.

It seems a lot of people want 9.30-2.30, local, convenient jobs to land on their doorstep. It doesn't happen like that.

This there are no jobs line isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. I don't know if it's true or not. Some people say no, some people say there are plenty. But I thought it was made crystal clear that nobody can be sanctioned for not taking a non existent job. And if my last point is the case, then that argument should be dropped.

"Ritual humiliation" sounds a bit OTT to me.

And working hard "raising the next generation" is a bit OTT as well. Like you're doing the world a favour or something.

anotheryear.

The benefits people stand to lose if they take on more hours can be the end of them being able to provide for their family. Its not because they don't want to lose benefit because they are lazy.

gaelic.
I am adopted and wholeheartedly agree with you, because I know the benefit I have totally gone against the grain with childcare. Although I do believe in a little bit of pre school if the dc are going to attend school.

The benefits people stand to lose if they take on more hours can be the end of them being able to provide for their family

Please explain how that works.

nkf

Who is going to be your carer if you are in a home in your old age?

Who is going to empty the bins of your retirement home?

Who is going to prescribe you medicine or treat your sores?

The next generation. Bringing up children is doing the world a favour.

So what job is this, another? Are you offering 24 hour/week+ contracts, or zero hours ones? Is it seasonal or temp? Does the employee have to be available for all shifts, meaning it won't work if their other half is not a day worker as there there's no childcare for nights/weekends if they don't have family to do it?

OK, so looking at the UC FAQ it seems as far as parents go pretty much the only exempted group are single parents with children under one. Also the 16 hours a work lower limit is being removed for help with childcare to be available. That is good, at least, for people who really do want to go out to work - before labelling everyone as workshy please remember there are many people who would have liked to work but couldn't find a job that could guarantee 16 or more hours and therefore couldn't afford to do so. My DH was one of them.

But I think this demonstrates that the Government sees economic unit first, parent second. There is no value for the taxpayer here. A 20 hour a week job, say, is likely to need at least 25 hours of childcare. I doubt very much that much, if any, money will be saved by the policy and THAT is my problem. The Government is playing big brother, COMPELLING people to do something that many of them would have done anyway, now that the ridiculous 16 hours cut off is being removed. Since it will cost them pretty much the same whether the child is looked after by its parents or in childcare, what the hell is the point of this if not social engineering?

You can bring up children and work school hours when they're in school. Hell, you can bring up children and work a 40 hour week. It's not only non earning parents who bring up children you know.

nkf.

A person working p/t low income can receive Tax credits, free prescriptions, free school meals, housing benefit etc. Obviously as you take on more hours and more pay the benefit is reduced and rightly so.
After a certain amount earned/hours worked benefit is stopped completely and the wage now earned is not enough to provide for their family.

Except I make the point many times on here that the person who does the real hard work in my household is my DH, who looks after the kids 80% of the time. Don't kid yourselves - your childminders/nannies/childcare are doing most of the work.

I know.

Just stop devaluing the role of parents. SAH or otherwise. Its an important job.

That's your point. I don't agree with it.

I suspect whether people believe there are plenty of suitable jobs or not depends entirely on where they live. Hundreds of jobs available a short hop down the tube. Or 5 or 6 jobs in the local market town with no public transport between there and the surrounding villages. In vast areas of the country "local and convenient" are rather crucial to whether a job is remotely viable or not.

I'm not devaluing it. I'm saying it if you value it then make it a priority for you. Not one that requires a benefit to make possible. Because you are putting this experience you treasure so much in the hands of governments.

If it makes you feel better about it nkf you tell yourself that. I do not begrudge anyone who makes that choice for the benefit of their own families. But the argument here seems to be that it is the preferable option when patently it is not.

Just another point.

In the 2013-14 tax year, the personal allowance is £180 per week.

At NMW that is 30 hours.

So someone would have to work 30 hours before they are taxed. In other words, before the govt gets a penny.

And if they are helping with childcare then I really fail to see how sending SAHPs out to work parttime is benefitting anyone.

preferable option per se I mean. It is not right for every family, especially when said ex SAHP is now stuck in a dead end job that they hate, and costing the taxpayer the same amount of money for the privilege.

without being shot down - FT working dad on 26k - tac credits circ £400 a month - sahm - 3 dcs - are the tcs going to stop?

wannabe - it makes people feel better that no one is getting anything for nothing. Ha, as if looking after kids 24/7 is nothing!

I have not said anything about my own choices or about whether mine are better or worse than anyone else's. I'm not going to. It's irrelevant.

But - and I must make this the last time because I am starting to bore myself - I remain unconvinced that it is somehow wrong that someone receiving a benefit should be required to look for school hour work when the kids are in school. I can't see it as humiliation and undervaluing motherhood.

Because it is going to cost the government money in many cases.

Subsidized childcare. UC has a lower taper rate (is that the right term?) than TCs. Etc.

Get a job. But it wont help the tax payer until hour 31 and then thats minimal. The figures just dont add up.

It is the compulsion element I find very hard to swallow, for no purpose whatsover than to impose one dubious ideology onto everybody. Someone - AuntMaude I think - said earlier, when I asked if she and others would contribute to the greater good by sacrificing her excess income to give a job to someone who needs it, that this is not a communist state. Well it's sure starting to feel like one.

And the thing is, I really really don't think compulsion is necessary. As I said earlier, I think the removal of the 16 hour limit before childcare help is available is a really good thing and a long time overdue. It remains to be seen whether they set a sensible family income cut off before this is stopped. But if this is implemented sensibly it opens the doors for those SAHPS who want to work, and for whom it is possible, to be able to do so. Great, I've no problem with that at all. But one size does not fit all, and in some cases it is preferable for the Government to pay for a parent to look after their own children. I can't restrict my arguments to parents of school age children because I've seen nothing to suggest that is the only group to which compulsion will apply.