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

nkf.

Its not possible for most people to value parenting and making it a priority, using the right to be a sahp, without relying on government.
At one time this was possible, but not anymore.
There are people who work who need to rely on the government and unless you are quite wealthy you need to rely on government.
Forcing sahps into seeking work is not going to change anything. Maybe a few will say they don't want to look for work and relinquish their benefit. Others will sign on in the guise of looking for work, knowing they aren't going to get a job. Its moving goal posts as far as the government are concerned, not saving any money.

constantnamechanger.

Most certainly the benefit will stop in this circumstance unless the sahp is seeking work, signing on to work 24 hours min.
I am not going to seek work and continue as a sahm and my dh earns a hugely significant less than this, we stand to lose it all.
There are loads of threads on here and the calculator is on this site somewhere too.

"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."

The children of working parents most likely or boys of SAHM's as the girls are very likely to copy their mums and not work. We are over populated and can always use EU workers as they have a very high work ethic. Parenting is a selfish decision, nobody has children so that we have future workers as who knows if they will actual work.

Really? I must be very unusual then, being the daughter of a SAHM and myself working full time as the sole breadwinner. You lot really don't give women any credit at all do you? And I think most of you call yourselves feminists?

morethan how on earth does your decision to SAH benefit your children if you cant provide for them ??? I dont understand - food,warmth and a home are the basics of being a parent surely ???

we stand to lose it all
I would lose my home if I gave up work tomorrow - most people would .

Happymummy.

How do you know it will be the dc of workers now then?
I think they are more likely not to want to do this type of work.
My older dss are working and/or seeking work, surprisingly enough not in the caring profession. My dd 9, already has strong visions of where she wants to be and has a career mapped out from age 11. So you seem to be presuming a lot here.

Bringing up children is an important job, a role to be taken seriously and does provide the work force of the future. Whether the parents are both working or not.

There is no compulsion. There is no compulsion to work for anyone. They can ring up their boss and say stuff your job. I'm not working, can't get the childcare sorry. But they won't expect to be paid. What is the difference. It's the expectation. We can't be expected to work. How can we work. We have children. Plenty of people with children work.

anotheryear.

I don't understand your comment I'm afraid. . I was answering a question somebody asked about losing their benefit. I never mentioned anything about losing a home or not being able to feed my family?

Sorry - maybe I misunderstood.
You said youstand to lose it all but wont seek work and will continue to be a SAHM .

Apologies - I understood this to mean that even if you financially went under you would still SAH.

thanks morethan something has happened that has made it more or less impossible for me to work - I don't want to go into what - we will be crippled but hey ho - its nice being home with them.

Viviennemary.

Yes and many of these people with children who work are career hungry, make no money from it rely on the government for tax credits and child care subsidy. Expecting tax payers to pay for their lifestyle choice.

I am reading that 90% of people on this thread think their sole function in life as a parent is to function as an economic unit and outsource the care of their children, quite regardless of the cost/benefits of that situation. Correct?

I'm getting quite fed up with this now as you can probably tell. I'm glad my children at least will be brought up to be free-thinking.

They can be brought up to be a free thinking as they like, gaelic , but not on my taxes.

morethan - good point. I for one would love to know how much all these second earners are costing me in subsidising their childcare. I'd like to bet it's more than they pay in tax.

My children were brought up by their parents - noone else - so cross me off your list.
Very few people on this thread have actually mentioned their childcare arrangements.

Auntmaud

Your taxes mainly go to pay for free healthcare, education and the countrys infrastructure.

And since when did you get to choose AuntMaud? I would rather my taxes weren't spent on wars. In fact I would worry about that a thousand times over before I worry about helping out some families trying to do their best, as almost everyone does. But each to their own.

You're not subsidising me a penny in childcare. I work 21 hours a week and my DC are in 'out of school childcare' for 5.5hrs per week (fully paid by DH and me).

I do believe i am also 'bringing my children up' as well as working.

Gaelicsheep, we pay our own childcare for the few hours we need it. Not everyone claims help with it. Thousands pay their own or use family and friends.

I'd far rather subsidise childcare than pay people to stay home. At least the person working is paying tax, the childcarer paying tax and they will have a job when they no longer need childcare. They may even get raises or promotions and not need help for long.

Parents dont cease raising their children if they work and use childcare, no more than sahm's whose children go to school. Children cost money, that cost should be bourne by the parent not the state.

My DS will be "free thinking" as you out it but i would be very disappointed if he chose a life at tax payers expense.

mirry2

To belatedly answer your point - I asked why a parent who thought it better for their family to remain at home should be obliged into work. I didn't imply at all that this would be the right choice for all families.

But even if a family received no financial support from the government, do you really think the govt wouldn't still be pushing for both parents to be in work? So that there are three people (father, mother, childcare provider) feeding the economy by earning money which is then partly taxed, and partly spent on consumables, thereby doing double duty to prop up the economy.

I really object to people being treated as economic production units first, and men and women second. And the changes being pushed through at the moment seem to take us a step further down that road.

You don't use childcare vouchers then?

"I'd far rather subsidise childcare than pay people to stay home. At least the person working is paying tax, the childcarer paying tax and they will have a job when they no longer need childcare. They may even get raises or promotions and not need help for long."

I'm glad I don't have such narrow, money-centric, brainwashed view of the world.

How's about if the SAHP is at home working all hours they can on being a musician, an artist, a novelist, but not earning much? I suppose that is also totally worthless activity that displays a lack of work ethic, and is damnable because they don't subscribe fully to the new religion of tax-paying. I suppose it displays a much better "work ethic" to be sat filing their nails behind a reception desk, drinking coffee in an office or chatting on the shopfloor?

And btw, all our children are being brought up, free-thinking or otherwise, at the taxpayer's expense. Have you forgotten the small matter of education? Of course the free-thinking children of an enlightened home educator probably cost the taxpayer less than most.

Oh I've got to give in on this now, it's getting incredibly tedious talking to so many Government brainwashed drones.

constantnamechanger.

I don't want to pry but from your post you may have an exception, if you are unable to work the support still exists. Its the likes of me who refuse to work who will lose benefit. Your partner needs to work for you to qualify but the hours vary depending on your personal situation. I hope it works out for you.

I do think that benefits cuts need to be fair though and if one lifestyle choice isn't supported then others shouldn't either.

anotheryear.

No apology needed, I wasn't exactly clear. Me being a sahm is a lifestyle choice, I know. We have managed without tax credits before and will do again. Hopefully it won't be as tight as it was back then, and we won't lose our house. Very low income but relatively low outgoings.

gaelic.

Ha, I really like you.
My dh is a musician, working late and often away. When he isn't doing this he has private pupils and works as an educator/ consultant in public and private sector.
He also helps me to home educate our daughter.