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

But wannbedomestic whether there are any jobs in any particular location is not the question, it's the reluctance to even consider the idea of paid work that bothers me

Thank you mirry2 you make my point very well, instead of asking what this policy is about, or asking who benefits from this policy, or indeed where this policy takes us (The cutting of all state aid to working class parents in a bid to further economically and socially disadvantage and demonise them imo) you attack the value of what a SAHM/D does. Do you raise the same question of value of time spent for those who receive no money what so ever from the state, or is it just those who get some form of benefit, who exercise you nd others of your persuasion. Oh no I forgot some people can afford to have children.

And yesterday in other news the poor working class were robbed of their homes to pay for care, while middle class people were offered tax breaks and told they could keep their homes to pass on to their middle class kids who by and large will be nicely set up

What's striking about these threads is that everyone has their particular view about which benefit claimants are scroungers and which are "deserving".

The truth, as I've noted before, is that just one in eight claimants is out of work, the remainder being employed, retired or registered disabled. Indeed, years of falling living standards mean that housing benefit is increasingly a subsidy for the working poor. Of new claims between 2010 and 2011, 93 per cent were made by households containing at least one employed adult.

From this article.

No one on this thread has said they wouldnt look for work. Except morethan but she wont claim benefits.

People are saying that they are annoyed that the govt is calling them lazy for bringing up kids and that they are worried that choices they need to make for their families are falling into the hands of a jobsworth who has targets to meet.

mirry2

In my case, I home educate my children, which I would not be able to do if I were obliged to work during school hours, and also cover all the other aspects of family life (shopping, cooking, cleaning, gp appointments etc ) in the time left over.

As has already been pointed out, by home educating my family is saving the government far more money than we have ever received. We are freeing up places in severely over-subscribed London primary schools for children who really need them - I.e whose parents both work - whilst still paying for them through my husband's taxes.

However, even if I were not home educating, I'd still be very concerned about the grey area regarding parents who are caring for children aged between 1 and 4.

By the way, are you all aware that Universal Credit will also subsume child benefit? And that if your credits are 'sanctioned' due to 'non-compliance' (how Orwellian!), you also stand to lose some/all of your child benefit, which hitherto had been the only truly 'universal' credit available to all children, no matter what their parents' circumstances... (pre the Tory Cap on it, with which I don't necessarily disagree in principle).

Leithlurker I am well aware that the policy is to encourage less reliance on the state. I am not attacking sahm with children at school, or devaluing what they do - I just would like to know what they do

People are saying that they are annoyed that the govt is calling them lazy for bringing up kids and that they are worried that choices they need to make for their families are falling into the hands of a jobsworth who has targets to meet.

Yes, I realise that. Most of us would think bringing up children was a valuable thing to do. It is a valuable thing to do.

But in the government's view, it's only a valuable thing to do if you can afford it without state subsidy.

If you need to claim any kind of benefits while raising your family, then you're a drain on all those "hard working families".

I must say, they've been very clever about it all - that story about the hard-working chap who goes off to work, noting that his benefit-scrounging neighbour is still in bed, etc etc.

So everyone thought yeah! Why should we put up with all these scroungers! Not realising that they were one of them.

I've been dipping in and out of these benefit threads since May 2010. It seems the penny still hasn't dropped.

They probably do all the things I mentioned above, so that when their children are home from school they can actually spend some time with them.

Do you think that even if the family was financially independent of the govt, the govt wouldn't still be trying to oblige that mother back into work, so that she can contribute more, and more directly, to the economy?

Thing is mirry, its none of your damn business, what they do. Even if they claim benefits.

I think only a very minority of children are home educated in this country? Am I right in thinking that?

CSlewis, you choose to home educate and good for you. However the argument you use could also be used in relation to parents who send their children to private schools or in relation to the use of any other private service instead of public service.

Sorry, I've just found a fact sheet from Nov 2012 stating that child benefit will NOT, after all, be included in Universal Credit. I hope they don't change their minds AGAIN about that.

wannabe I think mirry is curious because honestly shopping, cooking and gp appointments don't take all day. It takes me 1 hour a week to shop for example.

Parents who are sending their children to private schools are unlikely to be getting any benefits, surely?

If the government want to remove state subsidy they need to make it possible for families to survive without that subsidy. Not pit them all against each other and call them lazy.

I hope the penny drops soon because its getting tiring.

mirry2 I wish I can afford private school. We can definitely use that argument. I see how much better they are from friends who have children in them. They don't even have to worry about after school and holiday care. It's wrapped around just like in nursery. And the friend I referred to above is a private school teacher. They have lots of after hours social even so the teachers can build a relationship with the parents. She knows all the parents of her class.

wannabed - now you are being offensive.

Yes, only a fraction of the children in this country are home educated. But that still involves thousands of families, whose freedom to educate their children as they see best will be seriously at risk if this Universal Credit cannot take their circumstances into account.

CSLewis no, but it's the argument of being noble on not using public resources because your children are home educated. You could flip the argument around in saying that having two salaries enable you to send your kids to a private school.

Its still not any of her business though.

We need to move away from this notion that tax payers have some kind of right over others. You dont.

No mirry. You are being offensive.

Hello OneLittleToddlingTerror.

It is estimated around 50,000 from what I read but it really is unknown as there is no law to be registered. However, I do know that the number is growing as parents see it is a viable option if they are unhappy with their dcs school, or haven't got the place in their preferred school etc.

My one problem is the unfairness of the benefit cap. So if being a sahm is a lifestyle choice not to be subsidised then surely so is working and being worse off financially or breaking even. Ok there will be tax paid by the latter group but they shouldn't be subsidised for their lifestyle choice when working isn't financially necessary.
Also as said above, in the case of H.ed the parents are actually saving the tax payer because tax goes directly into education, this is something we all know.

Again mirry2 what part of this only applies to the poor don't you get? Once you do get it please explain why poor people are to be treated differently from others, The argument that those poor, poor (see what I did there?) people need subsidies to have children. I suspect that the rest of the middle class and very rich are grateful for the subsidy they get in terms of a free health service, schools, local and national infrastructure supplied to them.

This, from gaelicsheep:

"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. "

I don't like being personally attacked for holdng a seemingly minority view on this thread so I'll leave you to it.
Anyway I've got to go to work.