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

Don't let the door slap your arse on the way out mirry2, love.

Attacked? Really?

You were told its none of your business and thats being attacked? Purlease?

I am attacked on here everyday in that case. As a fat lazy benefit claiming scrounger.

Or try coming back in when you can offer an argument to back up your snide comments about the value of SAHM/D. Or better still why, give us the benefit of your insight in to how we get out of this blaming each other culture that has been fostered around us.

In answer to morethan's point about why it is deemed right to subsidise child care but not a SAHP, the issue is one of economics. If you split the cost of the child care subsidy between both parents as it assists them both to work and you add up both their tax payments, the subsidy is fairly small.Plus those working spend more which the economy needs and often save for their pension which te economy needs. On a purely economic level it makes more sense to subsidise working than staying at home.

word

I would seriously question how working parents spent more than sahp's. At present the system allows claimants of tax credits to have savings, own their own home, etc. Whilst the UC won't allow this the situation has been in existence since TC began. People with fewer outgoings and savings are surely in a position to spend more than working people with less time and disposable income. Especially those working for nothing or breaking even as a lifestyle choice not necessity
Don't forget that to gain TC you need to be working and paying tax, so claimants are also paying tax.
I'm sorry but your argument doesn't stand up.
We hear arguments on these threads how parents shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to provide for them without government assistance. In that case surely that should apply to all not just the poor.

Morethan - you really need to read some of the studies on this. I can't link as I'm not at home on PC, but they're easy to find. The reality is that many people in recept of TCs get back more than they pay in tax. And most do not have savings of any real measure. Wheras most families using subsidised child care still pay more in tax than subsidy. And it is fact that those in work spend more. Those at home economise. Which may be more sensible on a personal level but isn't good news for the economy.

Btw am not commenting on the value of being at home. Just pointing out that the argument that ssubsidising child care is the same, isn't a viable fiscal one.

Also those getting TC today might not need it anymore if their career progresses. I don't get TC and I earn a lot more than childcare for one. (We do get childcare vouchers for both me and DH). It means I would definitely spend more than if I have stayed at home.

And to top it off, our products are sold overseas, including India. So I'm fairly sure I'm making a positive to the UK's balance of trade.

word.

I stand corrected, and must know people of the exception then. I know you don't comment on the value of sahp from previous threads.

But I still can't seem to get my head around the seemingly lack of fairness in government subsidy for one lifestyle choice over another. I still argue that those of the exception to the studies you suggest, are in a position to spend more.

I would also like to add that many sahp's are going to lose out or be forced into dishonesty in order to keep their benefit. I know some already who have said they will sign on, attend interviews etc, with no intention of working because they are unable due to their partners work and lack of flexible child care.
I am one for whom it would be impossible, but as I said up thread I am honest and couldn't lie.
However, I'm not so virtuous I am constantly looking for the loopholes, legal but maybe a bit questionable. If its good enough for politicians its good enough for me.

For my part I would like to see the end of subsidies to staying at home or child care. I should like the governemnt to stop subsidising big business by topping up their crap wages!

Can anybody answer this please.

How many hours does a person have to work with 1 dc aged 5-13 if they are earning over the nmw.
So if the job is only say 16 hours but pays the same amount as 35 hours at the nmw is this acceptable?

Yes its 35x£6.19= £216.65 per week.

A couple must earn the quivalent of 70 hours per week between them.

Equivalent.

morethan you mean acceptable by the job centre? What if you manage to earn £50k on 16 hours because the full time equivalent is £100k? Then you won't be getting tax credits, and so won't be seeing any of the JC. It's vague question as you simply say above the nmw.

She means so that you satisfy the conditionality aspect.

So if a couples income is £22531 per year then the JC wont expect you to look for more hours etc.

However, if we had that household income (DP has the earning potential to earn that himself) then we would be able to live without and state assistance.

Its basically making the lives of the poor a fucking misery because the govt sees them as not good enough.

*any. (Cold hands and phone dont go well.)

Its basically making the lives of the poor a fucking misery because the govt sees them as not good enough.

Substitute "poor" with "anyone but the rich". That's the tories.

"And it is fact that those in work spend more. Those at home economise. Which may be more sensible on a personal level but isn't good news for the economy. "

It's also a fact (in my mind anyway, no doubt it can be proved) that those families with two parents in work consume more and are probably bad news for the environment. More materials (second car), more petrol, more convenience food and associated packaging (unless you reading this post are superwoman and knit your own lentils, in which case please don't bother to respond), etc. etc. So from an environmental perspective an argument could definitely be made for families to have one SAHP.

Incidentally, quite aside from the fact that my family are very much net taxpayers, we also pay more to the Government in tax in petrol alone in one month than we get back in a year in tax credits. I am totally guilt free that my DH currently stays at home and I couldn't give a flying proverbial if that is unpopular because it means we don't "consume" enough for the benefit of the sodding economy.

This is not a straightforward argument, and because it is not cut and dried by any stretch of the imagination it is ridiculous for the Government to impose a one size fits all policy. And even more ridiculous that so many supposedly intelligent people are falling for it.

gaelicsheep I see you are bashing working mums again. I work full time and we have only one car. There is something called public transport and also the bicycle. (Both DH and I cycle to work). I'm not a superwoman, and we don't eat convenience meal. We don't buy takeaways and hardly eat out, because they are so expensive. How long do you think it takes to actually put food on the table? It's usually 15-30min. There is a happy medium, you know. Not everyone has a very high powered high pressured job that demands insanely long hours. And not every meal has to be cooked 3 hours lovingly in the oven. (FYI I had chicken stir fry and a salad yesterday with rice. Took probably 15min).

wannabe.

That is nearly twice what dh is earning now and I agree on this amount of money we wouldn't need to be topped up.
So basically unless we are able to support ourselves without benefit we aren't going to meet the conditionality to receive it.
What a fucking mess. I am a lady who really doesn't like swearing but fuck, fuck, fuckity fuck.
Ah, that feels better.

Yeah, I love bashing working mums (being one myself, and typing this on my lunch break).

Public transport. What's that?

The point, obviously, is that argument can be skewed any way you wish. But arguing to me that both me and DH have a duty to work, regardless of being a drain on the holy taxpayer or otherwise, in order to spend more money on useless crap - that is bound to get me very very rattled.

Well aslong as you appear to be looking for work you will receive it.

But honestly, if we could all just earn more wouldnt we be fucking doing it?

I keep coming back to the same point. If you want people to survive without subsidy, look at housing costs, look at childcare costs, pay a living wage. Dont make choices for people and tell them they are lazy. That doesnt make money or jobs magically appear.

Oh and mirry2, who is very concerned about what people do all day if they are not propping up an office desk. Well I can think of hundreds of ways I would occupy my time if I wasn't here earning money to pay my taxes, some might earn me money from home, some might be of benefit to my children.

If you can't, it says rather more about you than the people concerned. And as others have said, it is none of your damned business.

'SAHM's as the girls are very likely to copy their mums and not work.'

I disagree. My mother was a SAHM until youngest was 8. The she worked 3 nights a week, my father also worked nights and we were on our own at night sometimes. I was a f/t WOHM with DD1 and now a SAHM of 5 DC. Your argument is not correct. Many of my age (born 70s) had SAHMs. Yet most of us are working. Many that SAH go back to work later on. Some (not all!) WOHM seem to resent SAHM having the chance to SAH with their DC. Because they can't they don't want others to have that chance! Some would admit they wish all mums worked f/t. Yet as a SAHM I don't think all mums should SAH, I think everyone should make their own choice. I disagree with UC as think one parent should be able to stay home until child at high school. EVEN if on benefit although maybe they could volunteer while kids are school age. It doesn't cost any more this way as paying for childcare is just as much or more.

My youngest starts school next year and I don't plan to go back to work because in my experience there are a lot of school events in the daytime and I know DC will want me to pick them up. I don't want DC coming home to an empty house etc. I will be looking for volunteer work though and finishing my OU degree. Eventually I may take a job when DC5 is older and if it fit in with DC. OR if I needed the money.

Morethan can you explain to me why a family with school age dcs would be worse off. Break even yes, but then you are not receiving the subsidy. Also why couldn't you leave your 9yo with your 17yo in the evening to work, if you want to he?