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

I'm sure morethan will answer you herself, but since I think she has already stated she will not be claiming it really is none of your business is it?

Really and truly, this is the most mercenary, small-minded group of people I've ever had the misfortune to communicate with.

Honestly, do people really think that earning money to fritter away to "help the economy" is really more important than their own families? That is what it sounds like to me.

I know I'm at it again with my triple posting, but you know the thing that bothers me most of all about this policy is that it will stifle creativity and probably growth. For example, the self employed are going to come under real pressure. SAHPs who fund themselves with the first time for them since their kids were born, instead of being able to.find themselves again, try things out, start a business from home, etc will instead find themselves under pressure to just get a job, any job, and forget any of their aspirations. Anyone who says SAHPs have no work ethic has very clearly not spent long looking after children.

The country will suffer in the long term, I guarantee it.

Gaelicsheep, if the SAHM is funding herself then she is still free to do all those things. Those that want to "find themselves" at the expense of the state need a wake up call. The welfare state was not created for that.

Working mums can still do school runs if their hours allow, still do parents evening and see plays etc. The state doesnt need to pay parents to do that.

The cost the school receive in funding per child is actually very low, cb and basic ctc probably amount to more so arguing its cheaper to support parents to home educate doesnt wash. HE is no different to private schooling in that you need to afford that choice yourself.

Well my point was more that by giving a SAH P who has devoted the first five years of their child's life, possibly 10 years if two children in succession, to looking after them may very well need some time to adjust in order to fulfil their potential. That might make them earn more, which I would have thought would please you dour money-grabbing bunch.

All I see here is jealousy and sour grapes.

Yes to everything gaelicsheep says.

Also, Thank You for mentioning the awful environmental stress of these policies

A decent Society is not all about Money, money,money.
Neither is it one "That knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing"

Seriously, I think our culture is on a terrible, rapid descent to nowhere.

And if we carry on thinking that
Consume, consume, consume,
Work. work, work
Tax, tax, tax.
Blame, blame, blame
is the solution to our woes, I reckon we'll go under even faster.

We are humans, people, precious individuals first. Tax payers, workers, non-workers comes second to that.

Thank you MagnoliaBlossom. It is comforting to know there are still some decent people out there - including a small number on this thread - with a bit of sense, albeit far far too few of them. As for society as a whole, like you I fear we are doomed.

Aye but even if you think you live on fresh air and a prayer you don't.
Someone somewhere is paying for it.
I hear arguments agianst consumption but we all consume.

Some a great deal more than others Moondog. Excessive consumption is apparently now a virtue, who'd have thought.

I don't think most people subscribe to that view at all.
Big difference between endorsing purchase of ridiculous handbags and expecting to not have to pay other people to stay at home and please themselves.

People must take financial responsibility for their families. And that includes everyone. Yes the state should step in when people lose their jobs or become ill. But not to allow people to find themselves. This isn't what benefit is for. People need to get real.

Its just got so out of hand. Its like competitive workaholicness. I realise thats a made up word.

People seem to think that money is everything. But its not. Money can disappear tomorrow. Your boss doesnt care about you. Nor does the government.

Yet its them that "should come first" while your family should fit around it. Why? Theres more to life than work.

My God, there is no reasoning with you people.

Do I have to put this in economic terms? You land someone with a job on the Tesco checkout, that does nothing except interfere with family life and waste their time for very little reward for them or the taxpayer. Or you give them the freedom that YOU all had to find their own way, and quite possibly earn MORE as a result.

Always assuming, of course - going back to the start - that these mythical jobs exist.

I also fear that people are becoming a little confused between the unemployed and people with a WORKING partner who may be getting a small amount of help from the State, which everyone of you will receive in some way at some point in your life.

And no. Im not saying people should be able to not work. Im saying they should be able to find a work life balance that works for their families instead of being told they are lazy.

There's more to life than work.
Indeed but work isn't something self obsessed workaholics do for fun. People do it so that they can live and eat and clothe themselves and keep warm. It speaks volumes for the bizarre state of entitlement peopl have when they airily dismiss workers as 'money obsessed' conveniently forgetting that said workers are funding their lifestyles.

Bloody hell Moondog. I am a worker. I am able to do my job because my DH looks after our kids. I couldn't afford to do my job otherwise. There are many others in this position. Where do you get off, really?

We are talking here about SAHPs who have a partner in work, paying tax.

So their own partner is paying tax to fund them. Not you.

I don't see any issue at all with people who stay at home when a member of their family is supporting them.
I am however bemused by your assumption that everyone is work obsessed? Where? Blimey, I wish I worked with them! A great many people I see in a working week act as if the job should fit around thier private life and not vice versa.

Their partner is not funding them to stay at home. Tax doesnt work like that. I am getting really fed up with SAHP who think it is a right of theirs to choose to stay at home and then claim their partner is paying for this choice.

No, they are not!

Not work obsessed. Money obsessed. Big difference.

If their partner is not, then neither is any one of you!

I pay maybe £8,000 a year in tax. We get back about £600 in CTC. If I'm not paying for it, you sure as hell aren't!

So why do people on this thread think they as tax payers are funding them? I dont get what the difference is.

Boy, I wish I could see a breakdown of the amount each and every one of you costs me in tax, versus what you contribute.

forgetting that said workers are funding their lifestyles

Their partner is not funding them to stay at home. Tax doesnt work like that.

Which is it?