Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Universal Credit implications for long-term SAHMs??? Help please!

802 replies

CSLewis · 01/02/2013 09:39

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 Hmm

OP posts:
wordfactory · 13/02/2013 12:34

There is no appetite to subsidise SAHPs in any quarters, whatever the political affiliation.

wordfactory · 13/02/2013 12:39

Don't be ridiculous morethan.
Tax credits are based upon familial income and tax.
Your family receives them (via your DH's tax code) because your family income is low.

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 12:41

word

Yes I can see this but it doesn't make it right. Plus as I stated above unless I have not been claiming my entitlement to pay as a sahm, then they are not paid to sah.
The UC will not support sahp's so there is no difference really apart from workers will be rewarded.

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 12:44

word

The fact remains that we will be no worse off according to the calculator, apart from a reduction of £12.
If sahp's are supported now and won't be under UC, surely there would be a reduction due to me being a sahm.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 12:45

So Morethan, what do you think would be fair or right ? That your DH continues to receive help to allow you to stay at home until he retires. Your eldest child is 17, surely 17 years of state subsidy is enough ?

jellybeans · 13/02/2013 12:50

My DH couldn't do his job without me SAH. One of us needs to be around. He is often not here Xmas.birthdays/weekends etc and at night so the DC need the stability of me at home. I also find teenagers need a parent just as much if not more. I hear what goes on at people's houses where the parents are both at work till late. My own parents both worked nights and I got up to all sorts. I also don't want to miss all DC's school plays etc, some kids do get very upset when their parents don't attend and other parents do. School is not childcare after all. I have stayed home 13 years and in no rush to go back. I only realised the importance of SAH though after I had done it. You gain a whole new perspective on life although that could also be related to traumatic life events also in my case.

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 12:52

wish

My middle child is 18, my eldest has practically left home and is 21, my youngest is dd aged 9.

This is where I beg to differ. The TC dh has gained has not allowed my lifestyle choice at all. We have very few outgoings, are not materialistic and live quite simply. This has allowed me to be a sahm.
It is not a luxurious lifestyle as many on here like to claim.
To answer what is right, or fair is for employers to pay a decent wage then nobody would need top ups.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 12:56

Dear me, you really really do not get the point I'm making do you? I really don't think it can be any simpler. And as mothers, I would have expected - although I've been proved wrong on here many a time - that you would at least be concerned about possible perverse outcomes for the children. But sadly not.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 12:57

It has always been difficult to support 6 (I think) people on a single wage. Not the employers fault.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:01

No one has answered the point that two working parents bringing in the same combined wage as one single earner pay significantly less tax. No one. Where is the "virtue" in that please? Why are they not being criticised for their greed in drawing on two personal allowances?

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:01

What perverse outcomes do envisage for school age dcs having both parents working while they are at school.?

wordfactory · 13/02/2013 13:01

jelly you clearly very much enjoy being a SAHM and I'm sure your DC are well well cared for.

But all that is being asked is that SAHPs seek local school hour work. No one is suggesting that both parents run multi nationals! The reality is that the vast vast majority of families manage...and it is very difficult to explain to them why others have to be subsidised.

My years of door step canvassing have taught me this: the rich actually don't give a flying fuck about TCs and the like. It doesn't register on their radar. The people who are angry about the subsidies are ordinary working families. Not rich. Not even comfortable. Doing their best to make ends meet and raise their families. They just don't get it. And frankly, would be hugley offended by the suggestion that they are not raising their DC properly and rightly so!

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:03

Erm, the point that has been made about a hundred times on here. What if the parent cannot find work and sanctions are imposed? How you can presume this will not happen puzzles me exceedingly, when the evidence is all around you.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:03

In our case Gaelic neither of us could earn as much as our combined income, is that ok ?

wannabedomesticgoddess · 13/02/2013 13:03

When wages arent even enough to support one person theres an issue.

The government should be promoting a culture where if both parents want to work they will be rewarded fairly for that work (a living wage) and if they choose to have one sah then that is possible because the wages allow for it. Ofcourse they should expect to live a little more frugally than if both worked. But there should be a choice.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:04

Oh and irritatingly enough we need both incomes to pay the mortgage.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:06

That's your choice though wishihabs. Others choose not to stretch themselves to maximum borrowing.

OneLittleToddlingTerror · 13/02/2013 13:06

It doesn't matter you live quite simply. The fact is you are getting benefits to stay at home. Instead of looking for work when your youngest is already 9!

wordfactory · 13/02/2013 13:07

gaelic I'm with you about personal allowances! But then neither DH nor I get ours!!!! I also think it's a bugger that one person earning X, takes home much less than two people each bringing in half of X due to higher rates etc.

But I really can't imagine what perverse outcomes you imagine for all the DC of two working parents...that's the vast vast majority of DC in the world, let alone the UK Grin...

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:07
gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:08

OH God, how do I shout on here?

Because people are concerned about jobsworth civil servants determining if they've tried hard enough to find a suitable job!!! And if the answer is no, they're income will be slashed and their children will suffer.

This is not difficult to comprehend!

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:09

Please don't forget that all of you have had the luxury of finding a job in your own way, on your own terms. And you would deny that to others.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:10

Yes my choice, and others can choose not to work and live on beans-fine. But why should the government subsidise them ?

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:10

their

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:11

In the same way that you and your DH have "chosen" not to earn more Wishihadabs?