Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
wannabedomesticgoddess · 13/02/2013 13:14

How do you not get your personal allowance? Are you earning over 100k?

wordfactory · 13/02/2013 13:14

gaelic what are you taling about?

Most people do not have the luxury of finding their own job on their own terms.

They must eat. They must clothe themselves. They must have shelter...ergo they work.

That is the vast vast majority of adults around the world, let alone the UK.

As for the perverse outcomes comment...you meant if benefits are stopped? You didn't make that clear. It appeared that you were agreeing with others that there are perverse outcomes for DC with two working parents.

TheFallenMadonna · 13/02/2013 13:16

Again gaelicsheep, I think you are looking at this from the perspective of one reasonably good earner, and not two low earners. My parents needed two incomes to pay the rent on a two bedroomed house for a family of 5.

The borrowing to the max comment is as out of place as the idea that families with two working parents are obsessed with money.

wordfactory · 13/02/2013 13:17

wannabe yes.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:17

I think if you read the whole thread that nobody, but nobody, has made that particular point wordfactory.

Eat, shelter - yes. Anyone working for that reason will not take a job that leaves them worse off or breaking even, I'd like to bet. Not unless it is known to be very short term and leading to better things.

Plus no one should kid themselves that this will remain restricted to school age children, if indeed it even is at the moment.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:19

Actually we have choose not to earn more. I work 24 hours, could do f/t. DH left a very stressful job so he can spend more time at home. We choose to have 1 of us picking up the dcs everyday and have fewer material things (didn't borrow maximum on mortgage either).

The difference is if this wasn't enough, then I would work f/t as I have done in the past to make ends meet. I have also taken on overtime while DH wasn't working. You do what you have to do. I don't expect to be supported by benefits in my choices.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:19

And if one of your parents had lost their job and been unable to find another one, you would have been quite happy for them to be thrown out on the street? That's probably what would have happened in those days anyway so they were lucky.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:21

Though I do receive chb.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:21

And that is different from child tax credit because?

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:22

I've lost you gaelic

wordfactory · 13/02/2013 13:23

gaelic a few posters have made the point about the next generation suffering due to having two working parents. The OP has made the point that only SAHPs raise their own DC several times.

As I say, it's a difficult concept to sell to the ordinary Joe in the street...

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:23

Why is it OK for child benefit to subsidise you not working full time?

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:23

wordfactory - to be honest I think most of that is down to kneejerk reactions to perceived personal criticism.

wannabedomesticgoddess · 13/02/2013 13:24

So you earn over 100k and dont get your personal allowance but you receive CB? Eh?

You must have a stonking mortgage. Thats your choice though.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:25

Actually it's different because it is not calculated on household income. Also it was a universal benefit. If I did go over the limit I would have no problem in losing it.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:26

No word earns over 100K not me

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 13:26

OnelittleTrading

My youngest dd 9 is h.educated, her choice. I also would and have chosen to be a sahm it is important to me.

However, the only choice I have of finding a job even if dd goes back to school is to find an employer who is very flexible and will allow me to skip a day here and there to tie in with dhs work. I don't think that's possible really.
I would need to pay for a full time time holiday care and maybe other childcare depending on what hours I was offered whether I needed it or not.
My dh works nights, days, weekends, not all the time but these vary on a weekly sometimes daily basis. He often works away and we have no extended family close by to help with childcare out of normal childcare hours.
So for people like me who are unable to work in order for the other to work I don't think it is too much to ask for the right to be a sahm.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:26

wannabe - I think you're mixing up wishihadabs and wordfactory.. ;-)

OneLittleToddlingTerror · 13/02/2013 13:27

Same as wishihadabs, DH and I chose not to earn more. We stayed in our local jobs, so we can spent more time with our DD. I don't seek the promotions my male colleagues are working towards either.

if one of your parents had lost their job and been unable to find another one, you would have been quite happy for them to be thrown out on the street?
Um, you look for work.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:27

My god, that truly truly takes the biscuit wishihadabs - I've heard it all now!

BTW, in case you haven't heard CB is now means tested. So you're just as bad as the rest of us.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:28

While she was a child OLTT? Oh yes that will be the next thing, sending the youngsters out to work after school.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 13:28

Morethan I am sorry to labour this point but why can't your teenagers mind the 9yo if you needed to work. (I understand you don't want to do this, but if you had to.?

OneLittleToddlingTerror · 13/02/2013 13:29

morethan

However, the only choice I have of finding a job even if dd goes back to school is to find an employer who is very flexible and will allow me to skip a day here and there to tie in with dhs work. I don't think that's possible really.

How many days is that? I use my annual leave to cover sick days. Already taken 5 this year because DD has been poorly a lot.

TheFallenMadonna · 13/02/2013 13:29

I don't understand your point. Had one of them lost their job, they would have looked for another one, as they would be required to do if in receipt of UC.

You seem to be implying that two income families work to maintain a lifestyle you are happy to eschew in favour of having a SAHP. My DH and I have done the downscaling the lifestyle to fund a SAHP. We could do it because we have reasonably well paid jobs. But many families have two lower earners, and your comments are inappropriate for them.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 13:30

"and been unable to find another one"