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

Wish the reason she can't is because some people felt entitled that the state top up their income so one of the parents can stay at home. Instead of asking the teenager to babysit.

wannabe I don't get CB. I don't have a mortgage.
Puzzled.

I think you make a very good point gaelic. As I said I don't feel entilted to it and if I loose it with the next round of cuts then so be it. Either we will cut back or work harder, but I won't be moaning on here

I'm saying nothing of the kind. I may be aiming some comments that way because those seem to be the section of this society that I'm mostly arguing with, but my general points are applicable to all.

But if you can't find a job you do get JSA nobody here is saying that is wrong. There for the grace of god and all that

That's fine, because you can increase your hours again. You have options. I am arguing (mostly) from the point of view of people who do not have those options (or not realistically, whatever the Government might say).

And again, not sure of your point. Do I think that someone who has lost their job and is actively seeking work should receive no support. Um, no.

But again, you're assuming logic and sense. Haven't you read about the perverse decisions being made about whether people with long term illnesses are fit for work?

When will we hear the first case of a family having their benefit/tax credits stopped because the SAHP is not prepared to take a job with a 90 minute commute each way, leaving them either unable to be home when their child gets in from school or earning so little on so few hours as to make the whole thing pointless, and quite possibly unaffordable?

But in the case of Morethan she does have options, possibly not pleasant one or her first choice but options nonetheless. She could send her dd to school, she could leave her dd with her older children in the evening. She could but she doesn't want to.Which is fine but why should it be subsidised ?

FWIW I babysat my db in the holidays for my mum from about 12

See I think that is very very wrong, using your own children for free childcare, and I hope the Government would be shot down in flames if they suggested it as a solution.

I think most people would say that benefits are there for anyone who cannot provide for themselves. Be they sick, disabled or simply unable to find a job.

This was why the welfare state was conceived and most of us would fight for that.

But for the rest of us, we should aim to support ourselves. The safety net is there for us if we need it.

But not wanting to work, during school hours, when your DC are school aged, as was the contention of the OP, is not what the welfare state envisaged...

And people, understandably find it baffling that some people want the state to support them in this regard.

gaelic makes some fair points about how this will be rolled out but that wasn't the contention of the openng post.

Um why ? Quite common place round here

Also Morethan has a 17y old should they contribute something to the household. I agree 12 was a bit young, but at least I knew how to change a nappy before I had my own :)

The government are not suggesting siblings provide childcare, they are suggesting working whilst DC are in school.

Some of the posters opposing this, home educate.

This is a tricky one and one I do have sympathy with, as I don't use state education myself.

My ds2 has Aspergers and couldn't trust him with dd to be honest, he is also doing A levels. My eldest 21, we hardly see him as he works away mostly.
My parents are dead, dhs are not local to us. I have a sister she too lives in another area and has her own work and family commitments.
My dh is self employed and takes work when it is offered and is lucky that his work covers many different avenues.
If dhs hours were regular there wouldn't be a problem if I knew what hours I would be available to work this would be fine.
I am looking into joining dh in his business, pretending to be a book keeper and office worker to be employed. That should please many of you here, I'll certainly meet the requirements for UC. I haven't done this before as I find it quite dishonest, but maybe there's a point that sahm shouldn't be supported.

I think the contention was that it would be wrong to enforce it if not in the family's best interests. There are many possible reasons why it may not be in their best interests, as I have tried to illustrate, and that doesn't include people just not fancying it.

That sounds realy sensible Morethan, then you can use your own personal allowance as well as your dhs. I didn't realise your Ds had sn. I think that should an exemption TBH. I was thinking about a nt 17yo, who I would leave my dcs with.

FWIW I don't think that would be dishonest

17yo with Asd can be a ft job IME (I work with sn occasionally)

wish

He really isn't that bad and went through school ok, but nobody listened to us when we said he wasn't right. We knew at 6 and it took until he was 17 to get a diagnosis as he set fire to the house, not maliciously.

I haven't gone down the avenue of "book keeping" etc before as I always thought it dishonest. He also couldn't offer me many hours so might not meet all the conditionality etc.
I didn't decide to be a sahm because of benefits btw, they didn't exist when our older dc were little and life was tough, but it was our choice. When the letter arrived advising us about Ftc I thought all our Christmases had come at once, so I never really felt entitled to support. However, it is difficult to imagine how we will mange without again.

gaelic, my friend is a lone mum and the jobcentre did ask her to let her 13 YO care for the 9 YO in the evenings!

'But all that is being asked is that SAHPs seek local school hour work' if they find something in term time hours then may be alright or voluntary. But my lone Mum friend was sent to many jobs that were not school hours at all. This could happen?

'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!'

I agree they are still raising their families. Also it must be hard if you want to SAH but genuinely cannot. I can see that would grate if you see others doing that. However most of the f/t WOH Mums I know are working because hey took on large mortgages or had a certain lifestyle they didn't want to drop back on OR they enjoy their job/hated SAH etc. And of course many lone mums have to work or claim benefits. You cannot have everything, WOHM have their wages, pension etc, SAHP have disadvantages also..pension, shot career etc so you have to weigh up which you prefer if you have the choice. So it doesn't make sense to resent someone doing the opposite if you hav e chosen to work etc.

My DH is self employed. His accountant wanted to put me on the pay roll (he chose this accountant because he was honest lol). So I think it is widespread.

We are all just trying to do the best for our kids in the end

With no disrespect at all to Morethan, can I please ask why that possible solution is not seen as dishonest if there is no actual change in arrangements, only on paper? Playing devil's advocate but also interested.

gaelicsheep

I can remember reading articles about MPs doing this, claiming their other half as all sorts of different titles. The general consensus was that it was dishonest.

Although, having looked at this for a while now I do feel that the support I offer dh should surely warrant a wage. I think its a fine line really and debatable as what I do, he could really do himself.

Ok stupid duties but this is what I do.

Open door, issue parking permit, make drinks, clean the music room, answer phone, take messages, sometimes take action/ advise. Basic book keeping to be forwarded to accountant. Photo copy material for students, banking. Devise working solutions to problems, marketing and strat management every now and again.
Apart from management bits dh can do this himself, it doesn't need me to do it. The management side he doesn't flaming listen anyway. I have a PG Executive Management certificate from the CMI believe it or not.

I just find it curious that people are OK with this but not with tax credits, which are also paid, or were paid, to someone who plays an essential supporting role in many cases.