Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 15:07

gaelic

I totally agree, I have even done the calculator and there really is no difference at all apart from what's on paper. Dh would effectively give me some of his money earned, which is what he does anyway. Grin
It all goes into the same pot. I'm not sure about personal allowance as not sure how that works. But as dh only earns the equivalent of a min wage neither of us are going to be paying much if any tax. This hardly helps the economy at all. Its like I said above and on other threads people are going to have to look for loopholes and possible dishonesty to just stay the same. I'd rather keep ftc and support dh than have to do something I find morally questionable. But if needs be then I suppose I should consider myself fortunate at having this option. But I don't.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 15:10

You definitely deserve a wage btw.

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 15:23

gaelic

I've been doing this all our married life, Grin at you suggesting I need a wage. Dh doesn't expect me to open doors, make drinks etc its just a personal touch I like to offer. He quite often runs late, so if I open door, greet pupils etc he can finish the current lesson.

Well I guess I better sort it out soon as luck isn't on our side with the time element of UC.
We are the first to trial in April and also I have changes as ds2 leaves full time education this year.
This is something else that isn't a coincidence. Lets take the most deprived areas of the NW to trial the UC, what a surprise. With any hope it might be scrapped after sorting us lot out, lol Grin

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 15:43

Morethan - if you can't beat em, join em eh?

I mght

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 15:45

Morethan - if you can't beat em, join em eh? Smile

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 16:00

I assume that Morethan will be providing a service to the company. She mentioned book keeping

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 16:22

gaelic

It really doesn't sit well with me, but if I have to well I guess that's it.
At least dd will be able to continue H.ed. Even if I add it all up though the hours won't meet the UC specification and no doubt I will still be in some part in the conditionality steps. I would imagine having to attend jc work initiatives. I think I could stretch him to 16 hours at nmw.

wish. I did mention book keeping, I have always done this and progressed from a manual system of book and pen to spreadsheet, something I was chuffed to bits with.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 16:26

IMO if you are doing that and there are sufficient funds in the company why not get DH to pay you ?

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 16:50

wish

The point is that officially I am a sahm and unemployed. Dh is self employed and we share his income and have FTC he has WTC also. Unless I am prepared to seek work we lose UC.

If I work for dh as book keeper/ P.A etc, he still pays me part of his income and we still receive his UC and now I can claim too. So we will in effect be claiming more benefit.

Unless I am mistaken, in which case somebody please put me out of this misery Grin

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 16:59

I'm not sure but I don't think you'll get more tax credits - although maybe you will! - but I'm pretty sure your DH would no longer pay any tax.

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 17:02

gaelic

My confusion stems from the part that states each person will be treated as an individual where UC is concerned.
At the moment sahp's are in no mans land because contrary to many beliefs we are not paid anything to sah.
However, if we are to become individuals (what a lovely prospect) then we will be judged on our own earnings I think.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 17:13

I'm confused too! I'm sure I read that UC will be based on family income. I wonder if they even know yet.

Original poster
CSLewis · 13/02/2013 17:44

wordfactory: my OP isn't about those who simply "don't want to work", but about those who genuinely feel it is not in the best interests of their family - there have been women on this thread who would have liked to be employed, but who were needed to care for disabled children, for example. Or in the case of one parent working very long hours/travelling a lot, where it might be in the interests of the whole family to have a parent around consistently, for more than a few hours every evening.

And I don't think, and have never said, that families in which both parents WOH don't raise their children; I'm sure that the majority who do, do so with the best of intentions, believing it to be in the best interests of their family.

I, personally, believe that the best outcomes for the child/ren are usually synonymous with them having one parent at home when they are at home. So shoot me.

gaelicsheep has done a very good job at pointing out all the pitfalls in requiring parents to work 'school hours', so I won't repeat them. I feel that this is the thin end of the wedge; I'm worried about the grey area between ages 1 and 4; and I really dislike government policy being wholly driven by economic pragmatism rather than a holistic view of the person.

OP posts:
gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 18:03

I think we've now established, have we not, that paying less tax is fine but receiving a tax "credit" is not, even if the net result is the same? So it is the order of operations that makes the difference between someone who works hard and someone who doesn't. Kind of weird.

"gaelicsheep has done a very good job at pointing out all the pitfalls in requiring parents to work 'school hours', so I won't repeat them."

Lol, read the woman won't shut up! Grin

sunshine401 · 13/02/2013 18:15

It is all going to end badly!! :(

wannabedomesticgoddess · 13/02/2013 18:41

Yes I was confused earlier. Sorry abput that. Will catch up on the thread in a bit!

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 19:09

Well it used to be possible for the working partner to transfer their tax free allowance. I think people may have less of a problem with that.

Wishihadabs · 13/02/2013 19:11

The non working partner

Viviennemary · 13/02/2013 19:23

I think the transfer of tax allowance would be the best way forward. And also raising the threshold where people start to pay tax to at least £12,000 per annum.

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 20:10

Ok I'm sure we must have had transfer of tax free allowance being old timers Smile, but can someone tell me how this works. I'm a bit dim at times.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 20:33

I think everyone would be happier with transfer of tax allowance! But you can't blame individuals who no longer have that as an option.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 21:09

Morethan -my limited understanding is that because you, and my DH, are not in paid employment your tax free allowance is going unclaimed. That's just over £8,000, translating into a little under £2,000 that a working person does not pay in tax. If both partners are working they effectively get the benefit of around £3,000 (?) that they don't pay in tax. Me and your DH get only around £1,500. Transfer of allowance means that instead of the other £1,500 going into Government coffers, the earning partner could - and did - take advantage of their partner's personal allowance and get to keep another £1,500 or thereabouts, before they pay tax, as their partner would if they were in paid employment.

That's my understanding anyway. I'm not sure if it was ever the full allowance that could be transferred. Guesstimated figures so apologies if they are way off.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 21:14

Aargh, stupid phone. I corrected all figures there from 2000 to 1500 except the first.

morethanpotatoprints · 13/02/2013 21:24

gaelic.

Ah, I sort of see now. I seem to remember something in the 90's that sounded like this and remember dhs accountant mention something like this.
I also think this would be acceptable to more people as the problem seems to be people believe that sahp's are receiving money i.e actually gaining a wage. However, this is still money that the government wouldn't see.
I do wonder about peoples perceptions of acceptability.

gaelicsheep · 13/02/2013 21:28

Your DH's accountant will have mentioned it because by paying you to do all the stuff you're doing this is effectively what would happen. Your salary would be a legitimate pre-tax expense.