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

It's also very funny how perceptions change over time, and I blame the Government for this as much as anything. I distinctly remember - or at least I think I do - that when tax credits were brought in they were much lauded because the money could be paid directly to the non-earning partner rather than being funnelled through their other half. Over time the origins of the tax credit as a descendant of the tax allowance have got lost and merged together with the idea of benefits. Now of course the Government has completed the job by lumping everything under the universal credit.

Which, of course, now means that people are at the mercy of the Government and the money can be swept away with no more than a whimper from the general populace, because it is no longer seen as money belonging to the recipients in the first place.

gaelic.

You are right. I don't know how old you are but I can remember tv adverts stating how many people were entitled and not claiming tax credits. Who was entitled and when to claim. Numbers to call, help in filling out the forms. How it was going to help everybody, and the general message was one of hope, and a bit of a buffer if you needed it.
As I said up thread I received a letter, claim form and I think I cried when I read that we were getting support.
I have never felt as though I was entitled to it and we just managed without it so I know we could do it again.
I get mad at those who talk about entitled sahps, scroungers, luxury lifestyle and such. That's not what the adverts told us.

If anyone is still listening, here's this, from a Parliamentary paper about the proposed "new" married person's tax allowance:

"[Gordon Brown] ...also announced that a new children?s tax credit (CTC) would be introduced from April 2001, given to families who have one or more children under 16 living with them.10 The credit would take the form of an allowance ? set at £5,200 for 2001/02 ? for which relief would be given at 10 per cent: in effect those families eligible to claim the CTC would be able to cut their annual income tax bill by up to £520. In April 2002 the credit was increased in line with inflation ? to £590 for 2002/03 ? and an additional ?baby? rate was paid for the first year of a child?s life ? equivalent to a further credit of £10 a week.11
The Government?s purpose in introducing the new credit was, as the Chancellor stated in his March 1999 Budget speech, to ?substantially increase support for families with children?, and to do so, ?in the fairest way? ? two principles governing its approach to the taxation of families.12 As a consequence eligibility for the CTC was based on whether someone was caring for a child ? rather than their marital status ? and the value of the credit was tapered for higher rate taxpayers (by £1 for every £15 of income above the higher rate threshold, until entitlement to the credit was exhausted)."

Working Tax Credit takes its origins from Working Families Tax Credit, which evolved from Family Credit - a benefit - to a tax allowance administered by the Inland Revenue and payable through wages. Somehow the two systems have converged even further so that everyone who used to be claiming a perfectly legitimate tax allowance is now seen as a benefits scrounger.

x posts more than

In my last paragraph, I meant that the two systems have converged (pretty much merged now) and are now being shifted wholesale back to being benefits.

Oh God, where's the edit button?????????

Except that the Child Tax Credit was never ever a benefit and was never intended as such!!

gaelic.

Oh I so really like you.

You give us the proof we need to say sahps stand up and be counted you are not lazy scroungers.

I have noticed how old I am though as I'm sure we started on Family Credit and I'm think it was mid ninetees. OMG, the scrounger brigade will have a field day.

I'm old enough to remember the change.

I wish I'd researched this yesterday before everyone got bored and wandered off!

I didnt get bored. I hope the others read your recent points. They are really valid.

I have a terrible flu and havent been able to concentrate today :(

Hope you feel better soon!

:)

I too have appreciated your posts gaelic. I also remember when tax credits started. DH and I were amazed that we were entitled to anything! We had started our family expecting to manage on DH's salary.
Back then who would have thought that accepting money which we thought was given to enhance the lives of children would lead to me being viewed as a social parasite.
I find it so strange that in all the discussion on SAHPs it is made out to be all about the mothers and them wanting a certain lifestyle. What about the children? Aren't they entitled to at least one parent's time? One parent not totally exhausted by long hours at work?
I used to teach abroad. Most kids had two parents working long hours. I once set them an essay on what would you wish for. So many wrote that they wished they could spend more time with their parents. They wished their mum was not always so tired. That was 12 to 13 year olds. That made a big impact on my early twenties self.
In all the arguing over entitlement and laziness is anyone factoring in the children? How will children be affected?
Probably this is too late to get read....but had to say it anyway.

fromwesttoeast I agree.

I also see threads on here where the OP is concerned about taking days off from work when the kids are sick. Should that always fall to the mother? Or the lowest earner?

Surely having one parent at home can enable the other parent to give their all to a job, go for promotion, take on extra hours etc.

This is music to my ears.
People also assume that if you are a sahp its because you either can't afford childcare or you are some down trodden bored person.
They find it hard to believe that you too may have had a good career or business and are well qualified as well. Sometimes its just right for the family to be a sahp. If I had worked any more than the odd bits I have my family and dhs career would have suffered.
Had I wanted to work and felt it right, wanted to progress with my career, I would have done.

Wannabe, I don't mind which parent stays with a sick child as long as one of them does. This is a wealthy, developed society. We should be able to afford that comfort for our young.
Good points Morethan.
Women have always contributed to society through unpaid work. Refusing to recognise that just perpetuates inequality.

This is music to my ears too, and good points all. Very often the SAHP is an enabling role for the earning (note I don't say "working"!) partner and that is not sufficiently recognised.

This was brought home to me recently when my DH was suddenly taken ill - very scary - and I realised in the space of a few days that my job would be quite untenable without him at home doing what he does. It's a hard job in a man's world which I worked very hard to achieve and need to work long and hard, and spend time away from home, to keep. I think the balance is fine for the children with DH doing what he does. But if he was working too I don't believe it would be right for any of us for me to be doing this job.

And I know people would say that when both of our kids go to school it will be fine for DH to work school hours, and maybe it will. I know he really wants and needs to earn money himself. But I remain sceptical about the availability of suitable jobs, especially where we live. The answer for him, and what he really wants, will be to work for himself like he used to, at times that fit around the children, which is what could become so hard to establish with the DWP breathing down your neck.

I believe - thank God - that we earn enough to be exempt from the conditionality stuff, but that doesn't stop me from being worried for those who don't. And it doesn't stop me getting really angry when everything DH does for me and the kids is belittled in the way it has been on occasions here.

One more thing. I am so totally sick and tired of being asked "does your DH work?" or worse "your DH doesn't work does he?" and feeling I have to justify what he does.

I cant understand anyone saying they have to justify their position in life.....to who? I've never been asked does dh work, what do we do, being made to feel I'm a scrounger or anything like that. All this scrounger talk...who really talks like that in real life, except the daily mail? I work part time around the kids school hours, I've never left them in childcare as I don't want to, I've always been at home for them, or dh has if I'm working. I really couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me, calls me or anything else. I have always felt if you can cut back and be at home, and you want to be at home, then good for you, its certainly the best thing I can do for my kids and that's all that matters to us.

The government like to be whipping people up into a frenzy and its criminal.

and gaelic, don't let anyone make you feel belittled, anyone who does that isn't worth bothering about.

gaelic
and I know people will say that when both of our kids go to school it will be fine for DH to work school hours and maybe he will *

Surely this was what the thread was about initially - parents of children who are school age - it was turned into an everyone undermines all SAHP thread - lots of us who are now working did SAH when our DC were little !!!

Very sensible post by ssd- same set up here - noone ever questioned me in RL either!

Sorry bold fail - was quoting gaelic

Ssd, you are right. Parents should just do what they know is best. If the government makes it harder, we just have to try harder to do what's right for us.

Thanks ssd. People do say this though frequently in rl. It took my parents ages to get their heads round DH not working from home as well as looking after the children. So many people follow up their first question with "but does he work from home?"

In our case I know this is subconscious sexism on the part of the people asking, I don't think they mean any offence. I guess our arrangement is quite unusual and people, even in the 21st century, can't quite get their heads around it. I know I don't HAVE to justify it, but I hate the thought that anyone thinks DH is just lazy. Especially when it has taken HIM (and me to an extent) 6 full years to come to terms with the way things are, and he still thinks badly of himself even now.

well gaelic tell him to hold his head up high, he's bringing up his kids and being available for them, when they need him and he's supporting you too

I feel, in my humble opinion, the most valuable thing we can give our kids is our time, and yes I have teenagers who want ipads, iphone's, hollister, trips abroad just like they all do BUT time is the most valuable commodity of all, and your dh is giving that to his kids.