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

Thanks ssd. You're right and I do!.

gaelic, if you were ever in any doubt at all what ssd says.

I am the equivalent of your dh and it makes me happy to be able to support my dh and be there for the kids. The older ones not so much obviously at their ages, but to be able to spend time with dd, see her grow into a lovely young lady. I feel very fortunate. I think your dh is someone to be admired in this day and age, bless him.

Being a sahp is a lifestyle not a right. If you can afford to do this, fine. If not sorry but you have to go out and earn money to pay for YOUR children. And yes top up benefits should be paid to parents who don't earn a living wage.

Rockmouse.

Isn't that what a sahp gets financially? A top up benefit if the family don't earn a living wage?
Of course its the right of a parent to bring their dc up. You don't see animals leaving their cubs with other mothers while they go to hunt.
What an absurd idea. A parent not having the right to parent.

I am a SHAM. NOT out of choice, my children are at school and I have been job hunting for months and months. I'm not only looking for work during school hours, looking for anything really.

The working tax credits are keeping our heads above water. Are we going to be penalised about the fact that I can't get a job? I can't afford to retrain, we're literally living hand-to-mouth. If they cut our WTC the kids we'll go hungry or we'll find ourselves in the street. I have been trying so hard to get a job, I sometimes cry with frustration and worry. I suspect I'm not the only one in this situation. What's the government going to do for families like mine?

sorry, failed to say this is more or less what my friend said today, it was supposed to be in " " (I'm clarifying this to avoid confusing people in here that know me).

Scattered do you really mean SAHM or that your life is a sham, or both.
I really feel for people in your position, we are not much better off and would just float without Tax credits, but that's only because we are older and probably alot further along in life than you.
We have been where you are and all I can do is offer my sympathy to you, and remind you that a few years down the line can see a big difference to your current situation. I know this is of little consolation, but working (or not) for a better day is all you can do. I know its easy to say don't worry, its such a hard place to be.
A big hug for you.

Interesting document here.

Looks as though in order to qualify for the equivalent of tax credits of either flavour, one parent gets nominated to be SAHP, and that parent only has to turn up for work-focused interviews periodically. Specifically, when:

"the claimant is the responsible carer for a child who is aged at least 1 and is under a prescribed age (which may not be less than 3)"

Which looks rather as though as soon as your youngest hits three you'll have to jump through a hell of a lot more hoops to get your tax credits - these hoops go by the name "work preparation".

"In this Part a ?work preparation requirement? is a requirement that a claimant take particular action specified by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making it more likely in the opinion of the Secretary of State that the claimant will obtain paid work (or more paid work or better-paid work)."

This includes:

"undertaking work experience or a work placement"

So basically, SAHPs under Universal Credit may be required to do workfare to retain their benefits as soon as their youngest reaches the age of three.

StormyBird.

Thats about the size of it. I was wondering who would be minding the sahps dc whilst they are preparing for work. Can it be guaranteed that the 15 hours subsidised pre school hours will be able to be taken to cover these times.

I think we're supposed to have free flexible childcare on tap morethan, although of course if we had this more of us would be able to work

The document I was looking at doesn't specify how many hours per week of "work preparation" will be required. Who's to say it'll be equal to or less than the fifteen subsidised hours?

This is just so awful for so many people.
Most of it will not affect me as my dc are older so i'd be expected to be one of the first into work.
So unless a few hours working for dh will meet conditionality, our family will lose Tax credits.
I am not going to be bullied into finding work, I think its absolutely shocking what this government is doing to people who are much worse off than me.

it is awful

I work for NMW and have older kids, a pre teen and a teenager

we'll lose tax credits too

but theres absolutely no way I'm leaving my kids all school hols with a key and no one here, we have no family at all to help us out

I thought I'd have to, but after thinking about it I'm not doing it, we'll just have to be more skint

Have just made it through 28 pages of this thread. Feel quite victorious!

Personally I agree with the idea in theory but am really worried about how it would work in practice. I just don't trust "the system" to get it right!

Morethan - just a thought but I think (20 odd pages ago) you said you were a qualified teacher? In which case the obvious solution for your family is for you to work and your dh to SAH / work a little bit around you. Pretty sure a teacher income is higher than the 70 hours * NMW that is quoted on here. Not sure the "you working for dh" will work if he's only earning NMW. As where will the money come from to pay you? If there was more money then couldn't he just pay himself more and then your family income would be higher than the crucial number anyway. So I don't think it would save your tax credits. (Although it would reduce your tax bill so it would be easier to live on the money.)

Mummy.

I couldn't teach again tbh. It didn't pay a wage anyway as they couldn't offer me a contract or many hours. I worked about 60 hours a week and was paid for 8 contact hours with students.

I am coming to terms with the fact we will lose FTC and tbh I can't complain as there are many worse off than us.
What worries me though is the way society has developed hate, anger and disregard for the people at the bottom.

I don't want to work because I see my time at home as valuable to my family and have no intention of making dd go to school so we can afford luxuries. My dhs career would suffer and I couldn't do that to him, not for more money.

Morethan, its not really "shocking" that the government expect people to work and support themselves. They should be doing so anyway.

Thousands of parents work, its perfectly doable. This levels up the playing field, why should some families be given money as they choose to stay home when thousands of others do the right thing and work to ensure they meet the costs of the children they chose to have.

We cant afford to pay people to do nothing, SAHP can continue to do so if their own income allows it and, if not, then like plenty of others they need to work. If the cap is age three, be thankful that its two more years than most mums get on maternity.

HappyMummy.

Parenting and educating a child might be nothing to you. Supporting your dh so he is able to work, might also be nothing to you.
I never had maternity so I don't really need to be thankful for this really.
I think we will have to beg to differ on the shocking point.

Parenting does mean the world to me, but not working doesnt make a person a better parent. Financially supporting a child is part of being a parent.

I dont need to support DH so he is able to work, hes a grown man and can do that himself just like I do. We share childcare in the holidays and sick days like most working parents do in a partnership.

The era of entitlement is passing and people will no longer be able to choose not to work whilst other tax payers do so in order to cover the benefits bill. Its very selfish to expect to able to not work or work very few hours knowing that choice means taking money from the state. Its one thing to need short term assistance, quite another to blantantly choose it.

Happymummy.

Parenting and educating my daughter go hand in hand with not working. My dh needs my support in order to work and is a fine figure of a man tyvm. We don't share childcare, because we are parents not childcare workers.
I didn't choose not to work for financial gain btw. As a sahm I received a letter about 15 years ago now, telling me about the new Family Credit to support people like us. There was a huge tv campaign telling all parents below a certain level of income to apply. Wo then strike me down, they started paying us money.
So my choice didn't mean taking money from the state.

Ner ner ner ner ner nerrrrrrrr

Oh blimey HappyMummyOfOne, there's nothing like feeling like you've been talking to a brick wall for several days on end. FGS.

Or perhaps the difference between tax allowances and benefits that I took the trouble to explain is too difficult for you to understand?

"Its very selfish to expect to able to not work or work very few hours knowing that choice means taking money from the state."

It is also very selfish for both you and your DH to work, neither of you being able to give the job your full attention because of your shared responsibilities, and expect your colleagues and employers to pick up the slack. Would you not say?

I don't think people are ever going to agree on this one. But the point is people absolutely must take financial responsibility for their families if they are physically able to. I absolutely cannot see the right to remain at home and not work and rely on other working people's taxes to pay for this. I just don't get it I'm afraid.

Gaelic

I think you frightened her away.

I have been searching utube with the slightest of hope I might find one of the tv campaigns just so people who don't understand could see the difference of culture then.
I just wish people would educate themselves a little and not just follow gov propaganda like little lost sheep.
I understand the differences you point out but couldn't explain it like you do.
I also appreciate the effort and time you have gone to trying to enable people to understand that sahps aren't the lowest of the lowest.

morethan Why does your husband need so much support to do a career that only pays him NMW? It doesn't seem like a very good trade off for your family. Especially as his hours are so unpredictable that you can't work around him.

Could he perhaps think about doing something else that is either better paid, less involving, more predictable or (best of all) all of the above?

Morethan -

Viviennemary - you do understand that in the vast majority of cases all that is happening is that those families pay less tax in recognition of the financial sacrifice being made by the SAHP? They are getting their own tax bill reduced - the same way that I'm about to "scrounge off the state" by claiming back money for relocation - they are NOT having other taxpayers pay for them.

You do get that, right?