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

I'd worked that out wannabe

I'd rather not

You know morethan, wannabe and others, the more I read of this thread the more I actually don't give a flying proverbial what the majority think. I do hope others agree. I just hope nobody really suffers because of the triumph of the small-minded.

gaelic My BIL is an ex-international sport star. He started playing at Senior International level before he went through puberty. His childhood was (at his obsessive insistence) lost to the sport.

Unfortunately it is a minority sport. A no money in it whatsoever minority sport.

In 2010 - despite the fact that he had his ticket to London 2012 pretty much booked - he made the decision aged mid twenties that he shouldn't be doing it any more. He had a wife. They wanted a family. He didn't want my Inlaws to subsidise his life anymore.(They would have forever and the rest of the family agreed with this.)

He got a job. He watched the Olympics on the TV. He and his wife are happy.

Watching him give it up broke my heart (I've known him since he was 14) so I have no idea what it did to him. I still think it is a terrible shame. But I really admire him for making the decision.

I get the whole vocation thing. But I do wonder if it is reasonable to expect your children to lose out so much for your vocation or if there is a point when you say "enough is enough".

Wannabe.

He's successful as in he said today he had achieved what he wanted to and he was happy and all that. I was quite worried actually as it was about an hour before he was due to leave.
It just isn't well paid because its not popular music. When we first met we could have lived in London and he'd have made a good living playing in the theatre shows, but it wasn't for him. He also could have taught full time at one of the conservatoires, but again not for him. Now he has done this type of work to keep the wolf from the door and doesn't turn it down if he gets a call because the money is good and he has a family to support. However, without saying too much the actual work he does enjoy where he has made his name pays peanuts.

I am starting to think the same. Its getting tiring hearing the same tory bollocks.

I had to leave a college course because DD1 kept getting sick in nursery. When I took her out she didnt get a single sniffle for a year, so it wasnt that shes just prone to illness. I dont know how people who are getting paid to do a job can balance it. I was only on a course and they were getting pissed off and I was falling behind!

And that's your choice, naturally. And it is the choice we made ourselves for 5 years, as I have said a few times. But it is a choice. And people do occasionally take the day off to look after sick children. And it's a hassle, and if a child is sick in the night we immediately start the "who has the most pressing commitments" conversation. But many, many couples manage. It's not impossible. It's a different choice.

Morethan

I absolutely agree that he is successful. I was merely making the point that many people measure success in money terms :)

Wannabe.

I thought you were. Do you know we have a club in our town where the music dh plays is on once a month. The mentality is either "oh he can't be very good he lives round here" or "no we can't book him he won't play here". Bloody call him and ask, we have kids, lol

I am so gutted I couldn't find the ads, thanks v. much gaelic

MummytoKatie - could you perhaps explain what you think the children of someone like morethan are losing out on? Might I remind you that pretty much every survey that is done of children's wants and needs comes out with "more time with mummy and daddy" topping the poll in one way or another.

Not applicable if not in receipt of benefits
If you're not benefit claimant you cannot be compelled to return to work
If in receipt of benefits, you will be subject to govt rules

TheFallenMadonna - and they manage it at their employer's expense don't they?

I would get the sack.

scottishmummy - one of many points being debated here is that many on this thread are in receipt of one or other form of tax credit, which was never a benefit until very recently.

I've never claimed FTC,so does this mean it's created a new category that people fall into?

In the 5 years I have been at my current job, I have taken 3 days for children's sickness. DH has probably taken a few more (chicken pox...). Neither of us have ever been threatened with the sack. If your children are normally healthy and you share the sick days, then it is not job threatening.

Like I said, it was something that seemed a bigger deal to me when we didn't have to do it.

And many, many people do it!

scottishmummy - I posted in depth about this earlier, but Child Tax Credit was always intended as a tax allowance, a means of families with children - as opposed to just married couples - paying less tax. Working Tax Credit evolved from Family Credit and was also administered by HMRC as a tax allowance, originally payable via wages (ie by paying less tax).

Only recently, and especiallly by lumping them into UC, have they come to be regarded as benefits. They were sold as people getting some of their own tax back as an allowance - that is what they always were. Yes for some there was a net gain, but they were still intended as tax allowances for working people.

TheFallenMadonna - I would argue that it depends on the job and the tolerance of the employer. If I cost the company hundreds of pounds by cancelling a work trip it would not be looked on very favourably.

morethan Have cross posted majorly with you whilst trying to explain BIL's situation in such a way that didn't identify him. If you are all happy with the situation then it works for you.

I guess BIL's situation was different in that the costs of travelling everywhere he needed to go to compete how he needed to were more than his income, funding and sponsorship combined before you even add in the whole pesky business of eating but it is similar and the choice very hard.

gaelic With two working parents you just make it work. Usually by sacrificing sleep! And by working at times when you technically shouldn't be in order to "pay back" goodwill. Unfortunately chicken pox hit at the same time as a snowstorm so my in laws were unable to come and help out. (They live the other side of the country but would have otherwise.) But there are 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week and we just made use of all of them. Not pleasant but doable for a week.

Gaelic.

That must be hard, why don't parents especially tell their dc they are proud of them. I'm always telling mine. FWIW gaelic just from what you have said on here I can see you have worked damned hard to get where you are and that is successful in my eyes.
I also think your dh must support you tremendously and that you openly acknowledge and appreciate it. What fantastic Role models for your dc.

Well as I said, it depends on the job. Wouldn't work for us, which is why we do what we do. But since we're not costing you any money that I haven't earned it doesn't matter anyway.

My situation isn't the point of this thread, although a couple of years ago I'd have been right up there with those who are worried sick.

That was to MummyToKatie et al

Morethan - yes DH has supported me tremendously, effectively giving up his career (which was never ever going to be conducive to two working parents). I owe him a hell of a lot (even if deep down I still wish it was the other way around).

Yep, and that's when DH tells me I have to take the day off!

Look, you don't want to do it. I understand that completely. But it is not an impossible thing, and when you suggest that it is, lots of working parents will do the face.

It's not your choice is enough.

Not impossible no, just not without cost to others. There is no ideal option here, working or not. That's what I'm saying.

TheFallenMadonna.

Everybody doesn't work for the same type of employer. I would hazard a guess that most of the jobs where you can take time off are office based and really not that important or others relying on you being there. Now some jobs you do have to be there its as simple as that. Its not choice.

I reckon the next line will be that I'm selfish in taking a job that prevents my DH from also working to pay his taxes. Same as your DH is being "selfish" in pursuing his talents. What do you reckon?