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

No not selfish, I have a sense of "entitlement" that I think I can take any job and not just the one that allows DH and I collectively to give best possible value to the taxpayer.

Well there's certainly enough posts left for any Witches of Eastwick to appear.

Oh Mnet is making me very naughty these days. I'm supposed to be prepping Henry viii for dds history tomorrow. Oh well horrible histories I think. Divorced, beheaded, and died, divorced beheaded survived.

Just to say I am making myself step away from this thread now as I have little else useful to contribute.

gaelic I was more talking about my BIL's situation - where any kids they had would have suffered. But as morethan has said more than once that her family need the tax credits money that is now being withdrawn it doesn't sound like an ideal situation for them. I'm not saying that her dh should give up his music - just that there are events that happen that mean that it is sensible to review decisions made and see if they are still sensible. We tend to do it every time dd gets poorly and we are trying to manage the childcare between us.

Juggling childcare is a bit like labour - if you think too hard about it you can't imagine how it is possible. And yet people do it every day. Very few of us are heart surgeons and so are truly indispensable on a day to day basis. (Incidentally I am quite friendly with a heart surgeon. One day, a year or so ago, he was playing a game with his nephews and managed to injure himself in such a way that he was off work for 3 months. It was undoubtedly inconvenient but the hospital coped.)

All the people saying that one should only have children if one can support them, with independent means, from birth to 18, with no outside assistance, financial or otherwise - how is that different from saying that poor (financially straitened) people should not have children?

And how is that different from social engineering?

MummytoKatie.

I see what you are saying but dh is not in the same situation as your bil. It doesn't cost him to work and we don't need a huge subsidy. I do need tax credits but I also needed them before they existed, so will just about manage without.
I couldn't imagine dh doing anything else, music has been his life and work since before he graduated from Music College.

Thank you CS for a very thought provoking thread. I too don't have anything more to add and wouldn't want to hang around to continue to argue my point.

All the people saying that one should only have children if one can support them, with independent means, from birth to 18, with no outside assistance, financial or otherwise - how is that different from saying that poor (financially straitened) people should not have children?

And how is that different from social engineering?

It isn't. Social engineering, "culture change" - that's what benefits reform is all about. Self reliance! Taking responsibility!

The whole point of it is to stigmatise anyone who requires any financial or social assistance. The Tories despise the lower orders "breeding" and being a drain on their "hard-earned" taxes. Every now and then, the Tory mask slips.

The Tory leader pledged to support single mothers. His party is now wielding the axe against them.

All worth bearing in mind if you're someone who has voted Tory or Lib Dem in the past.

Of course Labour encouraged people to claim tax credits, its how they bought their votes! Many claimants get more in tax credit than the household pays in income tax so its not in any shape or form a tax reduction, if that were the case they would have simply amended the tax codes. You also dont have to be working to claim tax credits.

"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?"

What a ridiculous suggestion, you dont give less to your job just because you have children. A persons work ethic is down to the person not if they are a parent or not. We maybe need a day each to cover DS being sick but not had to in the last eighteen months. Holidays are covered by annual leave which all workers get. To justify people staying home on benefits as they may need the odd day off with their child doesnt wash.

The argument for and against go around in circles. Thankfully though the government agree that people should work once their children are no longer babies. Incidently no different from IS switching to JSA once the child reached a certain age. A fairer system has been needed for a while, we cant afford to hand out money to those that wont work for it, thats not a welfare state at all. Those that need it short term for a few months between jobs or who cant support themselves due to severe disability need the money thats left in the pot.

Of course Labour encouraged people to claim tax credits, its how they bought their votes!

You could look at it that way. Alternatively if you could allow yourself to think a little deeper, beyond right-wing dogma and cliche, you might realise that in a civilised society those who earn the least need help by way of tax allowances (which is all tax credits were). Capitalism can only work if there are enough people with disposable income to consume the goods and services and fuel the economy.

Less disposable income = no growth, recession, and an economy in crisis.

Which is what's happening here right now after two years of Tory/Lib Dem economic policy.

Meanwhile, the rich get richer: David Cameron's tax cut will help 13,000 millionaires.

I'm not supposed to be posting any more (knew that wouldn't last) but HappyMummyOfOne - I suggest you go and inform yourself.

I'm not going to continue to argue the point over two working parents versus one working parent. It's a peripheral issue, save for this. Your admission, HappyMummOfOne that you would have had your in-laws travelling halfway across the country to bale you out if it weren't for the snow just serves to demonstrate my point. If it is such a hard juggling act, which it undoubtedly is, then it is not going to be viable for everyone, and certainly not always in the children's best interests to be shifted around from pillar to post. So I'm sure you see why not everyone believes it is the best option.

Somebody pays, that is the point. You think you are being self-reliant and criticise those who are not. But you too are relying on others, at the very least in terms of goodwill if nothing else. Demanding flexibility from employers, getting help from extended family, etc. etc. Not everyone has access to those things, which is why it simply cannot work for everyone, no matter what the Government says.

That's all.

Gaelic, my inlaws didnt bale me out in the snow. We dont use family for childcare at all so dont rely at all on goodwill. My mum died when i was a child and the inlaws are old and have health problems and its not their repsonsibility to provide childcare and i wouldnt ask them.

Neither is my DS shifted from pillar to post. For the hours i need childcare for when working (very few) we use the after school club. If paying for childcare makes me reliant on others, then so is paying for everything in life. You may have assumed he is "shifted around" but your assumpations are way off. He is with us both or one of us every moment he is outside school or the odd afternoon in club.

Where have i also demanded flexibility from either of my employers? I doubt booking annual leave is demanding flexibility.

You dont need flexible working or help from family with childcare to work. Childcare is freely available more so than ever and jobs with stable core hours mean you know from the start what is expected of you and if you can meet those expectations. Theres always the novel thought that people ensure that their income covers the cost of a child before having one and the financial implications are given a great deal of consideration.

I just hope you realise you are very fortunate.

I apologise HappyMummyOfOne, I was confusing you with MummyToKatie. Really though, while picking up on specific examples, the points I am making are general.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I do think that it is interesting that research shows that British kids are amongst the most unhappiest in Europe. I wonder why.

Here

dikkertjedap.

I did my dissertation on "Play" and it was considered by many that the reasons were due to lack of free time for dc to just play and be free from the constraints of school, childcare institutions. etc.
I think there is far less time for many to play, irrespective of parents work commitments, due in particular to the education system.

I don't think it helps though if dc have continuous wraparound care and limited time with their parents, I do think they can miss out here.
When my older 2 had problems at school I was able to sort it as soon as they came out of the gates. I often wondered if it would have been dealt with if they had to wait until 5.30/6.00 to discuss it with me.

Hello again gaelic. I too couldn't resist a peek.

As mentioned in above link, the UN report found that;

children themselves said their happiness relied more on time spent with family and friends and "having plenty to do outdoors",

This suggests it is not just about play.

"Theres always the novel thought that people ensure that their income covers the cost of a child before having one and the financial implications are given a great deal of consideration."

THIS. Seriously? Leaving aside the point that circumstances can change dramatically and unexpectedly, you are actually saying that only the well-off should be allowed to have children?

Another thought: children are a social NECESSITY; without them, our world would come to a halt. Why shouldn't "society" contribute to and support its own perpetuation?

I am at a loss as to why this is so difficult for some people. My feeling is that "society" has painted itself into a corner. A few people refused to conform when the thirst for more more more first began, preferring to think for themselves, and some of those have been lucky enough to avoid the madness. Many of those who allowed themselves to be swept along are now jealous of those who resisted. And this is the result.

CS

Talking about the social necessity of children or moreover their access to a social life and culture, I thought this might be of interest.

Ok Say a family who receive Tax Credits pay out aprox £40 per week for cultural activities e.g music lessons, choirs, ensembles etc. People on JSA income support receive these for free.
I am the TC family spending the £40. I don't mind that others get it free because I believe all dc should have opportunities.

I checked with my LEA today what would happen regards UC and was told that if you are not entitled to UC i.e looking for work you can access all services for free. Also school dinners and subsidised school trips.

In addition you are also entitled to free prescriptions. So some people, I can't imagine how many will actually be better off. I have 3/4 prescriptions a month.

Sorry just to finish my point - phone being yawningly slow. The worst of this is that those who seem to be jealous then forget that some others again have never made a choice, they are where they are because that is how things are. And they don't necessarily have the power to change that. Society should protect those with no choices to ensure they are not unfairly penalised, but there is no appetite for that any more. :-(

morethan - hi again btw! - I'm really sorry I didn't understand that

gaelic

Maybe its an age thing. I was thinking about this today. When ds1 was born contrary to what a lot of people on here say, unless you had a bloody well paid job you didn't go to work, or unless you had free childcare from friends and relatives.
There were no tax credits or subsidised childcare, nor 15 hours free pre school, so unless you were fortunate you couldn't work.
I don't see many people complaining about how its alright for people today and why they shouldn't be supported because we weren't.

The difference is we weren't greedy, materialistic and made do with our lot. I can't remember people being jealous of other peoples position, what they had, or could afford. Our first mortgage was about 5 times less than the max they offered, because we were sensible and didn't want too much debt. We didn't have credit as many of our time had been brought up to scrimp and save. So eventually Family Credit came in and life became a bit more comfortable, certainly not luxurious and now we are termed scroungers.
Its only now that some members of society have decided to turn on others, its quite sad really. I often wonder how quickly they would change their tune if things drastically got worse for them.