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

The reason for not staying out of the workforce for five years should be bleeding obvious, beyond maternity leave the gap in the CV isn't good. Getting into the routine of getting up and going somewhere for a set time might mean more reception kids arrive at school on time having slept properly, going to nursery means the child gets lunch and a healthy snack. All things some take for granted but some would be amazed to hear doesn't happen in every household.
Just as a parent at home might be good for some children, a working mum might benefit others.

Please can we stop with the antiquated assumption that the SAHP aka workshy layabout who should be "contributing to society", whatever the hell that means, is always the mother?

wannabeadomesticgoddess - if they are not taking your taxes ( and frankly even if they are) who do you think you are to determine how someone else lives their life? Who are you, or any of you on this thread with the same opinion, to determine what does and does not constitute "work" in line with your idea of a work ethic?

If all SAHPs went out to work who would be volunteering at the after school clubs, attending the daytime fundraising meetings at the schools, doing all those things that some of you deem worthless because they are unpaid?

And once again I ask the question that's the elephant in the room here. Where are the jobs? And furthermore where are all the jobs that provide guaranteed hours, to satisfy the government, and regular hours, to make childcare even remotely possible.

Perhaps someone who is criticising SAHPs of any flavour might care to answer.

Finally, folks who claim they would be bored at home, ergo every SAHP must sit around on their arse doing nothing, reveal much about their lack of curiosity and intellect.

Gaelicsheep

If you had read my other posts you would have detected the sarcasm in that post.

Oops, sorry. I had read your other posts but it all became a bit of a blur. Ignore the reference to you then, but others do seem to hold that sentiment so my rant still stands!

Contribute to society ffs

There are indeed MNers who hold this belief.

And once again I ask the question that's the elephant in the room here. Where are the jobs? And furthermore where are all the jobs that provide guaranteed hours, to satisfy the government, and regular hours, to make childcare even remotely possible.

Precisely. I am lucky that I can replace any lost Tax Credits without having to take a job that someone else needs.

My point was that it only seems to be the poor who are expected to contribute.

While the rich think that tax from one half of a couple absolves them of the responsibility they expect of others.

No one says there shouldn't be SAHP. The US has lots of them without any sort of tax credits. The problem is why should the tax payer be supporting it? There is a limited pot and we can't give money to everyone.

As for the ach

No one says there shouldn't be SAHP. The US has lots of them without any sort of tax credits. The problem is why should the tax payer be supporting it? There is a limited pot and we can't give money to everyone.

Damn phone...

The tax payer is supporting it because the government refuse to address the issues of low wages and high housing costs.

Not just this gov either. Labour did the same.

Take issue with the government. Not families trying to get by.

If they genuinely can't find a job then that's it, end of conversation, having satisfied the JC that they've tried they can do no more.

The point is it is not the poor that don't get to be stay at home parents, it's people who've been at university, carved good careers for themselves who've been shafted over the past 10 years. I have had cousins openly laughing at DH and I when he was made redundant because as they rightly said if instead of buying a house we'd applied for a council place house - and they were available then - nothing in our world would have changed as a result of DH loosing his job, no strain, no stress, scrimping, worrying.
Certain sections of society have had their feet up, suffered no consequences when they've made poor decisions when others have as a result of their actions and it's basically their chickens coming home to roost. The party was always going to end to think otherwise is very naive and yet it's unsurprising so many didn't foresee it.

the government refuse to address the issues of low wages and high housing costs.

Do you not think this will address it then ?

Because people can't pay with money they haven't got, Tesco's et all will have to increase wages otherwise they will suffer the consequences. It'll have to be employers increasing wages because there will be no more government money in their tills.

And you think people who live in council housing wouldnt rather have bought their own home?

People dont go around making bad decisions and being lazy to get a council house ffs. Some people are never given the chance to go to university. Their lives have been blighted with poverty and lack of choices from an early age.

And you think they are lucky because they have a council house?

Jesus.

No. It wont.

It will see the people on the street starving before it will ever affect tesco.

Mosmam sadly I have to agree with you.....it's awful that you have struggled as a result of redundancy while your relatives have been fortunate enough to be in social housing which gives them security.

I have long thought (and people will not agree with me) that in reality most people cannot afford mortgages...not unless they can pay them both in work and out. People should have a secure roof over their heads as a right...not as a privilege.

I have done the mortgaged property, the privately rented property and am now in social housing which I only got as my son is disabled. At the time of the mortgaged property it was 1998 with low house prices, redundancy was not a disaster as we managed on one wage, being in privately rented accommodation was a nightmare though. Only now do I feel really secure and I am in social housing which I am so so grateful to have. Believe me ..really really grateful for it. It will never be mine though and shouldn't be...when I no longer have need of it then it will rightly move to another family. It might be DS if he cannot live independently (jury is still out about this) or it might be a new family.

Help should be there equally for everyone and nobody should be crowing at someone who has tried to succeed in an unfair society if they fall in difficult times.

Yes Jake. More help should be available for everyone.

But walk a day in the shoes of someone who lives in a council house before you decide they are all lazy and havent tried was my point.

They are not being kind to Mosman though.....no need for their comments.

I would rather be back in my mortgaged property which would now be paid for. Yes most people would love to own rather than rent but reality is that some people do not get the breaks or have the necessary to attend university or whatever.

I am a big believer in the need for social housing.....however it can be done. Everyone needs to know that when the chips are down they can rely on a roof over their heads.

Agree wannabe

I worked for the past 30 years.....I am in social housing though and likely to remain there. I haven't ever been lazy on the terms people discuss here. I have always worked (apart from the past year) and will work again. Not everyone in social housing is lazy.

My relatives had every opportunity to go to university and got pregnant at 17, her mother begged her not to try again, promised holidays, cars, driving lessons but oh no she would not be told.
I doubt she's the only one.
And no she isn't lazy as a result of her actions she will have to work harder than most but only because she'll be forced to, left to her own devices she would be sat at home which is a waste of her talents and not going to do her any favors in the long term.

What ever we think of council housing/state support there is now more of us demanding it so there will be less to go around. Everyone needs to get used to that. Private business will have to take on the burden because the state will not.
I can't say I believe there will be scenes of starving in the street but I don't have a crystal ball so who know's but I do know if government money isn't in Tesco's till's they will be affected and will have to take action according. From a business perspective it is better to pay their staff more than slit their own throats.

^gaelicsheep Sat 09-Feb-13 01:27:23

" Why would I give it up? Choose to subsidise a stranger over giving me & mine a holiday?"

I'm not picking a fight honestly, but don't you see how someone in the reverse position might feel they shouldn't have to find a crappy job that only just covers the childcare costs just to save you some tax?^

See this comes from a mindset that all earned money is by right the governments to do with as it pleases and it's the governments decision how much people should get. It's not that way round for most people. Most people don't feel the money they earn is the governments by right - it's theirs, they are giving some of it up to pay for things they believe as a society we should pay for. The government has no money, it is given some money from individuals who are working to pay for things collectively that we agree as a society we need/want that's easier to do collectively than individually.

It relatively easy to convince a working person that they should give some of their money to pay for police to keep them safe, for an NHS to look after them if they get ill etc. But it's a very hard sell that someone who works should give up some of their money they have earned in order to allow someone else to chose not to work. Your looking for work and can't find any? OK, I'm happy give you money to live off while you try to find a job, we don't want you to starve. But you don't want to work? Why should I fund your choice?

for those saying "where will all these term time only school hours jobs only come from?" are missing the point, they changes won't mean you have to work, just that you have to look for work and apply for jobs that are suitable. In the same way many unemployed but childfree people might prefer to actually not work, we insist as a society that if they want money from the rest of us they have to show they are trying to get a job. If not, that's fine, but fund your lifechoices yourself.

"When there are two adults in a household, both capable of earning a living, why should one of them just opt out and force the family to live in poverty?"

This is asking the wrong question IMO!

Going back to the first half of the last, families were expected to survive on one wage. One spouse (the DH in those days) went out and worked, one stayed at home. The working part of the couple was expected to earn a living wage to be able to support a family (often with many DCs).

The idea that both parents should be out working and sending their DCs to be looked after by paid childcare workers is a new thing.

What has gone so wrong that one person's wages now cannot support their family in so many cases that state top-ups are needed?

We should be asking why wages are so low, and why house prices are so high, and what can be done about it?

Because driving wages and conditions down even lower, and encouraging the idea that a mother wanting to be there for her DCs is a luxury is only one possible solution.

There are many other ways to tackle this problem. The one this government is going for however is the one which benefits big business at the expense of the people. That's you (unless you are very rich indeed!)

Please ask yourself, wouldn't it be better for most people if rents were lower, to focus on just one issue? There are all sorts of things the government could be doing about this (and the last one could have done too) but they are choosing not to.

"The country is broke, it can't afford to subsidise stay at home parents or any other group any more."

No, we are not broke. We're in a better position than many other countries. We probably will be broke by the time this lot have finished with us though. They are using the recession as an excuse to drive through policies based on ideology, not evidence.

You are all aware that the Tories are actually driving us deeper into recession and are costing us money, right?

All this talk of belt-tightening is spin to get policies through which are designed to systematically pick apart the welfare state.

*

"Chancellor George Osborne should ditch an austerity programme which has resulted in a "malnourished" British economy, a former Bank of England rate-setter warned ...

American Adam Posen, who served on the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee until September, spoke out after years of frustration over the Coalition's "self-defeating" deficit-cutting strategy and failure to encourage investment.

The outspoken criticism is an embarrassment for the Chancellor coming ... Mr Posen said: "For two and a half years, the Coalition Government's economic policies have focused on the wrong narrow goal, been self-defeating in pursuit of that goal, and in so doing have eaten away at British economic capabilities and confidence. It is past time for me, and far more importantly for the Chancellor, to say so."

Mr Posen attacked the Coalition for failing to encourage capital investment, in contrast to international rivals such as Germany, France, Japan, and the United States ...

He also labelled the lack of competition in the banking sector in the UK market as "extraordinary" ...

He warned: "It is not enough for Messrs Cameron and Osborne to claim that they have done what they promised to do. Their policies have left the British economy malnourished, and indeed made parts of it quite ill. There are alternatives available, and the British Government should switch to these now."

The economist also had a broadside for the Bank for "scaremongering" over the need for spending cuts, adding that the committee risked feeding "the policy defeatism and austerity cycle" damaging the economy."

From this article

This is one of the real problems. We should all be up in arms about this, not benefit fraud, which is absolutely negligible in comparison the effects of low wages on our society.

"Spencer Dale, the Bank of England's chief economist, warned of more wage pain to come after official figures showed average growth in salaries remains at 1.8 per cent. This is in effect a real-terms cut for workers when the consumer prices index inflation benchmark stands at 2.7 per cent.

Mr Dale said wages had fallen 15 per cent in real terms compared with the pre-crisis trend. He warned: "Although real wages have fallen sharply, it seems likely there is still a little further to go in adjusting to the shocks that we have seen so far."