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

mosman

"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"

No mosnam, the government policies will drive wages down not up. There will be many more people than jobs. Even more in fact once the government declares part-time workers as "underemployed" and brings so many more into the jobs market.

It's simple supply and demand. If there are lots of people desperate for jobs, the employers will be able to get away with paying less.

You also seem to be confusing Tesco with the government! It's not their role to ensure people in society have enough money to spend in their tills! That's the job of government (a job this one is failing at).
Tesco exists in many countries with lower wages than us! If we're less well off as a society they'll simply adjust their product ranges, not up their wages! (If only!)

The government has been putting money in the tills of tills, weatherspoons, McDonalds etc. Remove that money from circulation that lowers the profits of such organisations the only way to bring those profits back up will be to fill the gap left by the government money.

aufanie, you speak so much sense. And say what I think much more eloquently.

Mosman

By the time the lack of money makes an impact on big business people will already be starving.

If profits are down why would anyone raise what they pay their staff? That is so illogical. Pay will go down further. Along with quality of product. Prices will go up.

You think tesco or McDonalds have a social conscience? They dont. They are profit driven like any business.

While there are people on this thread happy to hold onto a job they don't need while simultaneously criticising those who need one and can't find one, I fear any sensible discussion is impossible.

Oops, that should have said "Going back to the first half of the last century!

And finally, before I go because once again this thread has got me so angry, I really want someone to explain this. If a family is not supporting itself through state benefits, then why is there more virtue in a parent going out to work in a job they hate, that brings in no extra money after childcare is paid for - perhaps even costs them money to do -, making life more difficult and the family miserable, than there is in that same parent choosing to stay at home, occupy their time in useful and interesting ways, be happier and have their children be happier? Why do some people think there is something wrong in that? It's not as if any significant tax revenue will be raised by the first state of affairs - it seems more like a puritan view that everyone should be equally miserable. Why is the second option not also "contributing to society"? Although frankly contributing to "society" in some collective sense is far less important than yourself and your family being happy - we only live once.

I totally get that where a family is relying significantly on benefits to support one parent being at home then that choice is not legitimately open to them, but there are not enough jobs to go around so it's rather a pointless argument to be had anyway.

I think it is very very sad that so many people think their only value and purpose in life is to be tax-paying monkeys.

Actually I am reminded of the mindset that led to the Highland clearances. The southern Scots thought the Highland crofters were lazy, despite the fact that they were supporting themselves and their families perfectly well without relying on anyone else. They had time for music and dance, they worked as much as they needed to and no more. That wasn't enough, they were sent to "really" work in the factories and farms of the south, and disaster resulted.

Sorry for multiple posts, that's it now.

Your point is valid gealic sheep.

The problem is that the choice (SAH/WOH) is effectively being taken away from the poor because wages are being topped up by the state.

No one should ever think that being a SAHM is not contributing to society. But once tax payers money comes into the equation, people feel the need to judge Mrs Bloggs instead of the government who are taking her choice away.

Sorry. Gaelicsheep..

Gaelicsheep - I don't think anyone is arguing that it's more morally acceptable to work than not work if the net effect on the family is the same, however if the non-working is only the same effect on the family finances because you need to take money from other working people to make up the difference, then it is unfair and unreasonable.

If there were less people claiming benefits and smaller amounts needed to be collected via tax, then those working could pay less tax. Government money doesn't magically appear, it comes from other working people. If at the next election the majority of people think it's better to pay more taxes to have more generous benefits then Labour will win again. Unfortunately once times got hard, most working people got less generous and at the last election voted for a party who have made no secret of wanting to wherever possible keep more of your own money with you to spend rather than taking it to give to others.

Interesting point about the Highland Clearances gaelicsheep. Please don't apologise, keep 'em coming!

wannabedomesticgoddess thanks! :)

Don't we need unemployment of 5% to make capitalism work ? So we are agreed that there will never be full employment.
However at the moment, landlords are topped up by housing benefit, Tesco's etc are topped up by fruit and veg vouchers amongst other things.
Remove those top ups and the natural market value is found.
Now I don't doubt that shop lifting will go through the roof if it hasn't already, on my last day in the UK i saw a bloke with a frozen chicken up his jacket.
But without the tax credits top ups people will not have disposable income, the profits of Tesco etc will drop or alternatively they will have to pay their staff more and incentivise them to spend it in Tesco's.
I don't have a crystal ball so can't make any promises that it'll pan out that way but it's at least as likely as people starving in the streets.

"If there were less people claiming benefits and smaller amounts needed to be collected via tax, then those working could pay less tax."

If fewer people were claiming benefits then the burden on the tax payer will be lower, yes. (Whether that will translate into lower taxes is another question entirely!)

So how should we go about making sure fewer people are claiming benefits? There are many ways we could do that.

Wouldn't it be better to cut the benefits bill by creating jobs and doing something about the housing benefit bill that didn't involve making people homeless or driving families further into poverty?!

Here are some positive things we could do:

a. create more jobs, thus bringing down the numbers claiming benefits as people in work claim no or fewer benefits than the unemployed.

b. do something about the high rents. Building more council housing would be a good start as -if well-managed- it would be an investment for the tax payer (i.e. it would make us money!), it would mean fewer people on benefits as they wouldn't need top-ups to pay extortionate rents, and would have a knock-on effect of bringing down rents in the provate sector (simple supply and demand). It would mean that for those on benefits, the HB money was at least coming back into the public purse, rather than going to private LLs. Once people were no longer on benefits their rents would be adding money to the public purse. The transfer of public money to private pockets via HB is a massive waste of our money IMO.

c. follow sound economic principles designed to get us out of recession

d. enact policies designed to support and encourage decent wages and working conditions.

But, the government is doing none of these things.

The Tories are not engaging in any policies designed to actually create jobs AFAIK, and they are driving us further into the worst recession for decades.

They are creating lots of virtual sticks to beat people with, to "incentivise" them into work, but if there are no more jobs overall (or fewer even) then do the maths! It doesn't matter how desperate those without jobs are, if the jobs don't exist we're not going to get benefits to come down that way.

I can't see how the Tories plan will save us money. Sure, many will have their benefits cut, but, crucially, Tory policies seem to be spelling disaster for the economy, and when the economy shrinks, or stagnates, there will be fewer jobs. And therefore a bigger benefits bill. Borrowing is also going up under the Tories.

The effects of their policies will be to make living conditions worse for all of us (unless very rich), and so create a more desperate workforce which benefits big business.

Mosman - I think yes, the assumption is unemployment of around 5 - 7% is the only way to avoid wage inflation getting out of hand (but that assumes the system is closed and it not being easy to import cheap labour/easy to outsource work to cheaper parts of the world if the costs of producing things in the UK get pushed too high.)

However, it doesn't require that 5% to be the same 5% all the time. It does assume you have to have long term unemployed, just around 5% of those available for work to be unemployed at the same time. The system also only works if those people are available and capable of doing the jobs others are doing and prepared to do them for the price currently being paid to people working.

Mosman so your idea to improve conditions is to make everything so intolerably bad for everyone that people can't afford to buy enough food (even the budget range) to keep Tesco turning a profit.

You think that with people starving in the streets (as that is what you are talking about!) that Tesco would say "actually, if we pay our own workforce better (kind of like a "Fairtrade" agreement) they will have more money to spend in our shops".

Can you not see a few holes in that?!

Hmm, let's see:

• Tesco etc are not a charity, they are a profit making enterprise. They would not see themselves as the cause of the problem. They would simply look at how they can keep making profit.

• a huge part of the population would have to be actually starving before a supermarket would consider it might want to play a role in changing society. (Is this something we want to aspire to?!) But even then, if things got that bad they would probably simply bugger off to a more profitable market, not stick around trying to change the one they're in. They're in the business of making money, not changing society!

• If Tesco were handing out money to employees at above the going rate for jobs, hoping it would come back to them, they would be spending money here, which would eat into their profits. It would cost them money, they wouldn't do it. The maths doesn't work.

Nobody will be forced to return to the job market. They just won't be subsidised by the tax payer to stay at home and look after children. I think it would have been more sensible to say parents of children over five should seek work and not parents of children over one.

Nobody will be forced to return to the job market. They just won't be subsidised by the tax payer to stay at home and look after children. I think it would have been more sensible to say parents of children over five should seek work and not parents of children over one.

This sums up exactly how I see it.

The message is pretty clear "Don't have children if you can't afford it!".

Of course the reality is there are no jobs, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is the message. State subsidy of child-rearing can no longer be taken for granted. If you want to have children, you need to have a salary coming in that you can manage on - whether there is one of you or two of you.

That's always been the Tory philosophy - stand on your own two feet. So I don't know why anyone would be surprised at these developments!

I do wonder where all these jobs are that fit in with school hours though. Unless things have changed dramatically in 10 years, the only ones I know of are those in schools!

Or as self-employed cleaners, childminders etc.

Perhaps someone can enlighten us as to where all these school-hours jobs are.

The message is pretty clear "Don't have children if you can't afford it!".

I'm sure most people can afford it when they make a decision to start a family. There is no guarantee that they will be as financially comfortable 5 or 10 years down the line, though. I expect that there's a fair few families with 5 year olds who have seen their finances contract since their children were born, through circumstances completely out of their control.

If the torys want people to stand on their own two feet then they need to give them the tools to do so. Create jobs. Lower rents. Everything aufanie suggested.

Taking away peoples safety net isnt going to make them work if there are no jobs.

The tory assumption is that no one wants to work. Thats wrong. The want is there. The jobs arent.

Infact, IMO they are undermining the job market with "work experience" and limiting who can apply for jobs by age with 18-24 schemes and 50+ schemes.

My mention of people starving in the street was in response to another poster claiming she/he thought that would happen if government support is removed.
Clearly this is nonsense, long before it gets to that point, when there's a dip in profits the likes of Tesco's change their marketing tactics to ensure they are still profitable and therefore people do eat. This happens already and will continue to happen if things aren't turned around.

What the Tory's want is a shift in mind set and like it or not that's what the voting population wanted, whether they regret it now it's starting to take shape we will see at the next election but I wouldn't bank on it, plenty of people aren't affected by this at all and will enjoy the benefits of whatever tax breaks the tory's have up their sleeves for their core voters.

There are many things tesco can do to increase profits before paying their staff more will be a consideration.

People are already skipping meals. How much further do you think they can be pushed?

"when there's a dip in profits the likes of Tesco's change their marketing tactics to ensure they are still profitable"

Agreed, of course they do.

What's absolutely incorrect is that they would increase their employees wages in response to falling profits as a marketing tactic.

I'm not going to argue this point anymore as it's so way off reality - it's in the realms of total fantasy!

And starving people in the streets is a reality in 2013 all because some SAMP are asked to try and get a job in school hours ?