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

You need to look at the bigger picture Mosman.

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.

Try telling that to the likes of Iain Duncan Smith! What do they care about the "little people" who aren't able to cope with unforseen circumstances. As far as they're concerned, all benefit recipients other than those on State Pensions are scroungers, pure and simple.

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.

Mosman you just hit the nail firmly on the head.

The point is all this scaremongering about starving people in the streets isn't helping anybody. It's just nonsense. In the early eighties things were a lot worse than they are now. And no tax credits for part-time workers. Most people want fairness in the benefit system. And that doesn't mean the option to work part-time and have your benefits topped up so you earn the same amount as the person working full time. I disagree with that I'm afraid.

Vivienne

I went through six months last year skipping meals, sometimes not eating for whole days (while pregnant I might add) so that we could make sure DD was fed. We were illegally evicted twice in four months.

If you really think that these measures wont plunge people into impossible situations then you need to open your eyes.

all because some SAMP are asked to try and get a job in school hours ?

Is that all it is? They are being asked to apply for jobs and do their best to get school hour jobs? Once their kids are in school? If they currently receive benefits? That's it? And if there are no jobs or they don't get the ones they apply for, no benefit cut?

nkf

They are going to be made to apply for any job.

So that means if it is far away and would cost to much to get to, and you dont apply or turn it down, sanctioned.

If you have a 16 hour permanent job and you turn down a 35 hour temporary job, sanctioned.

Its a lot more complex.

And I'm sorry but the stuff about tax paying monkeys is a bit much. I mean, really. How else are the big things to get financed? Unless you want a no tax system and everyone takes care of themselves. Pays for schools, hospitals etc.

That thing about permanent staff being made to take temporary jobs was firmly scotched on an other thread. There was a quote from the relevant document that specifically said that wouldn't happen.

And how far away is far away?

How long is a piece of string?

Our next town is ten miles away. But there is no bus route.

A job there would involve four buses a day. Or a taxi.

Neither would be appropriate due to the times taken to get there. I would have to pay an extra 4 hours childcare on top of my shift.

And all those people hankering back to the good old days when Daddy's salary kept a whole family going, who wants to live like that? Those were grim times. That was when bright girls were shafted from grammar school places and told to become nurses never doctors.

Nobody has to work if they don't want to. They can forgo the benefit. Tough decisions, I know but it could have been a lot harsher. It's only school hours for a start. And only once the children are over 5.

Sorry, I've been reading the thread slowly - where is all the stuff about toddlers coming from? It's parents of school age children who are going to be affected?

I think the point was that one salary used to be enough to support a family without benefits. No one was suggesting we should go back to when the father went out to work and the mother was forced to be at home.

Well, one way or another, those days are over. There was a time when the average middle class woman did not look after her children or work. She had servants. Why hark back?

Tesco will increase wages when the legal minimum wage increases. Looking at the amount of profit they made they could afford to do so.

I fear the result of making people work unless they have a child under five will result in many having another baby to get around it.

Do you seriously think people will have another baby in order not to have to work school hours in order to keep a benefit? Really?

Sydlexic, i think that will happen to although IS is stopped at age five and changed to JSA so its not really that different. They could stop it by stating that having a child whilst relying on benefits wont mean any extra, after all those that are sensible and work out if their salary will cover a child dont get a payrise for every child.

Some are just to quick to blame politics, many families could improve their circumstances by either upping their hours or not expecting the luxury of a parent at home not working. Many have multiple children then complain it renders them incapable of working or moan about costs of such children.

The Tory stance of wanting people to stand on their own two feet is the right stance. There should always be a welfare state to catch people between jobs or those physically unable to work, it should never have got so out of hand that people could choose not to work or do very few hours and enjoy a lifestyle better than some of the taxpayers funding that choice.

People wont starve, thats scaremongering. Comply with the rules and no sanctons will happen.

I am beyond shocked that people so casually agree that people will have a baby to keep tax credits and avoid work for a few more years.

Nobody in this country needs to starve. Sorry but it's just simply not going to happen. If I have to eat my words then I will.

But someone tells you that they were staring homelessness and starvation in the face and what? They are lying?

Why would somebody be staring starvation in the face. That is why we have a generous welfare state. Generous in comparison to a lot of countries that is. I am not without sympathy for people who are hard up. We've had friends who have gone through very difficult times but they didn't starve. I will not accuse anyone of lying. But I cannot see why anyone in this country needs to starve. Eat cheap food yes. Starve no.

Where is the Mumsnet link to Universal Credit please? I just asked DH if he'd ever heard of it and he hadn't .

We are of the generation a little ahead of a lot of posters on here, (we're 50 with 18 yr old DS).

When we were in our 30s & kids were little there were no such things as Tax Credits etc, so never got any handouts except for CB but we didn't have the same struggle to afford to buy a house, and always earned decent money.

It's all a bit swings and roundabouts, and it makes me wonder whether history will repeat itself and in another 20 years or so the benefits will mostly have been withdrawn but people will find it easier to be independent because they're earning decent money without state handouts. The more people get in TCs or other benefits, the less incentive there is for employers to pay them a living wage.

We moved house (after being threatened) with £5 to our name. DP had lost his job. Benefits took weeks to come through. We didnt eat that day because the two weeks before we had used all the food feeding DD.

We didnt eat the next two days. DD was at her Dads. We then got £10 from our new LL to put on the elec. We used that for food. Still no benefits. No crisis loan because we were between offices.

Two months later that LL evicted us because he had a wedding to go to and wanted a deposit despite never asking for one before. I was a week away from my due date. We had three days to find somewhere and move. The local council put us on the "emergency list" and then said they had nothing for us. We were out on our own with a toddler and me ready to give birth. No money then either because we needed it for petrol to move/get DD to school/get to the housing offices. No crisis loans because we had no address.

We were lucky. A charity put up a deposit. A charity. NOT the local authority. NOT the safety net you all speak of.

DD2 had a small stomach measurement because I wasnt able to eat properly. Her tiny body had to use its livers fat stores to get energy to grow. It was serious. Not just that we felt hungry. DP was rolling around in pain with his IBS because he couldnt eat regularly.

In our situation, the state did nothing.

But that is the sort of situation that the benefit system should be able to deal with. Where speed and cash makes all the difference. That it failed is a scandal. But with all due respect, it has nothing to do with people being told to apply for school hour jobs when their kids are in school. That's not a crisis. You know when your last child is going to start school.

No, perhaps not.

My point is that people think it could never happen here. The welfare state deals with cases like that. We are a developed society. People wont starve.

But it does happen. Every bloody day. And when people are sanctioned what the hell are they going to do? Its all well and good saying that if they comply they will get the money. But thats putting peoples lives in the hands of a decision maker. Usually someone who is not seeing all the facts.

Its the sanctions that utterly terrify me. No one can look into someones life and tell them what job is suitable. Or what disability is real.