Uc not going back to work

[ash646668]

I was lead to believe in my first meeting for universal credit that I wouldn't be expected to get a job untill my baby went to school at 4. I've now found out they expect you to go back to work at 3. My baby is only 6 months at the moment but I'm thinking ahead. I don't have any family who can look after her and my partner works full time. I am really against her going to nursery and even if I did send her I can't imagine I could get a job with limited availability as a carer. They are typically 12 hour shifts including weekend. Has anyone else experienced not working after baby turns 3 and waiting until they are ready for school. And what happened with universal credit.

Surely even with no experience of infertility you wouldn't need to ask that question?? She obviously might not have another child and wants to savour the moments.

Right?! I really can't believe she's asking this.

Apparently yes. I am sitting there with the taxman waiting to get my whole £40 a month.

She obviously might not have another child and wants to savour the moments.

There's lots of moments I'd like savour

I don't understand this.

So your husband earns an amount which means you need to claim UC but you're not obliged to get a job.

Surely that is peverse logic. If you don't earn enough as. Couple to survive without claiming then surely you must need to get a job?

Any ideas for how those of us who have paid higher level taxes for over 25 years and either chose not to or can’t have children, never took a benefit out of the system. When do we get our 3 years paid time off?

The laziness and entitlement is off the scale!!

Rude.

Well I wouldn't accuse someone looking after a child full time lazy IMO.

I presume you use the NHS?The roads? Of course you have taken a benefit.

Ridiculous argument. Its not like the sahp is sitting at home watching tv all day. Nurturing a child is just as important as working. Also think of the child here. Don't they deserve to be at home with their parent if that's what the parent wishes? Think back to when you were young, the majority of mothers were sahps. (Mine wasn't and I wished she was, I wanted to go stay home and play with friends instead of going to the childminder)

3 isn’t a weird cut off, until this year 3 was the age at which funded hours kicked in. It made sense to have both of those at the same age.

Honestly, I wouldn’t look too closely at the rules etc right now. The chance of them changing in the next year or two is pretty high. There are now funded hours from much younger and the government are talking about pushing people capable of work back in to it. So I’d just wait and see what happens.

Also having a deadline of once they’re at school is a bit of a red herring. School may be free, but the hours are absolutely not easy to work around - early years childcare is much better for that!

Genuine question and not meant to be snarky, but what job will you do when your child is at school? Surely you will have even less hours to work then if your school doesn't have wrap around care or you will be paying for a childminder to cover the long shifts? If this is the case can you not do that at 3 and use the 85% that UC pay towards childcare?

But true.

It is a choice to have a baby. You should fund it or work, not also then choose a luxury of years on years off work funded by the state!

No, I don’t use the NHS but by benefit I mean financial payments not use of public services that tax contributes towards.

Overall, childless people will never benefit the same. Add up pregnancy/maternity healthcare, maternity pay, child benefit, additional benefits, childcare hours, education, healthcare, prescriptions, etc and you’ll find a significant discrepancy between the “benefits” of a 40 year old with no children and a 40 year old with children. Then the entitlement to have an additional 3 years off work funded is a JOKE!

See point above.

Yes, lovely to be a SAHP IF you can afford it. Not for the state to fund it.

Yet another example of what is wrong with the benefits system........

Agreed.

The AET for a couple works out at only 29 hours per week on minimum wage.

Why is the taxpayer expected to support families that work so little?

The entitled.to website estimates that a family would get £1397 a month in UC based upon rent of £1000 per month.

That would give a total of £2765 p/m after tax and NI.

That's equivalent to earning £40k for 29 hours a week.

I’m sitting here thinking the same ?
So your partner is working , earns over a certain amount and you still get universal credit ? Which is enough to fund you to be a sahm ?
Thats wrong
Where is the incentive to work ?
Why do you get universal credit ?
Either your partner earns enough to support you all surely or you get a job too ?

My work coach told me OU courses "aren't classed as studying" by UC. It would need to be an actual college/University apparently. Is this wrong?

Feel like OP is getting a hard time. UC really isn’t this massive payment people think it is.

Ive been forced onto universal credit after my ex partner upped and left and he does no childcare. Previously we was a high income household.

Their dad earns six figures and I currently work part time and get topped up by a universal credit payment and it really is not this generous figure everyone thinks it is. Nobody is living the high life on universal credit. If I was not topped up by child maintenance I could not pay our outgoings.

UC doesn't fund SAHMs. What it does for me, personally, is bridge the gap between my husbands wages and the cost of living these days. The £200-300 payment for me per month is far lower than a wage. Surely that is recognised by people generally. But it is enough to make sure we can pay for everything necessary. Surely we don't want to see families struggling. And yes I will be expected to return to work when my child turns 3yo.

I have never heard of the AET either, and I was also told OU courses "don't count" on UC. I've been told so many different things by work coaches that I now don't trust anything they say.

I don’t want to pay for you not to work. Either make your husband’s salary stretch or put the baby in nursery and get a job like millions of other mothers.

Strongly agree

What do you want, a well done?

I'm sure you have benefitted from working your entire life in other ways. Being in receipt of state benefits is not something to aspire to, or feel you are missing out on, believe me.

So get a part time job and earn 2-300 pounds a month ?
You could go out work 6 - 10 pm 2 nights a week to earn that ?
Same as lots of us do ? Work around your husband ? If he is low paid , go out when he gets home …
Honestly infuriates me that the government is paying people NOT to do anything !

You really think it's as easy as that? Do you know where I live? What jobs are available? What our lives entail?

He is not low paid. We are working out fine as we are at the moment and there's no need to change.