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.

Ah.

benefit system is crazy - incentivising people(women) to be out of work for years which stifles them being able to return so they stay off for years and years

can't understand it - especially once the funded childcare comes in more widely

don't care what a pittance it may or may not be - i don't want to fund it. i also don't want to fund billionaire tax dodgers before anyone throws that out

A family of two adults and one child aged 4.

The family live in private rented accommodation and pay £1000 p/m in rent.

One parent works 29 hours a week for minimum wage and has a take-home wage of £1328.09.

UC pays an additional £1,397.27.

The total take-home income is £2725 (+ £111 child benefit = £2836).

If we ignore the child benefit, then the take-home income is equivalent to earning £40k on PAYE, but that's been 'earned' by one person only working 29 hours.

There is also £130 p/m of council tax payments which I didn't include in my previous figures.

Well, I am in my second year of studying part time and they asked to see proof of funding so I would hazard a guess it is being treated like studying at any other university. Distance learning isn't any different.

It's not an insignificant sum to some households, but it also wouldn't be very difficult to come by in the OP's circumstances. She could earn more than £40 a month by working an occasional shift in a pub or restaurant. Her partner can't be working seven days a week surely?

Does signing up for a six year distance leaning course remove the requirement to look for work?

That seems bizarre.

it's resentment, not jealousy.

Yes, agreed. I doubt people are jealous of families on low income. They are resentful of having to work and pay taxes that fund others to stay out of work, even incentivising them to stay at home.

Haha, as if! Our is at least £120 each trip. And that's without buying crap.

You could have fooled me. They seem to think those mum's on UC are enjoying a life of luxury.

I don't make the rules - aim your anger elsewhere. Even before becoming a carer, I was able to do my first year studying part time with the OU, not expected to look for work. All they need is proof of funding. We get a lot of UC per month as I have four DC in school. Two have additional needs so it isn't straightforward.

I really doubt that it is funded by most of the people on here as much as they might like to think!

"You could have fooled me. They seem to think those mum's on UC are enjoying a life of luxury."

I think the luxury is perceived to be staying at home with the kids and not having to work.

It wouldn't be ours either! But still a decent amount for some stuff.

It's such a luxury right enough being a carer for a child with autism. I'm absolutely living the high life. What a lot of BS on this thread!

Is it luxury if you are forced through circumstances to not work and depends on UC?

@IVFmumoftwo exactly.

No one chooses that set of circumstances limiting their choices.

I could just sit and do nothing or...could better my prospects in life by studying whilst DC are at school each day. Due to lack of family support nearby studying is the better option. Working isn't possible at the moment. DH works very long hours so I cover all the school runs/most of the meltdowns etc.

No but he's doing shift work, and that's all over the place. I once dated an ER doctor doing shift work and I had no idea what was going on tbh - neither did he!

Is it a luxury to be able to choose not to work and have your income supplemented to the level of two earners?

That’s not a nice way to speak to the people who are paying for others to look after their own children.

I'm still waiting for a decision on Carer's Allowance before deciding to apply. Our circumstances have recently changed.
What I meant with my post is that I'm surprised how much we are entitled to given my DH's income and others might be too.

PPs are right - it is resentment, not jealousy. I'm not angry at the OP or others in her situation. The law - bizarrely - is that she is entitled to this money, and she's not doing anything illegal by claiming it.
But I'm resentful that, as calculated by @ThisOldThang above, a couple where one person works 29 hrs/week can end up with the same monthly income that DH and I are on, working a combined total of 70hrs/week AND not have to pay for childcare. AND enjoy the luxury of having one parent at home with the children full time. Being a SAHM is not "living a life of luxury", but school runs and meltdowns are a small part of parenting - being at home with your small children during those precious early years is a huge privilege and yes, I'm happy to admit to being resentful that my missing out on that is directly allowing other people to experience it.
Because if every mother started taking 3-6 years out of the workforce and claiming benefits for that period, there wouldn't be enough money in the budget to sustain it.
The system is set up to penalise people who work and benefit people who don't, and I think a little resentment and frustration is a natural response when you realise that you've been a mug and ended up at the shit end of that system.

I used to do shift work (NHS). I switched to a less well-paid part-time clinic role with predictable working hours, because DH works long hours and we couldn't accommodate my shift work. So that's an option available to couples in shift work.
Alternatively I have many, many colleagues who are parents and still do shift work. But the other partner doesn't just opt out of working because it's awkward and inconvenient to arrange work and childcare around the shifts - they just figure it out.
"He does shift work, so I'm forced to stay at home on benefits" is, again, really disingenuous.

Benefits should be there to help people in sudden difficult life situations not a lifestyle choice. We have reliable contraception, all people need to plan ahead and at the minimum be in a stable life position before having children.

The problem is those that have planned and are tax contributors are over taxed and limit their birthrate. Whilst those who don't contribute have children freely. Those children are more likely to repeat the pattern. And so on

This cycle needs to be urgently addressed.

Please give me a minute. I used to work for citizen's advice before moving abroad

I'll not be doing 30 when I come off maternity. Only 10. Pregnant again. So I'll be doing part time for 6 years yet