Do all 18 years old go on UC if they cannot find a job

[Crystalovertherainbow]

Do the family needs to show their income or the new adult is considered their own financial unit now , even if they live with the parents and their UC is given them

To give an idea of the affluence of the locality I was raised in: the lady who informally babysat me and DSis for a fiver a night after school didn't have a kitchen big enough for a kitchen table, didn't have space to unfold the dining table without moving the sofa and couldn't have afforded a tutor for any of her kids. There were six people living in that three-bed semi. And she was well-off: they had a mortgage on their home.

If you live alongside people who have kitchen tables instead of their kids sitting on the bed to do homework, and can afford a tutor, you have the privilege of being around people who can afford to hire your kids as tutors.

I said right at the very beginning of the thread that my point was simply a response to the thread title ‘do all 18 years old..’
no. They don’t ‘all’.
some do, those who very clearly have no choice.
and as has been made clear on this thread, some others also do, even when they don’t need it, simply because they’re ’entitled’ to it.

I'd rather an 18yo claimed benefits than did a job they aren't qualified for.

I can play about half of the scales on a trumpet without thinking too hard. Should I have set myself up as a "brass music tutor" at 18, or do we rightly recognise that teaching instrumental music is a graduate profession?

I'd rather an 18yo claimed benefits than did a job they aren't qualified for.
I can play about half of the scales on a trumpet without thinking too hard. Should I have set myself up as a "brass music tutor" at 18, or do we rightly recognise that teaching instrumental music is a graduate profession?
If you like you can. And if people want to pay your price, that is their choice.
sorry but I find it baffling that there’s two posters here who think it’s better for a teenager to be on benefits than offer a service, be upfront about their qualifications, and have their customer choose whether to take them up on it.
i think it’s safe to say I am perfectly happy with my parenting choices here to encourage my girls to get jobs than go on benefits.

Barrier after barrier.

My son’s music instructor isn’t a graduate. It’s not a problem.

My mum’s friend managed a bar and every Sunday, I would do the stock check for her. I was 14 😂. Qualified in fuck all, but I could count, and I was paid to do it.

Perhaps you'll bring your car to my cut-price mechanic business that I'm about to start with zero qualifications. I can change my headlight bulbs, that's enough, right?

There are some professions that you aren't supposed to do if you aren't qualified. Teaching children is one of them.

There are some professions that you aren't supposed to do if you aren't qualified. Teaching children is one of them.

Tell that to all the parents who home school their children.

I just hope for your sake that you’d been DBS checked, every person at the bar had been DBS checked, you had the right insurance and had registered as a limited company, registered with hmrc for self assessment, had taken your gcse early and/or had your sats certificate to prove you could count. I hope your mum and dad came with you to check all was above board. And for goodness sake I hope you were officially employed with pension in place.

Completely irrelevant. When it comes to tutoring people have the right to know they are getting a decent service. And they won't get that from someone with a Gcse and nothing else

Music is different. Someone can have a grade 8 in music without being a graduate. Other respected qualifications

Of course not -big laugh though isn't it

No, the family income wont be looked at, but your DD wont get the housing element whilst she is living with you.

The standard element of UC is for people job seeking, which your DD is doing, so there is nothing wrong with her claiming. Your own child benefit will have gone, and she would be classed as an adult now for council tax purposes, so there is nothing wrong with asking for a contribution towards the household running costs.
The job market now is so much different to years ago. There are lots of threads on here where parents are worried that their child that has just left education/uni can not find a job.

Again irrelevant. You clearly don't understand the work that teachers do if you think someone home schooling their kids is comparable to teaching 30 kids at at time

i don’t understand how you don’t get this, sorry.

no thanks re bringing my car to your mechanics.

but yes please said the mum to my dd tutoring her dd. Can you understand that it’s the mum choosing to pay for this service? Knowing what’s for sale?

im guessing for her it would have been worth the money just to have her dd sat at a table doing maths for an hour. Whatever. Her choice.

Yeah, so funny.

You don't need a DBS check to work with adults unless they are vulnerable.

And you know it.

You mock me mentioning insurance, but you damage something or injure someone and all hell breaks loose.

And if you want to teach music as an LEA peripatetic, you need a degree. Likewise, if you want to teach it in schools.

I'll grant that some of the more pop-focussed instruments are often taught by freelancers with non-traditional qualifications. But that skillset is what Rock School qualifications exist to assess.

How do you have any assurance that your child's instructor is any good? Or that your child is covered against getting injured during the session?

Am I the only person who checks that tradespeople, tutors, et al are qualified and insured?

I'd be fine with a 17 year old girl giving me kids a bit of maths tutoring.

If the tutor was an adult male though, I would want a DBS and probably a qualification. Unless I actually knew him well.

It’s not irrelevant. And it’s really not that deep.

The parent in question is happy for that poster’s DD to be “tutoring” hers. What’s the problem?

It’s common for older children to take on such roles. My kids have skiing lessons. Lots of parents pay the older children (late teens) to take their younger children out on the slope for 30 minutes or so. A “private lesson” if you will. No, they are not qualified ski instructors, but they are responsible, experienced skiers, and the additional time on the slope is beneficial to the younger children in building their skills and confidence.

Similiar, perhaps, to what @arethereanyleftatall DD is doing. Informal, but providing service and making some money from it.

You've got two people offering a service where, if they get it wrong, harm is a possible outcome.

A child being taught an incorrect formula that costs an exam result is harm, yes? Or the older child inadvertently injuring the younger child?

I'm arguing that offering a service that can cause harm when not qualified to provide it is immoral. And I'm arguing that encouraging people to do this solely to avoid claiming UC is also immoral.

yes, exactly...this was one of the ideas which prompted me to ask the question.
What are we doing if the young adult loves it way too much at home and all given on a plate. Having to go to Job centre while claiming for a while at least gives them a view into real life

But also, why the shaming? The people on benefits are raising in number. For them is ok but for someone born here and fully British who has the same rights should not be ok if they need it

Any future government might cut benefits, or certain benefits, I can understand this....but my question is practical....

Given that you can break both arms in one fall whilst skiing, no thanks, and it's not on to give an older child that responsibility.

Perhaps if you'd been injured by an older child who was "looking after you" (oh hi, I have) or injured a child left in your care whilst a child yourself (oh hi, I did that too), you might have a more cautious view.

Little sis was fortunately not permanently injured, but I felt guilty for years. The injury I incurred, I still live with. If I'd been left with an adult, it wouldn't have happened because adults don't play leapfrog with children.

Exactly, they are now an adult and their own financial unit....but cannot immediately find a job....so the question in the OP

Really? What about A-levels? My DS did this PT at uni as well.

Someone with a 9 in maths is more then qualified to tutor primary school children in primary school level maths.

Yes, because children don’t get injured when having ski lessons with adults 🙄

The younger kids can all ski and can use the slope on their on. No one is sending their non skiing kids out for lessons with older children FFS, or with older children who are irresponsible. We’re talking 18/19 year olds.

They are acting as a fucking ski buddies to help build skills and confidence, and are being paid for their time. Give it a rest.