universal credit - stay at home mummy

rose08

hello

i read a thread on here recently regarding the new universal credit and its implications for stay at home mums. The poster it seemed was reassured by the many responses. Some were saying that the threshold was going to be roughly that at which out of work benefits are currently withdrawn.


However, i have come accross conflicing information which says that stay at home mums who have a partner/husband who works and who want to claim universal credit (those who currently claim tax credits) will have to satisfy conditionality in which they have to look for and be available for work. this applies to mums with children as young as five. The threshold, it seems is going to be set much higher.

It seems i'm not allowed to provide the link, go to DWP, Universal Credit briefing notes, 11. Extending conditionality under Universal Credit to working claimants: setting a new conditionality threshold.

Any thoughts?

many thanks

Fiver29

If it's right, I can't see a problem with it. People should only be claiming benefits if they have no other choice.

melly1980

Fiver29 wrote: »

If it's right, I can't see a problem with it. People should only be claiming benefits if they have no other choice.

except that you will create scenarios where you are forcing people into work that makes them significantly poorer.

FBaby

I am very happy to read this. Why should a family get income because one chooses not to work? It is not a NEED to receive benefits but a nice way to be able to stay at home whilst getting those working to compensate for the family reduce income. SAH should only be a decision for those who can afford it.

melly1980 wrote: »

except that you will create scenarios where you are forcing people into work that makes them significantly poorer.

If that is the case (I thought everyone was always better off working even with childcare costs), then it is evidence that tax credits were set way too high in the first place.

ALIBOBSY

Having read the paper myself it would seem the above only applies if the partner is on a low income-I suspect at a simular level to being on working tax credit as opposed to just child tax credit.
The conditions and sanctions are definately aimed and geared to getting those on higher rates of benefits into work/increasing hours/reducing the benefit claimed. The more you work and earn the less conditions will be put on a lone parent or couple.
It clearly states and I quote "People receiving Universal Credit but earning above the relevant threshold would also not be subject to conditionality". I suspect in the same way current tax credits have a lower and higher threshold the new one will. So if you partner is on an average sort of wage you will still get some benefits akin to CTC (which currently doesn't mean you can claim anything else and is just a top up to your income and in effect is just giving you back some of your partners tax). In the same way tax credits upper limits are dropping I suspect over time the new benefit will bring down the level at which the earnings mean you get nothing (TBH any higher rate tax payers should not be on benefits at all really).

The reality is that the legislation has to be finalised and agreed in parliment, the in and outs of working the thing have to be sorted never mind the IT being created and people trained up to deliver it-there is also transitional protection as per the white paper for existing claimants.

So i really wouldn't panic it is realistically a few years off and even then the protection means for most this is a non issue for quite a few years and who knows what will happen.

I am far far more worried about the world economic issues the euro is burning and we are on the brink of a second worse credit crunch, that will likely push the whole world into depression (except maybe china-but if we all crash surely their exports will drop like a stone).

That is something to worry about not a proposed benefit reform that is still at the early stages.

Ali x

NB we are currently having to sign on again as OH is redundant for the 2nd time in 2 years-but during the periods he was in work (until the first redundancy this was 12 yrs lol) his wage was about or just above the average and we could have lived off his wage if we had to-would have been tight, but doable so there is a good arguement the tax credits were always too high. I mean didn't couples with incomes over 60k still get something at one point? TBH we would much rather support ourselves and I we all need to push a system that moves people away from a government support to being independant (more jobs will be needed tho).

In a way 13 yrs of nu labour created a system where government funds boosted middle earnings families income and artificially then could push up borrowing and house prices-pretty dodgy and deadly for the economy long term.

seven-day-weekend

I don't understand. I didn't think there were any benefits for SAHPs other than Child Benefit.? Am I wrong?

melly1980

FBaby wrote: »

If that is the case (I thought everyone was always better off working even with childcare costs), then it is evidence that tax credits were set way too high in the first place.

not at all.

Remember what the thread is about, people who's partners work. So if their partners earn decent money such that they will receive no childcare help, and childcare costs are high because they are heavily subsidised to other people then you have the unfair situation where SOME people are unable to work yet want to. It simply makes no sense for them to work because it would cost them money and this isnt anything to do with how much tax credits they get. If their childcare and petrol costs exceed what they can earn then they will be worse off.

caz2703

FBaby wrote: »

If that is the case (I thought everyone was always better off working even with childcare costs), then it is evidence that tax credits were set way too high in the first place.

I'm not picking on you but I'm in a position whereby returning to work and paying childcare will put me in debt each month. I'm recently separated and my salary means I'm entitled to no help with childcare (no childcare vouchers that I'm aware of either). As such, approx 2/3 of my salary would go on childcare each month leaving me only enough for rent. I'd be relying on child benefit and whatever my ex pays in CS to pay the bills and feed the family.

I always thought you were better off working but if you are over the tax credit threshold you're on your own so unless I was on over £40K a year, I find myself worse off than if I were to give up a good job and go onto benefits with a part-time minimum wage job.

FBaby

melly1980 wrote: »

not at all.

Remember what the thread is about, people who's partners work. So if their partners earn decent money such that they will receive no childcare help, and childcare costs are high because they are heavily subsidised to other people then you have the unfair situation where SOME people are unable to work yet want to. It simply makes no sense for them to work because it would cost them money and this isnt anything to do with how much tax credits they get. If their childcare and petrol costs exceed what they can earn then they will be worse off.

If the partner earns decent money, why are they entitled to benefits? It would cost them money only for 4 years (less if entitled to SMP), so maybe they would have to accept that for these years, they would have to do with less. However, remaining in employment means that they would be more likely to be on a higher wage after those 4 years than if they return to work once the child is at school. It is a choice to be made and not one for others to subsidise for.

FBaby

caz2703 wrote: »

I'm not picking on you but I'm in a position whereby returning to work and paying childcare will put me in debt each month. I'm recently separated and my salary means I'm entitled to no help with childcare (no childcare vouchers that I'm aware of either). As such, approx 2/3 of my salary would go on childcare each month leaving me only enough for rent. I'd be relying on child benefit and whatever my ex pays in CS to pay the bills and feed the family.

I always thought you were better off working but if you are over the tax credit threshold you're on your own so unless I was on over £40K a year, I find myself worse off than if I were to give up a good job and go onto benefits with a part-time minimum wage job.

How many children do you have? I was in the same situation with two children, no maintenance and managed tightly but ok.

FBaby

Just to add, it does make me angry that for years, I worked so hard to support my children, keep my house ect... with little support from their dad and no family help at all, yet, during that time, I was paying taxes to support mums with partners staying at home. Why is it that a single mum with children over the age of 5 now is expected to go and look for a job (rightly so), but a SAHM with a partner can choose to stay at home and see the family income boosted by tax payers?