universal credit - stay at home mummy

melly1980

FBaby wrote: »

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.

and thats fine provided that this attitude is equally applied to all.

Ive wrote this example on here many times and will write it again. We are in a situation now where although I earn close to the 40% tax mark we have 4 kids and therefore my wife has to work for herself. She is excluded from working elsewhere as it wouldnt cover the costs.

If we took another family who also has 4 kids, even if that family had 2 earers who combined totalled half of my wages they would end up better off. You might not believe it but consider the following.

I get 1 x tax relieff they get 2
I have been artificially brought into 40% to give them 2 x 7500 tax relief soon to be 2 x 10000
I will lose £250 per month child benefit, they will get to keep it. (equivalent of a 7 grand a year paycut given that I would need a 7K rise to cover it)
I will lose tax credits, they wont. This provides them with TAX FREE income.

The net result of this will be that my family of husband / Wife and 4 kids will have more or less the same to live off that another family of husband, wife and 4 kids even if my total family income is 20K more.

Now sit down and inwardly digest that for a minute. Im not saying that on 40+K that I should get benefits. What I am saying is that if I dont qualify for them then how on earth can people that do be propped up to my level of income. This isnt a myth, this is what the system is set up to do. If you dont believe me then plug into a tax credits calculator a 40K salary for 4 kids (no disabled or special cases like under 1's ect). then take off the 40K earners CB, Tax credits then total what they have to spend per month. Then do the same for 2 x 10K earners with 4 kids. It will startle you.

FBaby

No I'm not startled at all, I've been in the same situation. Until last January, I was a single mum of 2, still paying over £300 childcare, earning just over the threshold and therefore paying 40% taxes. I now live with my partner and together we are doing well, but if I'd remained single, I would have found myself paying 40% taxes, entitled to no TC, and losing CB. Still getting no maintenance. My ex however, who decided that it was ok not to contribute a penny towards our two children because I'm 'rich'! decided to have another child with his partner who already has two children. She doesn't work. I calculated once that they were receiving in benefits the same amount then what I pay every month in taxes...

So yes, I know about the unfairness of the system. My partner and his girlfriend are choosing for her not to go work. She has never worked as she strongly believes that mums should stay at home to raise her kids. That's all very well, her beliefs, but why should that choice be subsidised that those who don't have that choice?

embob74

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Who is realistically going to lose money by going to work? I see your point that people shouldn't receive money if their choice is to be a SAHP but you should be berating the system which punishes 2-parent working families rather than berating the people who claim what they are entitled to.
After having my baby I was shocked that on my take home wage of £220 I would have to pay out £175 for nursery fees. Add to that I need a car for work whereas I don't if I stay at home and I can see it doesn't add up.
As for being on a higher wage in 4 years times......who do you know that has had a wage rise in the past few years? My mum is in the same job type as she did 20 years ago and the wage rate is the same is it was back then! Even with a 3% increase each year over 4 years would only mean less than £25 extra a week.
Just a guess so I could be wrong but in 4 years time I have a feeling fuel costs could eat up a fair portion of that £25 extra a week.

caz2703

FBaby wrote: »

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

I have 2 children, the eldest of whom is just shy of 3 years off starting school. Here in NI we don't (that I know of) have any kind of subsidised childcare. We don't get the 15 hours free from 3yrs bit that they do in England so until DS1 starts pre-school which is only a few hours a week I'm paying fulltime childcare for 2 years solid for 2 kids. Each month my salary would only cover rent and childcare and we're not talking about fancy houses to rent (I'm still looking but it seems £600-£650 is the going rate) nor am I looking at gold plated childcare (£1350 for the good nursery close to where I hope to live).

And that folks is my entire salary gone. The bills etc would be paid using child benefit and whatever the ex pays me which could be as little as £350/month CSA. So that £480 has to cover:

utilities (£100)
petrol (£50+)
car insurance (£50)
mobile (£15)
contact lenses (£20)
personal pension (£40)
tv license (£12)

That leaves £193.

DS2 is going through around 2 tubs of formula milk a month so thats another £20 so now down to £173.

Nappies - well they average out at around 10p each (if I get them at a bargain price) so that's another £40 so now £133. And don't get me started on baby wipes as well! Say around another £10/month for wipes so down to £123.

I'd also have to pay contents insurance, food for 3 people, clothes & toys for the kids (I'd do without but I would need some back to work clothes initially). That's £30/week for insurance, food, toiletries, clothes, toys and that's not even allowing for what it costs for a landline phone, internet & Sky TV which I deem as luxuries.

All this is based on estimates, nursery fees not increasing etc etc. You should see the figures if I go part-time at £6/hour for 20 hours. There's money at the end of the month on benefits compared to more month at the end of the money for working full-time.

BigAunty

rose08 wrote: »

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.

Here is a link to the specific document that you cite.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ucpbn-11-conditionality-threshold.pdf

BigAunty

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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

No specific benefits for SAHPs but if one partner earns a low salary, there can be receipt of WTC, CTC, council tax allowance, housing benefit plus CB.

My pals husband has a full time NMW job and she says the benefits they receive are 'ridiculous'. She doesn't want to work even though her kids are now in school, can't see the point.

I did a benefit calculation on the Turn2us website to model and guestimate her household income. I wonder if I've done something wrong with the data entry as it seemed to indicate that her household received more in benefits than in employment income?

Assuming her husband earns 11k per annum, he'd get £830 net per month. Turn2us indicates that each week, they'd be eligible for £161 WTC and CTC per week, child benefit of £33, council tax rebate of £13, housing benefit of £50 (they live in social housing, rent is around £100 per week). That's £258 per week or £1118 per month in benefits.

Unless i've entered duff info in the benefits calculator, they get £1690 per month in their hand in employment income and tax credits/child benefit. Their additional council tax and housing benefit benefits mean they have an outlay of just £300 per month on those two usually major expenses and no child care costs.

If so, this huge cushion is one reason why the SAHM has no incentive to find work because the majority of the household income comes from state benefits, more than doubling their income.

bestpud

rose08 wrote: »

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

If it's good for single parents then it's good for couples imo!

For a long time, couples have moaned and groaned about single parents having money thrown at them. The argument always was they should be treated the same as couples and not given any extra.

Now, when the tide turns, they don't want to be treated the same!

SingleSue

One way of reducing or completely eradicating child care costs is for the couple to work opposite hours, therefore, there is always a parent at home to cover childcare.

It was what me and now ex hubby did, not for financial reasons but because of the lack of childcare for disabled children in this area (couldn't even get someone to have them for 2 or 3 hours a week for respite, even with social services pressures on them) but the outcome was the same...no childcare costs.

I know this would not work for all couples as there could be shiftwork which could make this impossible but for a fair few, it would work.

Dognobs

SingleSue wrote: »

One way of reducing or completely eradicating child care costs is for the couple to work opposite hours, therefore, there is always a parent at home to cover childcare.

It was what me and now ex hubby did, not for financial reasons but because of the lack of childcare for disabled children in this area (couldn't even get someone to have them for 2 or 3 hours a week for respite, even with social services pressures on them) but the outcome was the same...no childcare costs.

I know this would not work for all couples as there could be shiftwork which could make this impossible but for a fair few, it would work.

Wonder why you are single?

caz2703

Dognobs - that was completely uncalled for.