universal credit - stay at home mummy

melly1980 · 13 November 2011 at 3:02PM

caz2703 wrote: »

Dognobs - that was completely uncalled for.

maybe so but it highlighted a point.

The concept of family life shouldnt be ignored here. Lets not forget why all these cuts are happening, because of the greedy few at the top. Never forget that. So why should people be shafting up their family life because a system is inherently unfair in the way that it rewards non-working

Dognobs · 13 November 2011 at 3:04PM

melly1980 wrote: »

maybe so but it highlighted a point.

The concept of family life shouldnt be ignored here. Lets not forget why all these cuts are happening, because of the greedy few at the top. Never forget that. So why should people be shafting up their family life because a system is inherently unfair in the way that it rewards non-working

Picked up on my point! What is the point if you never see each other!

krisskross · 13 November 2011 at 3:04PM

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.

We did this for many years as we had 4 children.

dognobs we celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary next week so it didn't appear to do us any harm. Sometimes you simply have to make sacrifices and work as a team. It's only for a few years...not forever.

rose08 · 13 November 2011 at 3:08PM

thank you for your replies.

The concept of encouraging more women into paid work is obviously good. However, in order to make work pay for all parents, including single parents (and this is what the government claim they want to do), there needs to be greater emphasis on parent/child friendly employment and a decent living wage.

The cost of childcare is a huge problem, with before/after school clubs charging around £100 per week per child, and there's the additional cost of childcare over the school holidays to consider aswell. Maximum help with childcare costs is set at 70% , however, most parents including single parents who work full time would not qualify for this level of help. There are also travel costs to consider.

A couple or a single parent with two children, working full time on the minimum wage would really struggle to make ends meet.

The 'costs' of such policy should not be measured merely in terms of monetry value. If all parents, including single parents are forced to work full time and into travelling to and from work up to three hours a day, many children will be left home alone, and during the school holidays they would be left alone for up to 11 hours each day.

I agree that it seems some are milking the system, and deliberately avoiding any work in order to to able to claim excessive amounts in TCs, HB etc. For many parents the reality is that they're working very hard on low pay in order to provide for their children. The fact is that it's impossible to live on £6.08 per hour or £212.00 per week, however much you cut back, it cannot be done.

Many who have been made redundant find that they're having to take a low paid job. Proper support is vital for such parents, they wouldn't be able to survive without it.

More should be done to encourage those who don't work at all into work before extra pressure is put upon low paid, hard working families who are already under considerable strain. As usual it will be those who work hard for very little who will be penalised. Workshy families will remain exactly that, they are hardened to the sanctions already imposed, and know all the get-outs and excuses. It will be those who play by the rules, honest and hard working folk who will pay the price.

This will not make work pay, indeed, it will push more hard working families, including single parents, and some of the most vulnerable children further into poverty.

Sixer · 13 November 2011 at 3:59PM

BigAunty wrote: »

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

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

(Partially OT to thread, sorry).

BigAunty: I think here we have the answer to the self-employed and pin money businesses we were discussing elsewhere.

UC claimants will be subject to conditionality (ie mandatory job seeking) if they earn, or their business makes a profit of, less than £212.80 per week. And if the self-employed second earner as part of a couple, then between them wages and profit will need to be £425.60 a week:

If we take full-time to mean 35 hours, the maximum conditionality threshold for an individual would be set at £212.80 at current rates. This means that if an individual earns over £212.80 per week before tax, they will be in the no conditionality group.

On topic to the thread - in my view this, in combination with the capital rules being extended to UC (not in tax credits as they are currently) will see a big reduction in claimant numbers, especially for those getting small amounts now, such as the £545 family element.

If you were an SAHM mum with a working partner and your UC entitlement would be quite minimal - say, £10 a week - would you claim it if it meant you had to job seek?

MissMoneypenny · 13 November 2011 at 5:00PM

melly1980 wrote: »

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.

Life isn't fair Melly.

When I was a single mother, I had to work to keep my children as there were no Tax Credits or state money to pay childminders. Now my children are grown, I have still had to pay for children; other peoples children, through tax credits.

You have had several years of other people paying towards your 4 children and now you are being asked to keep your own children and pay for other peoples children too. Welcome to my world.

MissMoneypenny · 13 November 2011 at 5:16PM

bestpud wrote: »

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!

This is an interesting article about making parents work to support their children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/10/welfare-plan?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

But Lord Freud, minister for welfare reform, fears the new system will pay "benefit to claimants who are clearly capable of working or earning more". He wants to apply conditionality to in-work claimants.

People who work hard and feel they are contributing to society will be told they must earn more or face a sliding scale of cuts to their income. In-work conditionality will be defined by an earnings threshold, the equivalent of a 35-hour week on the national minimum wage (currently £212.80). Workers who fall below this threshold must increase their work with their current employer, or look for an additional job or for a new one. The threshold for single parents with a child under 13 will be about 20 hours with gross pay of £120. With children over 12 they will be expected to work full time within 90 minutes of their home.

Conditionality will be personalised. Mothers and fathers will be treated as separate individuals rather than as a family. With a child under 13, one must be designated as the carer who will be under the same conditionality as a single parent. The other will be treated as a single worker. A couple with children over 12 will both be expected to work 35 hours.

DaisyFlower · 13 November 2011 at 5:23PM

The more I read abot the new benefit system the more I like it. If you want to be a stay at home mum/dad then thats fine as long as your household income can support it. If it cant, then you have to work its that simple. Others shouldnt pay for your lifestyle choice.

Benefits need to go back to being a welfare state for the needy, not there so that people can choose to work or work very little and let other tax payers pick up the tab.

rose08 · 13 November 2011 at 5:30PM

Most of the flack here appears to be directed at working parents on low incomes who claim tax credits.

Tax credit for a couple who both work, (one full time and the other part-time), with a joint income of around £20,000 gross, (£310 nett) who have one child is at the very most £50 per week. They would not be entitled to a penny in WTC, HB or CTB. They would also not be entitled to free school meals or free prescriptions etc.

Compare this to benefits received by a non-working family. Entitlement for a non working couple with one child would be around £300 per week, which includes full CTC entitlement, full housing and council tax benefit, (assuming £125 per week for rent and CT), CB, and full IS or JSA. They would also be entitled to free school meals and help with health costs inlcuding free prescriptions. Their total entitlement excluding free prescriptions etc is around £330 per week.

Universal credit amounts are going to be roughly the same as current benefits, and will rise with inflation just as current beneftis do. This is not going to make work pay. The couple who work hard and have a joint nett income of £380 per week (including CB) are just £50 a week better off than the couple who don't work at all. If you take off travel to work expenses then the difference is a pittance, less than £20 per week.

silvercar · 13 November 2011 at 5:50PM

Any mother having recently been on maternity leave should have enough NI contributions to claim contribution based JSA for 6 months. The proviso being that they are looking for a job.