universal credit - stay at home mummy

Fiver29

FBaby wrote: »

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?

Absolutely agree here. As a single mum who's always worked, even when it's made me worse off, I cannot understand how a couple where one chooses not to work can have the audacity to claim benefits.

Sixer wrote: »

Yes - but you're a lawyer. I imagine National Minimum Wage is an equally funny definition of salary.

35 hours is actually an increase on the current system, which implicitly puts full-time hours at 30 or more.

Where does it say that?

35-40 hours is full time.

Spendless

If it's correct I can see that it's needed. I know someone whose hubby works as a postie permanent nights. They have 3 kids. A few years back she was offerred a job in the school kitchens, school hours, term-time. The schools a stone's throw from her house, so no travel expenses, she'd be off when the kids where including on inset days and in the event of kids illness, well hubby was at home albeit sleeping, they could have managed with him cat-napping on the sofa, or if she'd had to phone in work, they'd have known she wasn't lying cos the child would be off too. So she rang tc and told me that they'd worked it out that she'd be £5 a week better off, she declined the job. I didn't really blame her but I did blame the system. I bumped into her a few weeks ago, her youngest is now in the last year of primary school and she's job-hunting but there's not a lot about it- she's correct there isn't where we live, it's been hard hit with this recession.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

To me, 35 hours / week is a funny definiton of full time!

I actually started a thread on DT about what is 'f-time hours' I think 30 hours is defined as them somewhere by officaldom, which is what I do but I don't think of me being f-time I think it would be an insult to my workmates who are finishing around 5pm whilst i go at 3 and still get something of an afternoon. I think the conclusion was on DT that 35 was the lowest acceptable working 9-5 with 1 hr lunch. My sister's employer considers 36 hours f-time but it is a bank. :rotfl:


BTW- I also worked evenings and weekends when DS was little so hubby could have him, when the alternative was to work f-time and have a childcare bill equivalent to my earnings. It was fine and not that long ago either DS is only 11.

neverdespairgirl

Sixer wrote: »

Yes - but you're a lawyer. I imagine National Minimum Wage is an equally funny definition of salary.

35 hours is actually an increase on the current system, which implicitly puts full-time hours at 30 or more.

It is. Sometimes, NMW would be a bonus.

Tomorrow, I'm going to Kingston Crown Court. I've done 3 hours' prep, it'll take me 2 hours to get there and back and cost £12.50, and I'll be at court for approx. 1.5 hours in total.

Because it's a "for mention" hearing, I'll get the standard £42 for it. After travel costs, I'll get £29.50 for 6.5 hours' work, and then pay my standard percentage to Chambers - 16%. So that's about £4.53 per hour, before tax, NI and childcare.

Sixer

Fiver29 wrote: »

Absolutely agree here. As a single mum who's always worked, even when it's made me worse off, I cannot understand how a couple where one chooses not to work can have the audacity to claim benefits.



Where does it say that?

35-40 hours is full time.

Keep up dear. We're talking about the current [benefit] system. And it doesn't "say that". That's why it's implicit.

Sixer

Spendless wrote: »

I actually started a thread on DT about what is 'f-time hours' I think 30 hours is defined as them somewhere by officaldom, which is what I do but I don't think of me being f-time I think it would be an insult to my workmates who are finishing around 5pm whilst i go at 3 and still get something of an afternoon. I think the conclusion was on DT that 35 was the lowest acceptable working 9-5 with 1 hr lunch. My sister's employer considers 36 hours f-time but it is a bank. :rotfl:

For benefits purposes, it's 30 hours really, isn't it? As that's where all conditionality ends and where the maximum premiums recognising an amount of work are given. Even though it's never explicitly defined.

I would say full-time is anything of 35 hours or more. The traditional boundaries of 35 hours for offices and 40 or more for manual or customer facing work have blurred and now it's really up to the employer.

Sixer

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It is. Sometimes, NMW would be a bonus.

Tomorrow, I'm going to Kingston Crown Court. I've done 3 hours' prep, it'll take me 2 hours to get there and back and cost £12.50, and I'll be at court for approx. 1.5 hours in total.

Because it's a "for mention" hearing, I'll get the standard £42 for it. After travel costs, I'll get £29.50 for 6.5 hours' work, and then pay my standard percentage to Chambers - 16%. So that's about £4.53 per hour, before tax, NI and childcare.

So NMW should be nett of travel costs?!

But we can all choose special circumstances like that. There is a particular service I provide through my business. I charge £120 for it. The actual work takes 1-2 hours. But the preparation/research variation for this particular job is enormous. It can be as little as 1/2 hour or as much as 12 hours.

As a lawyer, you might take some jobs that you lose money on. So do all self-employed people. But you're not in the same position as someone in an NMW job. And so it's unfair to compare.

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

Yes - but you're a lawyer. I imagine National Minimum Wage is an equally funny definition of salary.

A lot of people work a basic 50 hour week now; not just lawyers.

ALIBOBSY

There is another issue completely separate as to how much we value "parenting". Numerous studies have shown whilst professional childcare does the job and in some cases helps in specific areas, children do best whilst being looked after by a primary care giver (mother or father).

There is an arguement that in the case of a couple what would be best for the child (and by implication society as they grow up to be part of the whole), would be for one parent to be there full time for them (or at least before and after school if they are older). I believe as a society this is something to be encouraged, but we are going about it in the wrong way.

Make it a family "work reward" and instead of paying tax credits with all its extra costs just allow partners who stop at home to transfer the whole amount of their unused tax allowance to the working partner. This would be used if the system forced both partners to work anyway, rewards the partner working (delays the level at which their tax rates increase so encourages extra hours/overtime) and means the system supports peoples choice to do the best for their kids. Far easier to administrate-no overpayments/dpzens of award notices etc etc.

Mind you the trouble is no matter what system someone loses out, if we still had the house prices from the 70's there wouldn't be the pressure for both partners to work, but the economy would be in a wildly different state to how it is now and many of the older generation would have had little or no reason to downsize and more would end up on benefits (councils claim back thousands in care homes fees every year).

I still think the whole tax credits idea was extreme left wing thinking to hand out wodges of cash to large chunks of families. Right from the start it should have had a lower cut off and been aimed at lower earners. In a way a sneaky way to boost the economy adn keep those house prices pushed up.

ali x

neverdespairgirl

Sixer wrote: »

So NMW should be nett of travel costs?!

But we can all choose special circumstances like that. There is a particular service I provide through my business. I charge £120 for it. The actual work takes 1-2 hours. But the preparation/research variation for this particular job is enormous. It can be as little as 1/2 hour or as much as 12 hours.

As a lawyer, you might take some jobs that you lose money on. So do all self-employed people. But you're not in the same position as someone in an NMW job. And so it's unfair to compare.

Not travel to a regular place of work, no. I don't include travelling to Chambers. But I do then go from Chambers (where I am now) to courts (which are all over the country).

Barristers aren't allowed to choose cases. there is something called the "cab rank" rule.

FBaby

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

Numerous studies have shown whilst professional childcare does the job and in some cases helps in specific areas, children do best whilst being looked after by a primary care giver (mother or father).

Numerous studies also show the exact opposite.