Families on UC

Plus zero hour contracts mean you aren't guaranteed a shift. At least UC can provide a safety net if you don't get shifts.

Wowzers! You do realise that there are many single parents who were married/ in relationships at the time they decided to have kids and that maybe something happened that caused them to have to leave their relationship? Such as DV? Being cheated on? Maybe having kids took a toll on their relationship and ended up separating…. And now have to rely on UC to get by!

Also a lot of people may have had stable jobs when they decided to have kids but maybe got made redundant?? Lost their job? Had children with a disability/ asd?

What a ridiculous post

I’m interest if those who are so against UC claiming are also insisting that every person at their workplace and in their child’s school and in the hospital and at the supermarket is paid a real living wage? You do realise people on UC are almost all working, most of whom in jobs that don’t pay a real living wage. It really should be called an employer subsidy because that’s effectively what it is in the vast majority of cases.

I was worse off on tax credits as the housing benefit element was less generous. I got no housing help. I think it's very individual.

The answer was a pretty good one- back in the day tax credits paid a bit all the way up to a deputy head kind of salary. It meant there was a really, really gradual taper and middle class professionals with kids also got a little extra support. We didn’t hear ‘benefit scroungers’ bandied around so much, especially not in relation to parents where at least one adult was working full time because so SO many more families were eligible.

We also have no family nearby. The set up works for us.

Actually I work extra hours when my husband is off during the school holidays so some months I get less. Maybe blame the schools for paying your child's school TA a shit wage. I don't have any guilt though. Pretty sure I will working until I drop dead.

Meanwhile everyone else who doesn't claim gets the full benefit of their extra earnings - minus tax which I also pay.

I don't know what the answer is because I understand that they can't just indefinitely pay benefits without reducing them in relation to earnings, but it does feel shite doing literally the same job as the person next to me, but only ever being 45% better off for the trouble.

I don't know what the earnings cut off would be for me to be able to stop claiming but as a lone parent it's not feasable for me to take on a second job without more or less abandoning my child every evening and having no time to do everything else that's involved with running a household.

Go for it then.

Do it.

Go on.

Then you can report to the job centre every week and prove to a patronising moron that you've done 30 hours job hunting. Then you can explain why you quit work to claim. Then you can live with the risk of sanctions and losing a percentage of your claim and not having enough to pay rent or food for 3 months.
And forget renting a new home - anyone on benefits will tell you that finding a rental is impossible.

Well, social housing then .. good luck. Waiting lists are often years for people without extenuating circumstances. You'll get a band 2/3 and you can bid on houses every month, but they're all given to band 1 who have priority and there's 500 band 1 people bidding on every house.

That's ok though, you already rent... Till your landlord sells up and all of a sudden you're homeless.. now you need a home like the other Band 1 people. So you can bid on band 1 too. Only there's still 500 band 1 people ahead of you, and more being added every day.

So now you've quit work for a life of luxury in benefits. Yay.
You've been patronised and sanctioned.
Unable to pay for rent and food.
Been made homeless and living in 1 room in a hostel.
You can't move out because no one will take benefit claimants as a tenant.
You can get a social home as there's hundreds more in need than you.

But... Hey... You're only £10 worse off than working..

🤪🤪🤪

So you chose to have children you couldn't afford without benefits and deliberately don't work more hours so you can claim?

It is the amount you earn that matters not the hours you work.

In most cases, you’ll always be better off working than on UC. You’ll also be better off working full time and getting a UC top up.

These parents will still be attending meetings etc and having to work search/apply for jobs for 30 hours a week.

Most people think they’re not entitled because they earn a lot but sometimes that’s not the case.

I earn £2500 a month, my partner earns £1500 and we still get £1245 UC🤷🏼‍♀️

You are better off, because you get to keep more of your UC, they deduct a certain amount but you're always better off working and earning more.

I realise that my situation - disabled child - means some MNers will think my case acceptable, but the lack of phasing back into the workplace is a restriction for everyone.

I have been told in the past on here that this still isn't a good excuse. I could just get one of these millions of flexible WFH jobs that allow me to work school hours, have 14 weeks annual leave, will cater for the need for frequent appointments, phases when the child is not attending school etc. Easy peasy, ya know ;-)

On the mortgage- lucky you for being privileged enough to have the deposit. I earn plenty to pay a mortgage but all my money goes in paying my landlords mortgage instead.

so judgemental and such a nasty post. You know it’s exactly what the gov want? You’re playing right into their hands. Point the finger at the families working their arses off but still get uc instead the of millions they have spuffed up the wall with all their dodgy going ons

Any wage increase applied (either through a pay rise or through working extra hours) is offset by the reduction of my UC payment so you are never really any better off.

You lose 55p in the £1, so you are better off if you earn more - not by the full amount you earn but by nearly 50%.

It's 30 now, they increased it. But people still seem to think it's the same as tax credits where you only had to work 16 hours. It just goes to show that people have not actually done any research into UC and what is required to claim it, they're just spouting anti benefits nonsense that they know nothing about.

Being on benefits was a safety net for me when I had to be a SAHM for my disabled son. There’s no other way I would have survived.

When on benefits there are restrictions on how much you work without losing money, which in theory is as it should be, but in reality traps people in a situation where they can’t slowly increase their hours, working more hours means you end up on less money.

For example carers allowance - you can earn up to £151 a week from work (CA is £81.90 per week), if you go over this threshold at all, even my 50p, you do not qualify to claim. So there’s no phasing out of CA to return to work, but if you’re caring for someone for over 35 hours a week it’s unlikely that you could just come off it and work the 28 additional hours (assuming minimum wage) in a month to gain that back.

I was on legacy CTC, and that was similar. When I returned to work if I went over 16 hours I was suddenly in a situation where I had higher fuel costs, higher care costs for my son (to take into account the level of flexibility he needed), no free prescriptions, no free school meals for my younger dc, and no possible way to work the hours I’d need to to make up for the shortfall.

I realise that my situation - disabled child - means some MNers will think my case acceptable, but the lack of phasing back into the workplace is a restriction for everyone.

There’s also the stress at relying on benefits. Particularly when you work as well. Have you all read about the woman who went over the threshold whilst claiming CA? She went under the threshold some months, and some months went over by 50p to £3. DWP sat on it for 3 years then demanded it all back. Over £11,000.
If the government want people back to work they need to overhaul things to allow people to get back to work with a level of flexibility. IME most people want to work, but the fear of losing money when things are already tight traps you.

I’ve come off benefits now, it’s a struggle sometimes, but I know I’m free to earn more without the fear that I’m going to lose more than I earn. Being on benefits was necessary, but it was humiliating relying on gov orgs that treat you like you’re dishonest and putting up with the stigma and opinions of real life people who believe the propaganda that we're all benefits scum and scroungers. It gets a bit much sometimes.

You're much too late with this. The polls closed hours ago

It's so fucking boring. And repetitive.

But the idea with UC is when your children hit 5 you need to be working at least 25hours a week

I urge everyone to Google 'amount of unclaimed benefits'. Now try and digest that figure.

Just for background I get UC, my dp works full time but I have a zero hours contract but do work most days totalling a 30 hour week, however this it to suit childcare ect so I am there for my dc in school holidays which works for us as a family.
We have two primary age DC and rent our property which will is and will be long term.
With rent, full council tax, bills (gas water elec and internet), alongside phones (PAYG) insurance, petrol, Netflix ect we just about get by each month

Benefits need to run on a case bu case. Those with disabled children deserve all they get but I've just done a calculation online just to see what I would be entitled to and I will receive £10 less than my current wage from working. Which would actually mean I would be better off not working and being a stay at home mum because my travel costs would then not exist. The system is broken

I work full time earning over minumum wage and get UC. Why would I feel guilty that my job doesn't pay enough to support me and one child?