Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To find this universal credit situation unfair

240 replies

happypickle · 09/05/2024 08:41

Myself and DH have 1 child and pay the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage on nursery. We are talking about having a 2nd child but we have to wait to be at a point where our first would be on their way into school as we could not afford to pay for 2 nursery places.

In laws who are in universal credit, have no such constraints and are in a position to try and conceive before us as SIL does not work and is a SAHM to 6 month old. They get a fortune in UC and have their rent paid and actually have more disposable income than us in professional jobs.

Don't know what I want from this post but just feel it's so unfair that we are constrained by finances but those on benefits are free to plan their family exactly as they want and they will have the ideal 2 years age gap which we would have loved to have done.

OP posts:
RedHelenB · 09/05/2024 13:09

Greyheronsarethebest · 09/05/2024 08:44

hand in your notice, become a sahm and have more babies! HTH!

This. And rent a house.

Notreat · 09/05/2024 13:09

happypickle · 09/05/2024 08:46

You've avoided my question, do you agree it's not fair?

Yes it's fair. Life on benefits isn't wonderful!
What is your alternative? A society where we don't support people who need it?
You may be in a position when you need help from the state. All of us be in that position.
You are lucky you have a home, mortgage and s job many people can't afford to get onto the market and live in a constant state of insecurity and fear they may lose their home
. Think about what you have rather than what others do.

WithACatLikeTread · 09/05/2024 13:07

laepen · 09/05/2024 13:02

A 2 year age gap isn't really ideal. It's better to space them out a bit so you can spend time with each one properly on mat leave. Plus SIL would be smarter to leave 3 years between dcs so she won't be required to look for work for 6 years. In my day you didn't have to seek work until the youngest was 5 so I spaced my dcs accordingly (3 dcs so 15 years of sahm).

Not quite something to brag about. 😬

A1b2c3d4e5f6g7 · 09/05/2024 13:06

You can earn large gross amounts and still claim, dependant on your circumstances.

There was a thread on here where someone was getting more than £60k gross in benefits. To answer the PP, yes I do know people who have decided not to work and stay at home because they are better off than working and covering childcare. While it's a possibility, of course people will do it. I sometimes feel a bit resentful when working long hours and missing time with my children, to pay huge amounts of tax. Like @MidnightPatrol we're fortunate not to need tax free childcare etc, but two lots of nursery fees are very tough (almost £4K) and with mortgage, bills, commuting costs etc its not easy. So it's sometimes hard to see people choosing not to work, or choosing to work part time and claim

Picklepeppers · 09/05/2024 13:06

I'm sure your in-laws don't receive a "fortune" from UC. There are set amounts that people receive depending on their income, number of children etc and there is also a benefit cap. They will also be required to look for work once their child turns two years old.
The idea that people on UC receive tons of money is false.

I have found myself in the UC system in the past. I would choose work over UC without a doubt.

Nospecialcharactersplease · 09/05/2024 13:05

laepen · 09/05/2024 13:02

A 2 year age gap isn't really ideal. It's better to space them out a bit so you can spend time with each one properly on mat leave. Plus SIL would be smarter to leave 3 years between dcs so she won't be required to look for work for 6 years. In my day you didn't have to seek work until the youngest was 5 so I spaced my dcs accordingly (3 dcs so 15 years of sahm).

Clever you 🙄

babybrum · 09/05/2024 13:03

Well why not hand both your notices in then?

laepen · 09/05/2024 13:02

A 2 year age gap isn't really ideal. It's better to space them out a bit so you can spend time with each one properly on mat leave. Plus SIL would be smarter to leave 3 years between dcs so she won't be required to look for work for 6 years. In my day you didn't have to seek work until the youngest was 5 so I spaced my dcs accordingly (3 dcs so 15 years of sahm).

Trulyme · 09/05/2024 13:02

IdgieThreadgoodeIsMyHeroine · 09/05/2024 11:44

If you genuinely think your in-laws are in an enviable position, there is absolutely nothing to stop you selling your house, quitting your job and having another baby. So go and do that, then come back in a year and let us know how it's going.

Exactly!

Its funny how these sorts of people moan about how hard done by they are compared to those on a lower income but would never actually choose to have a lower income, because they know they’d be worse off.

There was a thread a while back saying how people on £60k+ were worse off than those on £18k a year.
They could easily get a NMW job but they choose not to (because they know they’d be much worse off) and just continue to moan about not having FSM or UC etc.

A1b2c3d4e5f6g7 · 09/05/2024 13:00

www.housingsystems.co.uk/News/News-Articles/id/107

The table here in this article shows how generous UC can be

Crikeyalmighty · 09/05/2024 12:56

@Greyheronsarethebest sorry- that really wasn't quite how I intended it to sound- what I meant was they won't be getting 'enhanced' benefits - to the level that the OP might perceive as 'doing nicely thank you' and will actually be quite meagre if you take out the rent aspect- I don't begrudge any with disability anything .

Rosebel · 09/05/2024 12:55

These posts annoy me (and yes I know i don't have to read them) but how can you possibly think anyone on benefits is better off than two working parents?
When we were on benefits most of the time DH and I didn't eat because we couldn't afford to. Sold the car, took DD out of nursery and we still struggled. Yes we got some money towards our rent (I'm willing to bet your ILs don't get all their rent paid for) but life was incredibly hard.
Since then we've both been lucky enough to be employed and have far more money than we ever did on benefits. DS is now coming to the end of nursery ( we were lucky with childcare, because I work in the nursing we get 50% off our fees) but we can actually save money now and thankfully the days of seeing on 60p in our back account are over.
I don't begrudge people on benefits, not only do they have no money but society (and family) slag them off.

SpeedyDrama · 09/05/2024 12:50

Fluffyc1ouds · 09/05/2024 11:23

I think it's unfair. A friend of mine had completely free childcare because she didn't feel like working and UC paid her so well (her words). I couldn't bring myself to be unemployed but the childcare cost being so ridiculously high while those not working (and therefore with no need for childcare) get it free seems backwards to me.

Really? Because as someone on benefits (UC and Carers) the only free childcare my children have been entitled to that isn’t available to others is 15 hours Terrific Twos. Otherwise it’s been the universal free hours for 3 year olds, I pay £100 a month for after school childcare for my eldest that enables me to do a somewhat complicated school run and not entitled to UC help as I’m not in paid employment. So not sure what amazing childcare your friend is entitled to that others aren’t…

WithACatLikeTread · 09/05/2024 12:46

Katemax82 · 09/05/2024 12:43

I agree it's not fair, my husband earns a decent wage but we are scraping by

Can you work around him to top it up?

Katemax82 · 09/05/2024 12:43

happypickle · 09/05/2024 08:46

You've avoided my question, do you agree it's not fair?

I agree it's not fair, my husband earns a decent wage but we are scraping by

WithACatLikeTread · 09/05/2024 12:42

WorkCleanRepeat · 09/05/2024 12:31

It might be worth double checking this. Recently a few of my friends that were only eligible for tax free childcare when they first went back to work realised they actually qualify for the 80% childcare costs via UC.

They get no other award. Just the childcare element.

You have to be entitled to some UC to get it. If you would otherwise get a zero award you aren't entitled to the childcare help.

Headfirstintothewild · 09/05/2024 12:40

WorkCleanRepeat · 09/05/2024 12:31

It might be worth double checking this. Recently a few of my friends that were only eligible for tax free childcare when they first went back to work realised they actually qualify for the 80% childcare costs via UC.

They get no other award. Just the childcare element.

This isn’t how UC works. Someone can’t just receive the childcare element. All elements (for someone receiving the childcare element that would be at least standard allowance, child element(s) and childcare element) are added up and then, following the work allowance, earnings are deducted 55p in every pound.

WorkCleanRepeat · 09/05/2024 12:31

happypickle · 09/05/2024 08:47

No not entitled, we only get the tax feee childcare.

It might be worth double checking this. Recently a few of my friends that were only eligible for tax free childcare when they first went back to work realised they actually qualify for the 80% childcare costs via UC.

They get no other award. Just the childcare element.

IClaudine · 09/05/2024 12:31

happypickle · 09/05/2024 08:47

No not entitled, we only get the tax feee childcare.

As a childfree person, I think it is really unfair that you get tax breaks on your lifestyle choices and I don't.

Cornflakes44 · 09/05/2024 12:28

Instead of getting angry at those on benefits surely the thing you should really be angry about is the crazy high costs of childcare, low wages, and shitty interest rates meaning high mortgages. Our society is geared towards making rich people richer and poor people poorer. That's what you should be calling out not that those on benefits can afford the basics of life. From what I understand life on benefits is hardly luxurious.

IClaudine · 09/05/2024 12:26

Round and round we go on the MN Tory Scapegoat Roundabout. Muslims. Disabled people. Benefit recipients. I'm getting dizzy.

Nottherealslimshady · 09/05/2024 12:22

If their life seems so much better just quit your jobs and live off benefits... or does that not seem like a life you'd be happy with?

Headfirstintothewild · 09/05/2024 12:20

Those who have never claimed any kind of benefit (UC, PIP, unemployment, whatever) have paid through various taxes, for those who do.

Many of those not on benefits still won’t be net contributors.

Ignore those saying quit your job and be a SAHM and claim. If everyone did that we'd be in even more of a mess as a country, and morally that's not right.

This completely misses the point of those who are posting if OP thinks it is so unfair why doesn’t she give up her job and claim UC. OP isn’t going to give up her job because SIL isn’t actually raking it in.

EatCrow · 09/05/2024 12:20

IClaudine · 09/05/2024 12:15

OP you started a thread about the "unfairness" of UC less than two weeks ago. Why another thread?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5067241-families-on-uc

OP’ll be on a ‘wages by thread’ basis. The more frothers they get, the more pay.

EatCrow · 09/05/2024 12:18

ICanFixHim · 09/05/2024 09:43

Why on earth would that be ok to do?

I don’t care either way but it might help the OP unburden themselves of the resentment.