To wonder what’s the point when I’m left with this after bills?

It's still inaccurate for the salary and the number of children. You can't compare the two situations.

Ah great, thanks for explaining that.

But it still leaves the TA with the same net income as the OP? £45k each annually?

That seems really, really wrong to me.

For a single mum of one using the same figures, the monthly benefit income would drop by around £1200 compared to a single mum of four.

Your figures are incorrect. There wouldn't be any help with mortgage costs in this scenario. The support for mortgage interest via UC is a loan and is only available to people who have had no employment income, not even a single penny, for 9 consecutive months leading up to their application for it.

Also, assuming the mother is over 25 and her 4 children were all born before April 2017 and had no disabilities, her basic monthly UC award would be a total of £2491.77 before wage deductions. This is made up of the single element of £393.45 and 4 x £333.33 for the kids plus £765 childcare which is 85% of the £900 childcare costs.

Her wage deduction for a monthly net earned income of £1313.30 (which is what it would be with a monthly pension contribution of £75) would be £352.16. This would leave a UC award of £2139.61.

So that makes £3452.91. Plus child benefit of £305.80 every 4 weeks (obviously a 5 week month would be more) would make the total income £3758.71 monthly.

So £45,104 annually.

What's the figures for a single Mum of one? As four children is completely different to one child. Oh, and you need to drop the salary by 20% for term time only (it's almost always presented as FTE) and then another 20% for the reduction to 30 hours instead of a full 36-37.5.

You are absolutely not going to believe this, but I put in the details for a TA earning 18k (average salary according to Google) into entitled to, with 4 kids aged between 7 and 14, put in lower childcare cost than OP has (£900 per month) and a 200k mortgage (£900 per month over 30 year term at 3.5% interest). EntitledTo comes up with a benefit entitlement of £791/week (£613 UC, £101 mortgage support, £76 child benefit)

That's £41,132 annually

Then she also has her salary:
18k gross
5% pension £900
£905 income tax
£362 NI
Assume no student debt (not needed fora TA)
Net salary £15833

So the TA's total take home pay is £57k

Compared to OP's net take home pay of £44.7k

Please someone tell me that I've made a mistake on the numbers, since I absolutely can't believe that a young single mother who's managing against the odds to earn so well that the state deems her able to pay £17.3k into the tax system ends up taking home £10k per year less than a TA getting topped up on benefits.

In fact, if you look it up, you'll see a single mother's maximum possible benefits (which most will not receive) in 2024 just covers the average 2 bed London rent, leaving nothing for food, bills, travel to work, or anything else.

Of course she wouldn't. The benefits csp is set below average full time wage.

The single mum with four kids working a part time job as a TA would be subbed by the taxpayer to the tune of a well above average full time wage.

Getting the state to pay for your kids is the default position of at least half of all women in the UK and it is becoming unsustainable.

It would be so much more sensible. The tiny number of people on truly huge salaries are inconsequential to the overall cost and pretty much anyone else with kids could genuinely use the money for at least the early, high cost childcare years

Yes your correct my maths is very off lol 😆, they haven't changed the rules they should though, completely reversing the entire decision would be a better idea in the current climate.

On 70k with no pension you’d surely pay back half (1% for each £200 earned over £60k up to 80k when you lose it all). £10k/£200 is 50%. It would be less if contributing to pension but I’m not sure where you’d get 80% from unless there was another change since the one to put the threshold up to 60k & taper off over 20k there than 10k that I totally missed?

I was watching Rich House, Poor House on Netflix. I'm the first episode the mother from the 'poor house' commented 'why does anybody need £1200 per week'. It was obvious that all she'd ever known was struggle.

Once she got into the swing of things she was happily spending £60 on a trip to the butchers.

Nobody is denying that those on low income have it hard, but it doesn't negate the pain of earning £70k and only ending up with £7k after paying tax, childcare, mortgage and bills.

Yes that seems like a decent estimate for that income level. 765 could easily be consumed by;
council tax - 150
electric - 100
water - 50
gas - 50
broadband - 40
car payments (or maintenence) - 150
car insurance - 50
house insurance - 30
car tax - 30
mobile phone - 15
outstanding credit cards ?

The figures above are estimates based on some of my own bills (except for car payments). It totals to £665 and that doesn't include any outstanding credit card bills or loan repayments the OP might have.
I agree that OP could give a bit more of breakdown on bills as there might be tips to reduce some. Broadband can be lowered by shopping around and it's always good to keep on top of energy tariffs.

Indeed - your later posts addressed this. Not everyone’s did though. It won’t change. Look at the posts on here. Look at any posts on threads with higher earners. When you point out that other countries fund childcare for all - ohhh higher earners shouldn’t have that - so entitled. So on and so forth. Higher earners are here to milk for all they can pay whilst not entitled to anything in return because ‘equal pooling’ and such bollocks.

All it does is drag women down. Funnily enough, the males I work with really worry about this stuff. We are not a progressive country. We are losing a lot of talent from the workforce. Yet a women heavy forum? Couldn’t care less. How dare they earn more and complain.

Exactly what I was saying, whilst also noting sociopolitical factors, often stacked against women and single mothers, involved and hoping there can be action and awareness aimed at changing these.

I know which is why I haven’t been on the thread discussing other circumstances and constantly kicking the boot into a woman that is struggling for kicks. I am glad the comments got called out - not by just by me but many other posters. Far too many women on here too quick to kick the boot into another struggling woman with her only crime is that she is successful.

What about PIP/UC/DLA isn’t relevant here.

Op is in a shitty situation; I’ve been there. Do all the right things to be turning things down when on paper you earn well.

I will always vehemently defend people like the op who are constantly attacked by other women trying to drag them down. The women of this world - especially this country are so under represented in high earning or skilled jobs because of the tax policies and child care policies in this country.

As many posters have raised on this thread - tall poppy syndrome. You have to be vocal about defending women from this shit as so many of you want to tear people like the op down. So no, looking at the posters who constantly tear into people like the op - the point is far from made. Who needs a male dominated society to keep women down when women do a good job of that themselves. How very know your place.

It certainly is not all about you either. If you don't like my comment that's fine. You've said it several times now 😬 you've made your point.

No. Equally you aren’t here to moderate what op can and can’t discuss. I know it is hard to understand but not everything is a race to the bottom and higher earners don’t have to constantly pander to those who are not. It is a terrible look. It’s not about me. It’s not just me. Many posters raised issue with the comment.

@whistleblower99 are you moderating the thread and here to dictate what is a valid comment and what isn't?

Indeed. But you didn’t comment to help did you? Told op to cut her cloth. Just stuck the boot in and then complained that is wasn’t about DLA. How dare are woman earn a good salary eh? It wasn’t about you. If you can’t see the optics of that then it is kind of proving the points of the posters who called you out for it.

I have as much right to comment on the thread as you do.

I'm not of child nursery years, too old for that! When mine were small, I was very lucky that I could work round them, play school (as it was then) and my parents helped a lot. My daughter and son in law are very very lucky as I do (and have done more in the past) a hell of a lot of the child care/ nursery run/ school run etc. At one point, when my daughter was on uni placement, I had her toddler every day for 10 weeks and 12 weeks. The amount it would have cost in nursery fees would have been horrendous, and that was a few years ago.

I find it incredible, and hats off to the parents, that the charges are so high and yet parents keep plugging away, even if they might be marginally better off on benefits. It must be very disheartening but at least with nursery fees there's a definite end in sight. For all of those parents who pay a fortune and don't have any help, good on you.

It isn’t about you or your situation. It is about ops and how she can manage with colossal costs which are giving her a poor return on a good salary.

@Vettrianofan @Tunefultwix

Are you one person with one account?