Fed up of my cousins comments about benefits and UC

She also chose to have 2 kids by two men without a job that covers the cost of her children!

Benefits should only be for people that are si disabled that no form of work is possible and as a short term safety net of you lose your job.

There should be no option to choose to work part time and make up the money from other tax payers.

@ThatBoldBear sorry I seem to have answered the wrong person. You asked me if I had income insurance. I don't. I usually work on fixed term contracts and it's not possible to get cover. I did have it in the 2000s and it didn't pay out.

Absolutely! Well said! The amount of people calling people on here for being on benefits who are plucking figures out of thin air and are showing they clearly don't understand how the benefit system works is astounding!

The fact that so many men can just get away with fathering children and then upping and leaving and not even providing for them financially is a big factor here.

I do get frustrated at people who work part-time and expect UC to top up their earnings, BUT I can also see how this happens with single mothers and why people feel they have no choice but to do this. Stuck between a rock and a hard place I suppose.

Well I say thank you to them then for seemingly not planning retirement well.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything I said? I'm going to assume you think I'm some high flying career woman who earns a fortune. Well, I'm an admin assistant in a dead end job.

It doesn’t sound like they enjoy paying a lot of tax to keep people on UC

Because the Govt don't actually provide childcare settings with the real cost of those hours. For example, it may in fact cost £12 an hour to care for one child, but the Govt only provides that childcare setting £7. This means the setting is running on a massive deficit and must recoup costs via "topups" or massive fees from everyone who is not eligible for "free hours". Remove the subsidy altogether and everyone has to pay, but the costs are spread more evenly and fairly across everybody

No subsidised childcare/childcare vouchers?
Never received any Child benefit?
No statutory maternity pay?
No Subsidised preschool funding?
And if you became a single parent or one of you couldn’t work due to ill health or job loss - no help required from the government at all, you can cope on one wage?

The childcare funding that exists now, didn’t exist when I had my dc but I don’t begrudge those that get it now nor funding with my taxes. Honestly, all I read from the OP is someone who would prefer to fund herself and pay taxes if she could and once she can fund herself she will. I have a dd in college who has been trying to get a weekend job for 2 years, applied for hundreds doesn’t hear a thing, desperately trying to start funding herself and can’t This idea that everyone can magically get the job they need at the pay they need when they need it is really naive. Of course you’ll always get people that can and do exploit the system but I don’t believe that’s the majority, most would prefer the dignity of being able to be self sufficient. I’m also not naive enough to think that if the government stopped paying for UC etc my taxes would go down and I’d have more disposable income,

i feel thankful that I’ve been lucky enough to get a well paid job, have two wages coming in and not need to lean on the government and I hope our health stays that way to keep it that way but if it doesn’t, I‘d hope I would get some support if I needed it without somebody bitterly asking me why they should have to fund it with their taxes.

I wish people could walk a mile in someone else’s shoes first before applying these blanket judgements.

You do realise that an "unemployed single mum" is benefit capped( I've been there so I do know). Their capped UC entitlement includes their housing element which they have to pay their rent with so let's break it down some based on my previous circumstances:
Capped UC for myself and 5 kids I received less than £1300 per month and out of that I had to pay £650 rent aswell as council tax(even unemployed have to pay some council tax).I was left with less than £600 per month to pay bills and feed a family of 6 so I don't know where you think someone on benefits is rolling in a load of disposable income unless you honestly believe that all these parents are starving their kids and leaving them homeless

Because if you’re a single parent you are in a tough financial situation so ought to work full time to help pay for it. You can’t just expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for a single parent taking the luxury of part time work. Single parents are undoubtedly in a tough situation but tax payer isn’t your partner and shouldn’t have to fund you to work part time. Every single parent I know recognises this and works full time.

I've agreed with you up and down this thread, however... It's actually around a 66k job that makes you a net contributor. It's 17k a year in taxes which is the threshold to be a contributor, apparently! That's per person in the household, as well... Which I believe includes children.

So a single parent with two kids on 66k is probably not a net contributor, because they aren't paying enough taxes to cover both themselves and their children.

Although indirect taxes such as council tax, VAT etc probably pushes them up to break even, or be contributing a tidge bit extra.

So the OPs cousin actually pays a quarter of the tax that an actual net contributor does.

Bit shocking considering the average full time wage is 37k-ish

OP your not going to get the answers you want here. Just try and ignore other people's opinions as long as you're not claiming anything you're not entitled to and are able to manage financially it's nobody's business. As a mother i've worked full-time, part-time been a SAHM and a full time carer for my MIL for a short while I claimed if I needed to. I don't feel any shame in that.

And how is that relevant to the point I was responding to?

Can I ask why part time work isn't an option?

It is entirely justifiable for a single mother to work part-time and receive benefits to supplement her income. Unlike a two-parent household, she is solely responsible for both earning a living and raising her children. Expecting the same output from someone in such a fundamentally different and more demanding situation is neither realistic nor fair. Providing support in this context is not a handout—it’s a recognition of the immense burden she carries alone.

The second part was not directed at you @DuckbilledSplatterPuff - it was a separate paragraph. Yes the government link contribution years but happily spend the tax income raised on anything they want. However plenty of people still do think it’s a savings scheme!

I don’t think the claim is true but say it is, it’s because it’s not properly funded. So say for example the government pays £5 per hour to the nursery for each 3 year old attending. But the actual cost to the nursery is £7 per hour. Nurseries can’t run at a loss so they have to make the shortfall up and one of the ways they do that is to charge more for the non funded hours, and the target audience for that is parents who don’t qualify for the funded hours or children who attend more hours than the 15/30. So some people may actually pay more than they would if the funded hours didn’t exist, effectively they are subsidising other children’s places.

I’m tired so sorry if that doesn’t make a huge amount of sense .

I can’t work full time because I don’t have anyone to help with my son.

He's 5 so he's in school. You can get uc childcare costs and use after school club which is what most parents do.

It really is worth it, especially when you add pension.

Oh Dear! 😂
I've already corrected my original description of NI.
It is different to income tax though.
The contributions towards NI affect whether, and at what rate you are eligible for benefits like State Pension after you reach a certain age.

I never said it was a tax paid by pensioners. ??? I pay NI myself.

I have no idea why you are telling me the following.
"Many women with school age dc work full time. They use wrap around care at school. Of course people doing a few hours part time to avoid tax and get UC know exactly what they are doing."

It is not a topic I ever commented on. Nor was I accusing anyone of tax avoidance.

Yes and even part time and/or low wage workers will pay some tax

No, you get a tax free allowance of £12.5k. If you work under about 20h a week you can be paying no income tax all. You might pay some vat but you won't be much as there's not much on food, things for kid etc
.

Its really difficult/galling when it seems that a lot of people manage on UC working part time. For most of us part time work just isn't an option, we have to work full time & use more childcare etc for very little more income.

Op how many hours are you actually doing if paying no tax at all? Even on minimum wage full time is £24k ish for a 37.5 hour week and tax kicks in above £12.5k, are you working less than 20h a week?

The landlord thing is another daft quirk of the system though. Landlords receive housing benefit from the Government indirectly, are charged punitive amounts of tax and compliance costs by the Government, put the rents up to cover the costs which in turn costs the Government more in housing benefits.

How so?

@DuckbilledSplatterPuff Oh dear! You think NI goes to pensions? It 100% does not! There’s no crock of gold (pension) with your name on it that you have saved for via NI. NI is an additional tax but not paid by pensioners. If they have an income it should be, but that’s another issue.

Many women with school age dc work full time. They use wrap around care at school. Of course people doing a few hours part time to avoid tax and get UC know exactly what they are doing.