Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Poor life planning..

369 replies

pocketpairs · 26/11/2025 12:01

With the upcoming budget seen many "poor me" posts, particularly from high/middle earners. I find it frustrating that rather than blame themselves for thier life (& financial planning) choices, they blame some arbitrary government policy changes, such as upcoming introduction of new council tax bands.

Example: Sister & hubby earn £14k net p/m. But their choice to buy a nearly £x.xm house in SE & send DCs to private school means they have £3k (approx) to spend on everything else. They could have taken different choices...£1m houses &/or move to grammar school areas.

Clearly this is an extreme example, but I really don't understand why a family can't survive on £4-6k p/m, especially outside of London. Up until recently, I survived on much less and managed to put myself a firmer financial footing in 40s.

Sure this means some sacrifices, but it seems everyone wants to 'have their cake and eat it'.

OP posts:
JHound · 26/11/2025 19:13

HairsprayBabe · 26/11/2025 14:01

@Themagicfarawaytreeismyfav

The official figure for benefit fraud is 0.7% about £1.5bn

Tax dodgers cost £36bn

I don't mind paying more tax, we cut our cloth accordingly and I would never for one second want someone more vulnerable than me to suffer and struggle because of my greed.

Plus I really like well funded public services, even if I don't really use many of them.

Edited

It’s not just benefit fraud. There are also thise who make poor life choices who then have to rely on benefits.

JHound · 26/11/2025 19:10

pocketpairs · 26/11/2025 19:08

I'll refer you to the poster who said it more eloquently than I could:

Happyhappyday · Today 18:45
I agree. We are a high earning family. In the US but earn around £250k gross with lower taxes (take home around £15k after tax and healthcare and before pensions). We have deliberately made choices that mean we have financial flexibility. Drive one old car, stayed in a cheaper house. My brother in contrast has a similar household income but has 3x the mortgage, 2 newer cars and frequently complains about feeling trapped in his job. It is hard to have sympathy when it’s clear how his choices have got him there.

What does that have to do with you saying people should be happy to “survive” on £4-6k a month?

£15k a month is substantially more than “surviving on £4-6k a month”.

pocketpairs · 26/11/2025 19:08

JHound · 26/11/2025 19:01

Clearly this is an extreme example, but I really don't understand why a family can't survive on £4-6k p/m, especially outside of London. Up until recently, I survived on much less and managed to put myself a firmer financial footing in 40s

It’s this kind of attitude which is pathetic. Who are you to dictate what people should be happy to “survive” on? What if want to LIVE, not merely “survive”?

Edited

I'll refer you to the poster who said it more eloquently than I could:

Happyhappyday · Today 18:45
I agree. We are a high earning family. In the US but earn around £250k gross with lower taxes (take home around £15k after tax and healthcare and before pensions). We have deliberately made choices that mean we have financial flexibility. Drive one old car, stayed in a cheaper house. My brother in contrast has a similar household income but has 3x the mortgage, 2 newer cars and frequently complains about feeling trapped in his job. It is hard to have sympathy when it’s clear how his choices have got him there.

OP posts:
JHound · 26/11/2025 19:05

AmberRose86 · 26/11/2025 13:00

Yeah ok. Poor life choices. Same as those who chose to fuck about instead of working hard and getting decent qualifications etc made poor life choices and now can’t earn their way out of a paper bag.

But we can’t say that, can we? Oh no, those people are just unlucky and it all just happened to them.

Exactly!

cadburyegg · 26/11/2025 19:03

Youououou · 26/11/2025 18:56

I agree. The average salary in the UK is £38,000. The child benefit cap is £60,000.

I have a colleague who earns £40k and her husband earns £120k. 2 teenage children. She claims they are “the squeezed middle”!

JHound · 26/11/2025 19:01

Clearly this is an extreme example, but I really don't understand why a family can't survive on £4-6k p/m, especially outside of London. Up until recently, I survived on much less and managed to put myself a firmer financial footing in 40s

It’s this kind of attitude which is pathetic. Who are you to dictate what people should be happy to “survive” on? What if want to LIVE, not merely “survive”?

pocketpairs · 26/11/2025 18:58

Sadza · 26/11/2025 18:06

You sound a bit jealous? Also it’s difficult to plan when you don’t know what the rules will be.

hmmm..couldn't we have predicted the trajectory of inflation following massive worldwide QE during covid, and the corresponding impact on interest rates. Even if we couldn't make that link interest rates were only going in one direction from 0.5%. Similarly taxes were always going up this parliament, as they'll be cut before the next.

OP posts:
Youououou · 26/11/2025 18:56

InveterateWineDrinker · 26/11/2025 12:04

More than that, there is a lot of financial dysmorphia about how much people earn relative to everyone else.

There is another thread complaining that a 'middle earner' doesn't get child benefit or free childcare. These people are NOT middle earners! They are fucking well off.

I agree. The average salary in the UK is £38,000. The child benefit cap is £60,000.

pocketpairs · 26/11/2025 18:49

Autocorrect23 · 26/11/2025 17:54

It’s all relative though OP. So when you are bringing in 14k a month you are living, and feel like you can be living to a certain standard. I don’t think it’s fair to say they should feel uncomfortable with their choices, yes I never quite understand people who take out the biggest mortgage possible without thinking about their daily living costs after paying it but your sister and BIL have clearly worked hard to get where they are so why shouldn’t they. I don’t agree that they’re not living within their means, they are, they can afford private school and they can afford their mortgage they maybe just don’t have a huge amount after that… so what’s the issue?!

Not an issue. Just an observation that the people (I know) in that income bracket (£10k+ p/m) seem to talk about so much about costs and not being able to afford xyz (HENRY is the term I heard), probably more than those on much less income. My comment is simply some on less income really don't have options available that HENRYs do..and this is simply a result of the choices you've made.

OP posts:
LaGro · 26/11/2025 18:48

Addictforanex · 26/11/2025 17:18

All decent people would agree with you. However, I suspect most people will not believe the rhetoric that lifting the 2 child benefit cap means that no child will go hungry or be in poverty. If only it were that simple.

There is really solid evidence from the US that giving families in poverty more cash doesn’t actually improve outcomes for their children. I would prefer the money to be spent on things that are actually known to work, like Sure Start and education.

Happyhappyday · 26/11/2025 18:45

I agree. We are a high earning family. In the US but earn around £250k gross with lower taxes (take home around £15k after tax and healthcare and before pensions). We have deliberately made choices that mean we have financial flexibility. Drive one old car, stayed in a cheaper house. My brother in contrast has a similar household income but has 3x the mortgage, 2 newer cars and frequently complains about feeling trapped in his job. It is hard to have sympathy when it’s clear how his choices have got him there.

NeedAnyHelpWithThatPaperBag · 26/11/2025 18:44

I honestly believe that some MC people have no idea about how little many people/families manage on due to the yawning gap between expectations of what constitutes a decent life.

ContinuewithGoogle · 26/11/2025 18:43

Coffeeandbooks88 · 26/11/2025 18:19

I bet you could have had two but you didn't want to sacrifice the lifestyle you have. Pretty sure many of these "I only had one because we couldn't afford another" would have managed another child if they really wanted to.

except "managing" it not fair on the child, is it?
Of course parents wants to provide the best lifestyle they can to their child. Why having children if you prevent them from doing the spots they want, the hobbies they want and don't give them the best opportunities.

So no, many parents could NOT have had more than they had, and afford the childcare they needed, and offer the kids a decent life.

what's so hard to understand

pocketpairs · 26/11/2025 18:38

Addictforanex · 26/11/2025 17:36

We have declining birth rates and need to encourage more children, I understand that. If we play this forward are the only people who are going to be above “replacement rate” (2 kids per couple) the super rich and the benefits class? Most working people, even middle and some high earners, can’t afford to have two kids never mind 3+.

Sure most middle earners may not be able to afford 3+ children, but the reason high earners (£200k gross) can't is because of the choices they make - large hous AND private school, rather than OR.

OP posts:
888casino · 26/11/2025 18:36

phantomofthepopera · 26/11/2025 18:28

I’ve raised three children (now adults). Feeding the 2 boys was a phenomenal expense, they were unfillable! And as for the cost of their clothes/footwear. I can remember having to buy new school trousers every term because they grew so fast. My youngest was 6ft 3 when he was 16. They went to grammar school and the sports kits alone - gym/athletics, rugby kit and boots, full set of cricket whites, tracksuit and trainers was hundreds of pounds even 20 years ago. I was working in a good job and I struggled. I don’t know how any mother on benefits would manage it.

I raised my first on benefits and I was only 16 and if you know under 25s get a LOT less benefits than over 25s even if you have kids and responsibilities . Still managed better than most these grown woman who don’t seem as good at budgeting. And I didn’t have my other two till I sorted myself out financially and found the jump from two to three financially not bad at all they had all their older siblings hand me downs, yeah extra food too obviously but that cost a lot less than £300 a month.

Coffeesnob11 · 26/11/2025 18:32

Would you rather all the higher earners buy smaller houses just in case this sort of thing happens? Surely that then pushes the prices up if smaller houses and affects lowers earners trying to get on the ladder?

I don't mind being taxed to help others. I do mind that as a lone parent in a detached house (ex council and not at all fancy) I pay the same council tax as my 2 neighbours (even after the 25% discount) who have semi detached houses that have been extended and are bigger than mine. Each has 4 adults living there ( 2 parents and 2 adult kids) they run 4 cars each. I mind that i have to pay my Gp to get a referral letter to be treated on my private healthcare scheme even to save the NHS time and money. I mind that I get shamed for earning a decent wage but no one blinks their eyes when a 2 adult household earns more take home and qualifies for child tax care scheme.
It's not black or white. We aren't all good or bad. We haven't all been high earners for years. Everyone should be a little bit kinder to each other.

phantomofthepopera · 26/11/2025 18:28

888casino · 26/11/2025 18:20

I’ve got three kids the jump from two to three doesn’t cost that much, with all the hand me downs, two room share obvs, £300 isn’t going to pay the extra Rent on a four bed house nor should it when people who aren’t on benefits don’t get to live in a 4 bed house.
Teenagers aren’t necessarily expensive unless you spoil them, I mean my parents made me leave home at 16. Not everyone pampers their kids till their 18

I’ve raised three children (now adults). Feeding the 2 boys was a phenomenal expense, they were unfillable! And as for the cost of their clothes/footwear. I can remember having to buy new school trousers every term because they grew so fast. My youngest was 6ft 3 when he was 16. They went to grammar school and the sports kits alone - gym/athletics, rugby kit and boots, full set of cricket whites, tracksuit and trainers was hundreds of pounds even 20 years ago. I was working in a good job and I struggled. I don’t know how any mother on benefits would manage it.

Susiy · 26/11/2025 18:25

Frauhubert · 26/11/2025 16:26

The entitlement of low achievers is incredible

People become high achievers when they believe in themselves and believe they have a chance.

Our education system is set up for middle-class children so when working-class children enter the system they are already at a disadvantage.
By age 11-12 nearly 25% of school-kids have already given up on themselves because the entire system tells them they are stupid from day one.

It's like starting a foreign language course where everyone else in the class has already completed 1-2 years of classes and you are made to feel stupid because you don't know as much as the others in your class.

The government needs to invest in early years education to make the biggest difference to outcomes in the future. The human brain develops more and faster during the first five years than at any other point in our lives.

Nothankyov · 26/11/2025 18:24

pocketpairs · 26/11/2025 17:23

Perhaps I'm oversimplify. I agree with the premise that those that earn more should pay proportionally more, otherwise we'll be in a situation like the US.

Similarly, I don't mind the 40% / 45% tax rate, as we need a progressive tax system, but disagree with the 62% marginal tax rate at 100-125k.

While i understand the sentiment that "why am I getting penalised while they get more", the reality is it's just a few ££ per month which can be easily absorbed, and if it can't surely ones priorities must be questioned (if they are moaning).

My sister (for example) says she can't afford an annual holiday abroad (in reality she can - just not an expensive one), but there are dials she can turn down, rather than get frustrated at things outside of her sphere of influence.

I disagree with the sentiment that the 40/45% tax rate is a progressive tax system, on the contrary, in my opinion it’s a punitive tax system and it makes many high earners rethink their positions ( such as myself) and the reality is many have other options and whilst not everyone will take those options (thankfully for the uk) many will.

You also talk about “the reality is that a few ££ per month can be easily absorbed” - whilst this may be true for some - can you not understand their discontent? Where they pay the most tax (more and more and more) and they see no benefits for themselves? The reality is also that someone earning 150k in London is not a huge amount of money these days. And yes I’m aware it’s way above average - but in my opinion the idea of wealth in the UK is very heavily skewed. The high earners are upset, the middle earners and low income are upset (albeit for different reasons) we are pitted against each other and the reality is the real wealth isn’t taxed at these levels because they are no longer employees but employers.

With regards to your sister, I obviously don’t know her so wouldn’t be able to comment - however I can understand the sentiment as you get older you want to have more disposable income because you’ve worked hard and not less and not have to turn any dials down. In a society such as the UK it shouldn’t be a race to the bottom.

888casino · 26/11/2025 18:20

phantomofthepopera · 26/11/2025 17:57

Extra rent for the extra rooms, food, shoes, clothes, nappies, toiletries, childcare, transport, haircuts…

If those children are teenagers, I’d imagine £600 a month wouldn’t touch the sides of their costs. The cost of baby equipment is a tiny, tiny percentage of the cost of raising children.

I’ve got three kids the jump from two to three doesn’t cost that much, with all the hand me downs, two room share obvs, £300 isn’t going to pay the extra Rent on a four bed house nor should it when people who aren’t on benefits don’t get to live in a 4 bed house.
Teenagers aren’t necessarily expensive unless you spoil them, I mean my parents made me leave home at 16. Not everyone pampers their kids till their 18

Coffeeandbooks88 · 26/11/2025 18:19

greengreytrue · 26/11/2025 17:30

DH and I are middle earners, nowhere near as well off as OP’s sister - but I’m really pissed off the 2 child cap has been lifted. I’ve had one child because I knew two would be a squeeze. If I did have more children, our wages would not go up to reflect that. Why should benefits go up? People made the choice to have more children anyway, knowing the cap was in place.

I’M SICK OF SUBBING EVERYONE ELSE when I genuinely can’t afford a holiday or luxuries because life just costs too much at the moment.

I work for social services and I’m sicking of getting food bank vouchers for people who have spent their money on other priorities and not their kids. Poverty is not the problem, mindset is.

I bet you could have had two but you didn't want to sacrifice the lifestyle you have. Pretty sure many of these "I only had one because we couldn't afford another" would have managed another child if they really wanted to.

Bossbabyxmas · 26/11/2025 18:15

Op you sound like an entitled scrounger.

Winterwonderwhy · 26/11/2025 18:14

Well I have an issue with your whinge. You do know that people have aspirations in life to do better or want better?
if you have worked hard to get to earning that salary and want your kids to have a private education - why is that a problem?
I do have a problem with paying more taxes just because I wanted to live better than how I grew up. I made choices to pour so much into my own education, career and aspirations to now have to just pay it away!

RoomToDream · 26/11/2025 18:12

Themagicfarawaytreeismyfav · 26/11/2025 17:32

Are people really that naive that they think this will help all children in poverty? No matter how much money you give feckless parents their kids won’t see any of it because they will spend it on themselves! Do people seriously think that kids in poverty in this day and age are hungry/cold etc because their parents can’t afford to feed or clothe them? No they simply don’t bother knowing full well that the state/ social services/ schools will pick up the slack!

From today's report on the impact of this policy: It is estimated that there will be 450,000 fewer children in relative low income after housing costs in the final year of parliament (financial year ending (FYE) 2030) as a result of removing the two-child limit, compared to baseline projections.

Even if this is a massive estimation and the majority of these so called 'feckless' parents decide not to put the money on heating and happily let their children go to bed hungry 🙄 (as if), it's still hundreds of thousands of kids that will benefit.

Sadza · 26/11/2025 18:06

You sound a bit jealous? Also it’s difficult to plan when you don’t know what the rules will be.