Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

That a single parent having her salary topped up to over £6k shows how unaffordable family life now is

381 replies

Tryingtryingandtrying · 26/11/2025 23:37

I was reading about a woman, take home pay if £2800 and topped up by UC to over 6k. This must be £100k or thereabouts equivalent before tax. How can this be fair when earning that much actually loses you child benefit and free childcare? As she has 3 kids she will now be even more better off, not sure what the answer is though.

OP posts:
Chenecinquantecinq · 27/11/2025 07:13

Universal Credit includes a housing element (ie payment for rent) it probably included rent. However the spend on benefits is completely unsustainable and it's just not possible to continue it.

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:10

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:09

You completely misread that and now spreading misinformation! This is what the article says: "In a good month when UC gives full entitlement, Thea has a total of £6,142.00, from £2,800 in take-home pay and £3,342 in universal credit plus child benefit. Her monthly expenses such as childcare, rent, council tax, energy and food etc are usually around £6000. She says: "So it’s living very much on the edge."

Why can’t she reduce her living costs

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:09

Tryingtryingandtrying · 26/11/2025 23:37

I was reading about a woman, take home pay if £2800 and topped up by UC to over 6k. This must be £100k or thereabouts equivalent before tax. How can this be fair when earning that much actually loses you child benefit and free childcare? As she has 3 kids she will now be even more better off, not sure what the answer is though.

You completely misread that and now spreading misinformation! This is what the article says: "In a good month when UC gives full entitlement, Thea has a total of £6,142.00, from £2,800 in take-home pay and £3,342 in universal credit plus child benefit. Her monthly expenses such as childcare, rent, council tax, energy and food etc are usually around £6000. She says: "So it’s living very much on the edge."

pickywatermelon · 27/11/2025 07:08

thewintergarden · 27/11/2025 06:28

But the children with a single mum on 60k or 80k in London will be in a far tighter financial situation yet we are taking away her child benefit!!!

And for those 60k/80k/100k jobs you are likely working a 50 plus hour week as well. Easily. With heaps of stress. For what?! To be fair poorer than someone getting benefits.

100% agreed. For all of those saying “where is the dad” and “oh she’s on a salary that needs topping up” there are other single mums who work and have every support taken away and are meant to suck it up as they are “rich”

It’s not defensible

springintoaction2 · 27/11/2025 07:07

Pigeonpoodle · 27/11/2025 06:46

So basically, Labour are saying to two neighbours with young children, one who’s worked their butt off to earn £100k, and the other who’s coasted into a £30k job…

”Neighbour 1: You earn £100k? You filthy rich POS, we’ll tax you to the hilt and remove every last benefit. Cry me a river if you’re struggling.”

”Neighbour 2: You earn £30k? Poor you! We’ll open the cheque book and give you so many benefits that it will be like you had a £113k job! How will we pay for this? We’ll just take it from the thousands in taxes we’re taking from your moneybags neighbour earning £100k”

I can’t believe the mess Rachel Reeves has created! Surely I’ve missed something?!

Yeah - I think you have missed something.

I worked as a staff nurse for £32k a year - no coasting involved, thanks.

We have 3 kids. At no point have we been entitled to benefits to make up household income to £100k - what a load of codswallop.

If you want to spout off and FROTH properly - at least put some facts into your posts.

Ophy83 · 27/11/2025 07:05

Stillpoor · 27/11/2025 01:33

I dont care how many kids anyone has i dont have to look after them.
And with this have more kids get more money says more about the parents.

The change will stick around for a while then it will change again and leave a lot in povety, when the cuts come again and relise the mouths they have to feed will be to late.

Is there any parents out there that can say i pay for my child or children without any benefits help.
(Not even child benefit because thats still a benefit).

Yes. We've paid for our own children. I found the question surprising - loads of people don't receive anything.

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:01

It sounds plausible to me because this country is broken. Sitting at home popping out kids is rewarded while hard work isn’t

Hollietree · 27/11/2025 07:01

Stillpoor · 27/11/2025 01:33

I dont care how many kids anyone has i dont have to look after them.
And with this have more kids get more money says more about the parents.

The change will stick around for a while then it will change again and leave a lot in povety, when the cuts come again and relise the mouths they have to feed will be to late.

Is there any parents out there that can say i pay for my child or children without any benefits help.
(Not even child benefit because thats still a benefit).

Loads of people. I’ve never had a penny in benefits in my life. Been a parent for 13 years, 3 kids, never received child benefit.

crossedlines · 27/11/2025 07:00

Pigeonpoodle · 27/11/2025 06:26

The biggest issue here for me is that she’s better off than she would be if she earned £100k per year, and not entitled to any of these benefits. If that’s right: and I still believe i must be missing something, then that’s batshit crazy.

This.

it’s an absolute absurdity.
also worth noting that many people who might want to live in London (or indeed the south east) are driven out by housing costs yet this woman is enabled to live there by the taxpayer. I was brought up in north London, it’s where many family members still live yet I had to move away. It’s clearly an absurd system when people are topped up by benefits to a higher level than some one who’s working in a high paid but no doubt hugely stressful job. Many jobs earning over 100k will have huge levels of responsibly and likely many more hours a week than this woman works yet the person doing it receives less money after deductions than she does - and likely can’t afford to live in north London like she does.

and as others have said, the biggest question is why the fuck isn’t the other parent, the father, forced to financially support his children?

basically the message here is: take personal responsibility, have the number of children you can afford, work hard and progress in your career, pay your own rent and childcare for your children out of your own pocket and accept that you need to live in an area you can afford - and you’ll have less money each month than Thea Jaffe!

Pigeonpoodle · 27/11/2025 06:58

Inthebleakmidwinter1 · 27/11/2025 06:51

@Pigeonpoodle yeah you definatley did miss something. The majority of jobs, many of which keep this country going do not have an earning potential of 100k no matter how hard you work. The idea that everyone earning a lower wage is just tossing it off is ridiculous. You must realise it is a practical impossibly for everyone to become high earners.

You’re completely missing the point…

In what world is it remotely
reasonable to say that someone earning £100k is filthy rich, should be taxed to the hilt and lose each and every benefit entitlement, whilst giving benefits to someone on £30k so they end up better off than the person on £100k!

Theunamedcat · 27/11/2025 06:57

What im getting from this is people should move out of london there is no reason for it to be so expensive

Radiator981 · 27/11/2025 06:57

Makes me think we should all quit our jobs and rely on the state…

wtaf

hattie43 · 27/11/2025 06:55

I don’t begrudge her because she’s hardly living the life of Riley bringing up kids whilst living in a flat . I would however like to see more done to make dads pay more . Why do they get off so lightly in many cases .

thewintergarden · 27/11/2025 06:55

Pigeonpoodle · 27/11/2025 06:46

So basically, Labour are saying to two neighbours with young children, one who’s worked their butt off to earn £100k, and the other who’s coasted into a £30k job…

”Neighbour 1: You earn £100k? You filthy rich POS, we’ll tax you to the hilt and remove every last benefit. Cry me a river if you’re struggling.”

”Neighbour 2: You earn £30k? Poor you! We’ll open the cheque book and give you so many benefits that it will be like you had a £113k job! How will we pay for this? We’ll just take it from the thousands in taxes we’re taking from your moneybags neighbour earning £100k”

I can’t believe the mess Rachel Reeves has created! Surely I’ve missed something?!

Exactly!!

It's mind boggling

Inthebleakmidwinter1 · 27/11/2025 06:51

@Pigeonpoodle yeah you definatley did miss something. The majority of jobs, many of which keep this country going do not have an earning potential of 100k no matter how hard you work. The idea that everyone earning a lower wage is just tossing it off is ridiculous. You must realise it is a practical impossibly for everyone to become high earners.

Pavementworrier · 27/11/2025 06:50

CuriousClaimant · 27/11/2025 01:17

The parents having lots of kids, who are out of work and in poverty have bad mental health and their kids will be effected by being raised like that.
I used to get angry at posts like this but now I see it that these kids might have a bit of a chance of a better future if their mothers in a better financial situation?
I don’t like that I will be paying income taxes to pay for parents to not take responsibility for themselves and it does make me angry seeing them pay for stuff working people can barely afford but I can also see it more objectively too.

Surely the kids are being raised to see that work is a fool's errand?

KitWyn · 27/11/2025 06:49

And the question should always be asked why isn't the Dad contributing more of his time and money? Where is he when all the bills need to be paid?

I don't want to pick on any one individual. But if I were in a relationship with someone who isn't financially or emotionally ready to be a good parent (and happy/willing of course) I would be very very careful with contraception.

Also I would worry about what's best for my current two children. As they get older having their own space will be increasingly important. Adding a third child to an overcrowded home, which I am already reliant on benefits to pay for, is very foolish.

It does seem very unfair that responsible financially-literate parents with only one or two children, will now be paying more to give higher tax-free benefits to people who are making repeatedly poor selfish choices.

I would have kept the Two-Child Cap. And provided better support that goes directly to the Child. So School Uniform vouchers to be used at approved stockists. More Breakfast Clubs at Schools. And so on

No-one wants children to go without. But policies that take increasing amounts of money from people who make good choices (a stick) to increasingly reward those making bad choices (carrots) is not good or fair public policy.

It also makes a Reform government that much more likely. Just when Farage was beginning to wobble and implode. This was a bad, cowardly Budget which has lost Labour the next election. I am very angry.

Pigeonpoodle · 27/11/2025 06:49

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 27/11/2025 06:38

It is an odd world where we pay people who can’t get good jobs to have children, and effectively prevent people with great jobs and a great work ethic having children. Meritocracy in reverse, sort of.

It’s beyond fucked up. It’s dystopian madness!

sunshinestar1986 · 27/11/2025 06:48

This sounds utterly ridiculous 🙄
When I earn £2000 a month, I'm only entitled to child benefit and that's with 2 kids, so how can someone with 3 kids get £4k?

Inthebleakmidwinter1 · 27/11/2025 06:48

I think it’s single people with no kids that I feel sorry for

Pigeonpoodle · 27/11/2025 06:46

So basically, Labour are saying to two neighbours with young children, one who’s worked their butt off to earn £100k, and the other who’s coasted into a £30k job…

”Neighbour 1: You earn £100k? You filthy rich POS, we’ll tax you to the hilt and remove every last benefit. Cry me a river if you’re struggling.”

”Neighbour 2: You earn £30k? Poor you! We’ll open the cheque book and give you so many benefits that it will be like you had a £113k job! How will we pay for this? We’ll just take it from the thousands in taxes we’re taking from your moneybags neighbour earning £100k”

I can’t believe the mess Rachel Reeves has created! Surely I’ve missed something?!

LittleAlexHornesPocket · 27/11/2025 06:43

Interestingly the lady who is the focus in the OP is also pretty horrified about the amount of benefits she receives. She wrote an article for the Big Issue about it.

I’m a working mum – but the two-child limit hits my family too https://share.google/6BA0m4e9ZwEP8u6QH

It does feel deeply unfair. DH is on 115k and I'm on £29k. We're comfortable, sure, but we live in a cheap part of the country and we're certainly not rolling in it. I've had a play around on the benefits calculator and it looks like if we divorced I could double my monthly income with benefits. That's absurd!

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 27/11/2025 06:38

It is an odd world where we pay people who can’t get good jobs to have children, and effectively prevent people with great jobs and a great work ethic having children. Meritocracy in reverse, sort of.

Hairylegs202S · 27/11/2025 06:37

Thanks to the PP who gave the background to the case.

Shocking she gets to live in a 1 bed flat with three children, doesn't know she's born, here's me with 2 kids in hole in the road in Yorkshire.

Andonthatbombshell · 27/11/2025 06:32

It'll probably be going on childcare and rent.
I used to get over 1k alone a month in tax credits towards childcare for the years mine were at nursery and this was over a deacde ago. Although I had to top up the nursery fees as tax credits didn't fully cover it.