Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Mum on UC gets £3342 a month?! Is this right?

87 replies

Londonisthebestcityintheworld · 27/11/2025 21:16

Saw this in the mirror, scroll down to Thea's story. Single mum of 3 in London who earns £2800 a month and gets an additional £3342 in UC and CB. How is this even possible?!

That top up is the equivalent of earning £50K a year. The benefit payments would put her in the top 10% of earners.

I mean, to quote the kids, what the helly? Am I a total mug getting up and slogging my guts out and working while others get more in benefits than I earn?

Pregnant mum-of-four: 'Budget benefit change saved our Christmas' - The Mirror https://share.google/kdV8SOUW8I4xpA7nT

OP posts:
SheinIsShite · 27/11/2025 21:57

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:29

If she lives in North London and she uses childcare, the vast majority will be rent and childcare fees but of course the mirror won't say that because they want to whip up a frenzy.

Same with them claiming it will save Christmas when the changes aren't happening until April 2026.

The Mirror is a Labour supporting newspaper.

soupyspoon · 27/11/2025 21:56

UserFront242 · 27/11/2025 21:45

Sorry, yes you are right.
If she was not on UC, she would be though.

Show quote history

If she were single yes, with 3 children no she wouldnt be.

soupyspoon · 27/11/2025 21:53

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:44

Her outgoings are bigger than her salary only. She has a lower salary which means she can get a UC top up.

Maybe a person's full time salary shouldn't be so low that they can't afford rent or childcare without a UC top up?

Show quote history

She hasnt got a low FT salary

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:51

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:50

Well, exactly. It's considered low enough to be topped up by UC and for good reason in London.

Show quote history

It's the equivalent of a pre tax income of about £100k. So perhaps we can stop telling people earning that, that they are rich and should pay more and get nothing back.

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:50

UserFront242 · 27/11/2025 21:47

She takes home £2800 which puts her salary at £41k. That is not a low salary, but in London it would be so you can understand why she gets the top ups she does.

Show quote history

Well, exactly. It's considered low enough to be topped up by UC and for good reason in London.

UserFront242 · 27/11/2025 21:47

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:44

Her outgoings are bigger than her salary only. She has a lower salary which means she can get a UC top up.

Maybe a person's full time salary shouldn't be so low that they can't afford rent or childcare without a UC top up?

Show quote history

She takes home £2800 which puts her salary at £41k. That is not a low salary, but in London it would be so you can understand why she gets the top ups she does.

Zanatdy · 27/11/2025 21:45

It will be rent. London is very expensive

UserFront242 · 27/11/2025 21:45

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:43

She's not a net contributor.

Show quote history

Sorry, yes you are right.
If she was not on UC, she would be though.

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:44

soupyspoon · 27/11/2025 21:39

I think its obvious that the income, pays for the outgoings, including rent and childcare etc etc

I certainly dont think that she has that paid for AND gets those benefits but thats not the point. We all have those outoings. Not everyone gets the 3k to cover them

However as I posted I await the evidence its true

Theres another thread about the new tax on properties over 2 million. Vast majority of the posters saying the OPs mother should be moving out of that property, why does someone need to live in London is the query, why cant she just move is the query, she can make links and function somewhere else.

Show quote history

Her outgoings are bigger than her salary only. She has a lower salary which means she can get a UC top up.

Maybe a person's full time salary shouldn't be so low that they can't afford rent or childcare without a UC top up?

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:43

UserFront242 · 27/11/2025 21:39

It says she works and takes home £2800pm. So it sounds like she is already "getting up and slogging her guts out", plus bringing up children on her own. A take home of £2800 works out about £41k, so she is actually a net contributor.

The fact the Gov have deemed her income not enough to live on is not her fault. Like others have said, the UC will be childcare and rent.

She's not a net contributor.

soupyspoon · 27/11/2025 21:41

UserFront242 · 27/11/2025 21:39

It says she works and takes home £2800pm. So it sounds like she is already "getting up and slogging her guts out", plus bringing up children on her own. A take home of £2800 works out about £41k, so she is actually a net contributor.

The fact the Gov have deemed her income not enough to live on is not her fault. Like others have said, the UC will be childcare and rent.

She is absolutely not a net contributor!!!

Lets keep this accurate to avoid extreme claims on either side.

UserFront242 · 27/11/2025 21:39

It says she works and takes home £2800pm. So it sounds like she is already "getting up and slogging her guts out", plus bringing up children on her own. A take home of £2800 works out about £41k, so she is actually a net contributor.

The fact the Gov have deemed her income not enough to live on is not her fault. Like others have said, the UC will be childcare and rent.

soupyspoon · 27/11/2025 21:39

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:36

Because a lot of people will think it is the total after childcare and rent and she's rolling in it on UC which is clearly not the case.

Show quote history

I think its obvious that the income, pays for the outgoings, including rent and childcare etc etc

I certainly dont think that she has that paid for AND gets those benefits but thats not the point. We all have those outoings. Not everyone gets the 3k to cover them

However as I posted I await the evidence its true

Theres another thread about the new tax on properties over 2 million. Vast majority of the posters saying the OPs mother should be moving out of that property, why does someone need to live in London is the query, why cant she just move is the query, she can make links and function somewhere else.

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:39

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:37

Why would people think that? I don't count my salary after I've paid nursery and the mortgage. Do you?

Show quote history

Because you see it on here all of the time.

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:37

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:36

Because a lot of people will think it is the total after childcare and rent and she's rolling in it on UC which is clearly not the case.

Show quote history

Why would people think that? I don't count my salary after I've paid nursery and the mortgage. Do you?

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:36

VikaOlson · 27/11/2025 21:35

What do think will happen if no average-to-low earners live in London?

Show quote history

What do you mean what will happen? People like her are why low and middle earning Londoners can't live in London. Moving in, driving up houses and living off others.

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:36

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:31

Why do people say it's childcare and rent like those expenses don't count? If it's coming out of a salary it sure as shit counts.
She an American, living in London of her own volition. We shouldn't Be funding it.

Because a lot of people will think it is the total after childcare and rent and she's rolling in it on UC which is clearly not the case.

VikaOlson · 27/11/2025 21:35

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:31

Why do people say it's childcare and rent like those expenses don't count? If it's coming out of a salary it sure as shit counts.
She an American, living in London of her own volition. We shouldn't Be funding it.

What do think will happen if no average-to-low earners live in London?

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:34

LVhandbagsatdawn · 27/11/2025 21:32

I mean, to quote the kids, what the helly? Am I a total mug getting up and slogging my guts out and working while others get more in benefits than I earn?

Quit your job then and live off benefits. Go on. If it's such a cushy life why aren't you doing it?

Careful what you wish for. We stay on this path, more and more will make that choice.

LVhandbagsatdawn · 27/11/2025 21:32

I mean, to quote the kids, what the helly? Am I a total mug getting up and slogging my guts out and working while others get more in benefits than I earn?

Quit your job then and live off benefits. Go on. If it's such a cushy life why aren't you doing it?

Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 21:31

Why do people say it's childcare and rent like those expenses don't count? If it's coming out of a salary it sure as shit counts.
She an American, living in London of her own volition. We shouldn't Be funding it.

CheekyChickenFucker · 27/11/2025 21:30

cadburyegg · 27/11/2025 21:27

Gutter press. The mirror should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of this mum’s situation. Half of the figures they quoted probably aren’t even accurate. The point of the whole article is to anger people. And it’s worked hasn’t it?

Not for anyone with half a brain it hasn't.

VikaOlson · 27/11/2025 21:30

The problem is private landlords charging ridiculous rents and the taxpayer funding them.
Not single mums working full time.
Think how much we'd save if there was social housing.

CheekyChickenFucker · 27/11/2025 21:29

It's obvious that this is not a genuine OP, since most people factor what the above posters have managed to factor into the 3k.

The benefits are to ensure children are not living in poverty. It is not for the parents.

Kirbert2 · 27/11/2025 21:29

If she lives in North London and she uses childcare, the vast majority will be rent and childcare fees but of course the mirror won't say that because they want to whip up a frenzy.

Same with them claiming it will save Christmas when the changes aren't happening until April 2026.