How can it be right that you can get so much money on benefits?!?!

Why is it worse when as you've already pointed out, so many men don't pay for their children at all and it is often inconsistent if they do pay something?

You are correct. Spelling clearly isn't my strong point. I put it in entitled to.co.uk. Surely that's worse that child maintenance isn't included?

Which calculator did you use that came up with this? Child maintenance payments don’t affect benefit entitlement.

And it’s “benefits” not “benifits”.

Bit late to the party here, but from the excessive use of punctuation in the thread title and the fact it's based on a Daily Mail story I think I'll just assume it's bollocks.

I remember a few years ago there was an article in the DM that used cyclists as the hook to get their gullible perma-spluttering readers worked up that day. The premise was that it was actually more 'green' to drive a car than to ride a bike. To demonstrate this they made assumptions such as the car in question would be a tiny hatchback, with 5 adults on board, that got bang on the manufacturer's claimed mpg figures, that the cyclist would be breathing extremely heavily (thus exhaling lots of CO2) and that the cyclist got all their energy from eating red meat whereas the occupants of the car apparently didn't breathe or eat anything, and the environmental impact of making the car in the first place was totally ignored. Utter shite, essentially, but so long as it gets the gammon frothing the it's job done. I suspect the article in question here displays a similar level of journalistic integrity.

Define "shirker".

YABU. I've got a Brexit bus to sell you as well.

If I put my salary into a benifits calculator and say I get no child support from their dad I'd get over £1500 in benifits per month. That's nonsense as I earn almost £60k. That's enough to support me and two kids if required. Yes, I'd need to move somewhere cheaper but it's doable. I should f be taking that much form the state.

Where's the incentive to get dads to pay for their kids if the state will just do it for them?

I changed it to say I had a mortgage and it says I'm only 'entitled' to £195. So in order to get my £1500 'entitlement' I should just sell my house and spend all the money? If I sold my house and bought an expensive car or a painting could I then claim benefits?

I have no doubt life on benifits is hard but I do think the system is wrong. We should t be paying people to work. Minimum wage needs to reflect what it actually costs to live. Plus we can't just subsidise people's shit life decisions and choices. If you are a dad PAY up. Don't have multiple children if you don't have any money. It's a race to the bottom.

If 'they' take £500 off of hard workers and give 5 shirkers £100 each, then they've lost one vote but gained five ? Think this is the basic principle of how this ridiculous situation works.

@TerrazzoChips not coming back then? Dump a DM story about benefits and how much people can get, then run. Did you even read any of the replies, or is it just to make people more divided?

A life on benefits is grim. Little control over your present - no control over your future. I’ve lived it first hand as a kid and if I got double on benefits that I earn I still wouldn’t choose it.

Every day someone posts this kind of thing!

Why don’t people who claim living on benefits is better just drop their jobs and give up the luxuries that come with a salary to actually live on benefits?

I wish AIBU viewers would run a competition, with receipts included, from everyone who gave up everything to live solely on benefits.

I just knew it was going to be a link to the Mail before I opened the thread.

How can people be so gullible that believe what this rag prints.

I don't know if it's different in different areas but where I live you don't get free council tax, gym membership or travel costs because you get universal credit.

I only get child benefit but piss off with this excuse to kick people on benefits

Precisely! Everyone seems to have forgotten the benefit cap exists!

I didn’t have time to finish the calculation to include a UC deduction on their wages, plus CB then then work out what the benefit cap would be.

This couple earn £10k per year or £819 per month. The AET for a couple to take them out of the work search group so they don’t have to attend weekly/fortnightly appointments at the Jobcentre is £1534 per month. Once the main carers youngest turns three they will automatically be placed in the work search group. The other parent would be placed in the work search group as their earnings are so low.

And unless they're claiming a disability benefit they'd be subject to the benefit cap. (Earning £846 per month will also remove this)

One reason work is so poorly paid is that in-work benefits subsidise low wages. Things you subsidise, you get more of.

There’s no easy fix though, becuase if you remove in-work benefits you get a ‘cliff edge’ instead (as soon as you take a job you lose all benefits, disincentivising taking work).

So instead there is only the ‘difficult fix’ of keeping benefits from creeping up inexorably to satisfy political demands, while also ensuring real hardship is protected against.

I think maybe a law saying our benefits bill will be capped at X% of GDP over some horizon, then we can argue in parliament how we want to allocate that.

I’d also like to see much more focus on the positive ways we can get higher-paid jobs: ie having lots of high-earning high-productivity businesses. For that we need: much cheaper energy and housing, and preferential tax policies for entrepreneurialism, and for high-paying globally mobile roles.

Don’t ask me. I just kept paying more tax for all this. 🤷‍♀️🙄

This is a load of crap. I will break it down -

UC standard allowance for a couple is £628 per month assuming the are 25 or over.

Child element (for children born after April 2017) £292 x 3 = £876.

I don’t know how they worked out housing would be £26k. Let’s say it’s two boys and one girl and they qualify for a 3 bed. UC will pay up to the local housing allowance for your area. In my city in the south of England this is £218 per week or £895 per month.

This couple earn £10k per year or £819 per month. The AET for a couple to take them out of the work search group so they don’t have to attend weekly/fortnightly appointments at the Jobcentre is £1534 per month. Once the main carers youngest turns three they will automatically be placed in the work search group. The other parent would be placed in the work search group as their earnings are so low.

Childcare cannot be £31k. This couple is working 15.75 hours per week between them. If one parent isn’t working then UC will not pay towards childcare costs as it’s not needed.

Lol I think the OP has been laughing at you all, everyone fell for the wind up 👏

People started explaining why this is incorrect within 10 posts from the OP. Plenty more have explained since then; if you have a quick scan through the thread you’ll find the posts you’re looking for.

Because the childcare has to be proportional to the number of hours worked. You can't work part time and claim childcare for full time childcare

Instead of saying this is what the daily mail do, can anyne explain why they think this is incorrect, or are the daily mail right?

Another house came up locally and she was happy to move back here. She's been settled in that one for a couple of years now, but the owners told her earlier this month that they want to sell the house with vacant possession at some point next year and have given her notice of their intentions to give her time to find something else

the landlord will need to give the tenant 4 months notice, then if they try to sell the house and it doesn't sell - they can't return it to a rental property for 12 months. It might be useful for your friend to know this.

Crying for you op.

Did the daily fail give any tips other than quit work and have more children? If not I can help. They usually suggest small boats, prison and the lottery. You will be living the high life. Hth.