Are other full-time working families finding there is nothing left?

I’m not sure if I did either. Agree with most of that though but likes of £12.71 p/hr should be as it’s minimum wage imho fully tax free. Ridiculous system lowest paid, pay tax, to then get a small amount of UC to then pay tax on it? Why not just let them keep much more of their own money in the first place?

Many businesses also struggling as cost of hiring highest level ever. Not like 90’s or early 2000’s. 2008 crash changed everything.

No one on UC is the enemy, far from it, point was means tested benefits after x months (to allow for short term shocks) must treat savings and capital (home equity the same).

Middle earners absolutely squeezed and what is classed now as ‘high earner’ is anything but, and guess overall, other point is something has to give.

Not just higher earners but at some stage capital above a certain amount, i.e unearned wealth also needs properly taxed. Earners cannot be squeezed any more, 18 years really of low/no growth and austerity whatever the political classes call it is just enough.

Work for many no longer pays and do very much resent paying for those who are in a hammock as some but definitely not all are. Full review of system needed instead of tinkering round edges.

The post isn’t about struggling it’s about working and not being able to have nice things! Treats etc without it being a struggle. If 2 people work full time then there should be cash to do nice things without having to penny pinch. It should not be costing £100 for a family to go on a day out. It should not be cost £135 to buy a football kit. It should not be costing me £50 a month so my 9 year old can play football in a team!

I do have a spare room, I'm sure people would be queuing up to share a bathroom with some one with severe D and V from chemo.

Not sure you meant to tag me?

I totally agree working people on lower incomes are taxed too much but the need for UC is also because wages are so low. People on UC that are working also pay tax and NI btw. You are not exempt from paying tax on UC.

I dont think the "middle earners" should near the brunt neither do I think ppl on UC are the enemies, I jumped in because I couldnt believe I was reading that those on benefits must be winning etc.

It is the highest earners and the ones skipping tax etc with their clever accountants etc (which happens more than Ms Smith committing benefit fraud btw) that should bear the brunt of this

@OneShyQuail if working people were taxed much less they wouldn’t need so much UC or other top ups. Not right that parents both working struggle so much just to try to make ends meet, rather than top up, just let them keep more of their own money.

Too many taxes: NI, PAYE, VAT, fuel duty, road tax, Council Tax, TV Licence etc. Take an average wage in a pie chart and therein shows where majority goes.

Unemployed people have one of most meagre benefits entitlements going. That’s not right either or the issue. That group deserves a bit more as no issue with genuine safety net where people fall on hard times.

So yes it’s those of working age who do use system (in some cases) like a hammock that are (at least) part the problem. Disability/CA in some cases are being claimed when folk working might have even greater health issues (just because people work doesn’t mean they too don’t have illnesses).

Deny that it doesn’t happen if you must, but I’ve seen it firsthand as have I am sure others have. +C’Tax reduction = hammock family don’t pay full CT whereas the working poor in most cases still do.

As someone said upstream the whole system needs looked at again, genuine safety net yes - those who are less well off paying for those overall much much better off eh no. As soon as someone is sitting on a ton of equity getting all the hardship payments going as deemed the ‘most vulnerable’ that’s not right. £500,000 equity or whatever it may be when in the hundreds of thousands by anyone’s standards is not destitute.

Can you give any more detail as to the breakdown of that figure?
I can't understand how it can possibly be so high.

A home you own that you do not live in is counted as capital for UC purposes, so that is the case already.

But yep, it makes no sense to count the value of the property you actually live in. I have a friend who lives in a 2 bed flat that he paid off years ago, but he is unable to work due several ailments. What would be the sense in making him sell it, to then end up getting the housing element of UC down the line anyway?
Homeowners on UC do not get the housing element so they get less overall than someone who rents anyway (I also do not rent so do not get the housing element).
PP go on about equity release, but that should be for when you need repairs done to your property. A homeowner on UC is not immune to costly home maintenance and repairs. They can't just pull say £15k out their arse to fix a roof, because some PP think anyone on UC should have no savings at all (wait until they read about the Help to Save scheme).

What next? Making you sell possessions that it is deemed are luxuries before you can claim? That actually was the case many many years ago.

To clarify. You cant be on full means tested benefits and just not work. Unless disabilities/caring responsibilities.

How on earth a 500k house would be run and maintained on a means tested benefit income is beyond me. The council tax would be a fortune for a start.

Not sure where all this "working ppl paying tax are supporting people on benefits" comes from. The majority of people on UC work and pay tax and NI 🤷‍♀️

@Katypp. Yep - and I know like myself you are social minded but not an idiot - it’s one reason I disagree with maintenance not being used as part of the calculation - maybe disregard for 6 months but if it proves to be consistent and reliable and it can be pretty large in some cases- it should go into the income pot for calculations - if it stops then it can be reassessed - I think a lot of people think it’s the odd £200 or so if you are lucky- this isn’t always the case-

How on earth is she claiming so much money and not working at all?

Unless she has a child under 3 she mist be working, unless she is claiming very high rate disabilities in which case she is being totally fraudulent. Or does she care for her dependents, are they on high rate disability?

I am very cautious about these tales, because it is difficult to fraudulent about money earned as its tied to your NI number, and you do have to prove your disabilities/illness/capability to work. So how exactly is she doing it?

If she is "earning" so much money what is she doing with the excess? She cant be stashing it away as her UC would stop at 16k.

Is she your friend or your "friend" if the latter and you are so aghast have you considered reporting her?

If she is getting all that money "honestly" I am totally aghast at how, never in all my time working with families receiving UC have I ever heard anything like it.

Never once said a owned outright home owner should have to sell their home. Point is to claim means tested benefits as a working renter you are allowed a maximum of £16k in savings, even then it’s tapered after £6k. For care homes, home owner equity up for grabs to a ridiculous extent.

In contrast, and you’re right, lots end up in difficult circumstances for a number of reasons, is it right that a home owner can spend decades on means tested benefits regardless of level of equity in their home without giving a charge to allow the tax payer to at least get something back when they sell?

Reality is likes of:

Young family A. Couple kids. Both work. Rent. Unable to save due to cost of living crisis so survive pay cheque to pay cheque, less than £500 in bank paying tax to support family B. Family B, £500k equity in outright owned home (bought from inheritance), savings of £5k and on full means tested benefits?

Which family is overall better off?

Well sometimes. But not always.
My friend i spoke of upthread is living quite nicely on benefits supplemented by maintenence, on the equivilent of £75k a year, all tax free of course.
And although her income is higher than two nwm workers and she doesn't work, she will get any hardship payments that may be paid because she is 'vulnerable' because she is on uc.

House of Lords over 600 of em. £395 a day tax free! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Punching down is really not the way to go but these threads always end up the same way by bashing people in receipt of one benefit or another.Often people are misinformed re benefits and different types too. I assume they are mainly Daily Mail readers.

Business can't or won't pay people a decent wage hence UC.People employed in the NHS,charities,multi nationals etc etc. Also SMEs. It is like a massive ponzi scheme. Some businesses would collapse if they had to pay a decent wage. Others have to pay their share holders etc and are propped up by the tax payer who pays for UC. Also people in receipt of UC pay tax and N.I.

@givemesteel many many people in receipt of UC also work full time.

Unpopular perhaps but in my view it is not at all right someone can keep capital in housing sometimes worth £1m or more. That can’t continue. Either downsize or put a charge on the property as quid pro quo. How can taking from a poor working household be right in current climate when said home owner is richer than most renters can ever dream to be? What about the inheritance for our kids?

No. Not if this is their only roof over their head. (Of course if someone owns a second property then absolutely you have a good argument, although if they were renting that out and expected them to sell it, then that makes the tenants homeless and what happens to them?).

For some people the situation that led them to needing to access benefits could be temporary. When you take into account moving costs and stamp duty it would be totally wrong to say that someone could not claim benefits if they owned their own house. People work damned hard to pay their mortgages off BECAUSE they weight up that it's worth it because that at least they have a roof over their head if everything goes tits up with their job, and plenty of home owners have a social conscience too - another advantage is that they DON'T have to rely on the state to pay their housing costs at least, if they do lose their job etc.

Come on, just HOW did we get to the stage where we are trying to argue that we should remove the roof over the head of home owners who have paid for it themselves, maybe never having claimed benefits in their lives, if they happen to go through a period of bad luck with ill health or redundancy? It's beyond me that someone should think it reasonable that someone in an already stressful situation should put their house up for sale. Do you even know what an arduous, long drawn-out, expensive process that is?

If they have a spare room they could get a lodger to bring in some income. If they are forced to downsize, where are all these smaller homes going to come from, for both the home owner and the lodger?

What worries me is where does this end? Couples on 6 figure salerys were comfotable not long ago. I am 50 so pron older than lots of posters and was lucky to buy a flat in the 90s and from there have done OK and i am very lucky, i have young adult xhildren (19 and 22) they have massive student debts to come, no jobs and no chance to buy. It is scary and feels a race to the bottom. I dont see any political party can make things better, i had such hope in labour as remembrr the new labout of 1997 and what that brought to the economy.

People on benefits, jobseekers for example are given just what the law decides they need to live on.
So you’re basically saying give them even less than that so working people can keep more. People on benefits are already going hungry. Using foodbanks. Freezing in damp houses because they can’t afford heating.
Walking the streets day in day out begging for a job and proving it or they will stop your universal credit and then it’s homelessness.
What MORE do you want??? It’s a safety net that’s there in case YOU ever need it yourself and you never know what’s around the corner.

There but for the grace of God…

Nursery? Those years are the hardest. We're coming out the other end ready to ramp up careers again and have disposable income. Worth it now, didn't feel like it at the time.

A major problem.is freezing of tax thresholds. Just the sane as putting taxes up each and every year since frozen to 2031 at the earliest.

I agree that the amount you get in benefits should depend on what you’ve paid in. Those who have paid nothing in get a milk token and a kick up the arse.

Life has always been a bit of a nightmare and I've never understood how most generations coped with knowing what their kids would have to live through but to be fair to us it all looked a lot better for a couple of decades there.

You're not wrong. It used to be that a couple both working FT on an average salary, in most places (maybe not London) could afford a house, or at least a mortgage on one. Where I am, usually a 3 bed semi as a starter home.

Sometimes it feels relentless, fiscal drag, shop/fuel/heating costs always rising. People soon not going to be able to pay the full allowance into a cash Isa, council tax being raised to the maximum.

Sometimes I do think what is the point of it all. Just a treadmill.

Apologies @Ted27 picked that up wrong. Still not great diagnosis so wishing you lots of positive energy regardless.