AIBU to be surprised someone on £34,000 receives Universal Credit?

It’s a minor factor.

I know someone similar but why is your decision to work full or part time based on her circumstances?!

And people have the cheek to say UC isn't a gravy train.

They could pay better if they didn't sit on public sector pensions which private sector can't even dream about. We need to equalise pension provision and then salaries can grow as well.

More women working is one of a number of factors that have contributed to the increase in house prices, not the only one. 'Blaming feminism' is a joke (and one that has misfired).

You are uneducated. I was working earning £1700 per month and still got around £800 UC, I earn £800 now and get £1200. I also earned £1,400 at some point and probably got around £1000. But this was housing, my element, 1 child and childcare 85% entitlement. It doesn’t stop at £916 a month you just get more deducted over your work allowance

34k isn’t a lot in terms of salary but so many jobs are in and around then even grads jobs that demand high quality graduates. So surely we need to rethink the UC boundaries and maybe make it strictly income based. Or not increase it depending on location

It's also easy to be reactionary from behind a keyboard.

“Friend”? My arse

I've mentioned this on here before. I have a friend who chooses to work part time, she does have a child and gets support and payments for Childs from ex. But she would rather work part time and get UC so she gets some time to herself.
I basically work full time because her relationship broke down and she like have 2 days a week off... how is this my problem? I would love a day off!

In 1975, the proportion of households with two adults working was 49%. Today it's 74% - a 51% increase. And yet house prices have risen by 2500% since 1975.

I don't think I will be blaming feminism, no.

@dustabsorber are you saying one person working f/t has never been enough to support a family? Thats odd

Ok

Other societies are available, including ones where women can't go out without a male chaperone. Or you could go and be a day labourer in rural India. Or a tea picker in Sri Lanka.

But even without high housing costs it remains that a person who is supporting a SAHP and two children needs to earn far more than a single person. So either you raise wages for everyone, which often just increases prices because businesses have higher costs and people earn more so can afford to spend more.

Or you have a discriminatory pay system and either 'bread winners' are paid more than a single person who only needs to feed and house themselves or businesses employ whoever can afford to work for the lowest wage.

Say what you like about UC, it does at least try to solve that issue without illegal pay discrimination or employers employing the cheapest workers.

On 'most women now work so housing costs have risen steeply because households have two salaries. Blame feminism' this is true. If banks had continued to only count one income, doesn't matter whose it is, when assessing mortgages, people would have been able to borrow less and house prices wouldn't have risen so much. Would also mean that people would have been able to buy on their own more easily as they wouldn't have been competing with two income households.

It sounds nuts, but the whole thing is dictated by personal circumstances.

It never has, back in the day many people did several jobs and worked overtime to get by. IE 50 plus hours work a week.

I think OP implied it was problematic that this woman with no dependents and earning above NMW was getting a UC top up. But she has children, so the whole premise of her post falls apart.

From what i understand if she’s getting hundreds or even thousands in child support she still would get the same UC top up. This is because the government has basically given up trying to rely on men to pay for their children. So they see it as an unstable source of income and therefore separate it from whatever benefits she’s owed.

I actually agree the government should hold men/the non-resident parent to account and make them pay for their kids and they should face the risk of criminal convictions like they do in the U.S. when they fail to pay. Maybe if that was the case they would calculate child support as part of the parents income.

And she can go to the Zoo for a quid.

I did say that, because the fact that many households have two earners has contributed to the upswing in housing costs. 'Blame feminism' is sarcasm.

It certainly did. Listening to a snippet on the radio seems to be enough to come to a conclusion these days.

Its disgraceful we live in a society where honest hard work does not pay sufficiently and needs to be subsidized by the welfare state. That is not the fault of the individual benefits claimant.

Ok I've not read the full thread but this is where I get annoyed with people thinking all those on benefits are scroungers including my late MIL. It is the housing problem in this country meaning young people can't afford to live. It should never have got like this. My daughter is well educated with a MSc in a full time career but it is not well paid. She was earning approximately £32,000 and as a single person the cheapest place she could find to rent, just a 1 bed only 37 sq m was £900 per month . This meant she was entitled to UC rent top up. She is not really young , but nearly 40. She has ended up getting a shared ownership flat with a lot of help from us as there is no top up for a mortgage, only for rent. Yes this is the expensive South East . She start out in the North but had to come where the jobs were in her field.

most women now work so housing costs have risen steeply because households have two salaries. Blame feminism!

No, you said the above…

I wish people would talk about why on earth we live in a society where a full time salary does not cover the basics rather than being angry at people on benefits.