Why assume everyone on NMW is getting UC?

[asrarpolar]

Why do people assume that someone on national minimum wage is receiving universal credit? A couple both on national minimum wage can easily be receiving no universal credit, even if one is working part-time. Benefits are really low.

Really? Other poster has disappeared snd you’ve magically appeared with the same opinion, posting style, and inability to tag or quote, but mysteriously as a female now. Yes very believable.

It’s absolutely f*ing outrageous that a couple can get the equivalent of all-but a whole extra full time salary given to them just because they make the choice to have kids and not work full time. I am literally bloody gobsmacked.

In my hypothetical scenario they were working 70hrs between them. Parent A was working 30hrs a wk and parent B was working 40hrs a wk. So hardly shirkers.
I think what is outrageous is that the cost of living, high house prices & rents and high childcare costs mean that two parents both working need top up benefits to be able to cover the basics.

@Islam52 people who think savings are for living off of don't tend to have savings! They're a safety net, incase a storm blows the roof off, the boiler bursts or I lose my job and take a while finding another.

It's not, it's tough
I am lucky enough to have a fairly low mortgage but still have to pay out that 23k with no help
Mortgage £570
Gas and electric at £100pm
Water
Contents insurance
Council tax
Food
Car insurance
Car MOT/service repairs/tax
Petrol
Stuff for DIY/house repairs
A million other things

I finish the end of the month with nothing left except maybe £5, and I don't drink or go out

Rental income is unearned income though

UC is not generous for single people or couples without DC. A single person working 40 hours on NMW would not get UC. A couple both working 40 hours a week would be unlikely to get UC. When people have DC or are disabled the UC gets more generous.

Your hypothetical renters would be paying considerably more for their rent, and presumably therefore also getting more in benefits. They may not be shirking, but choosing to live in one of the most expensive areas of the country and have two kids while barely being able to afford to support yourself is selfish and this whole country is going to the dogs - too many people wanting too much spend expecting other people to fund it.

It's still not enough to live on. People with jobs are better off.

I'm afraid that you are coming across as one of the most entitled people ever and its laughable that you then whinge about hard working families getting a bit of state support when they need it. FYI most working families on UC are basically getting the child care element to help them through the high cost pre-school years. It makes sense to provide support in those years to keep parents in the workforce so that they go on to be hard working productive tax paying citizens in the future.

Compare them to you - whingeing about paying your share of tax to the government that granted you refuge. Also if your income source is rental income that is not working hard that is living off investments....

My hypothetical couple were only paying £800pm month rent! So hardly a high rent. I looked at 'affordable housing' rent on a two bed flat in the cheapest parts in Surrey.
They would get basically them same if they were living in a cheaper part of the country as I put the rent so low.
I dont think the country is going to the dogs because a couple are working 70hrs between them in possibly very worthwhile jobs (carers?), earning 45k amd receiving UC to enable them to afford the basics.

You mean people with better jobs are better off? Their hypothetical couple were bringing in £45k in earnings then another £23k equivalent in benefits - where’s the motivation to better yourself and earn more when you literally get another full time salary given to you?

The vast majority of that benefits is childcare costs. It makes sense economically for the country to support childcare costs.

Also those calculators are not always accurate.

The motivation is that it’s a short amount of time you get those benefits for while your childcare costs are so high. Most people still want to earn more so that they can live in the future.

Yes. On my husbands wage we wouldn't be even able to cover rent in a 2 bed flat. (He works in emergency services). My wage just covers childcare (7£ per hour per child roughly) So we wouldn't be able to eat if we didn't get some help. You can't choose how much they give you.

This hypothetical couple the poster has worked out UC for have a 2 and 5 year old. I have no idea if it is accurate or not. But childcare costs are high for this scenario. They will soon reduce and entitlement will significantly reduce.

I think most of the Uc goes to pay towards extortionate private rents, paying off landlords mortgages for them.

And before the government paid these childcare costs, most lower paid women could not afford to remain in the workplace so ended up not working for years, and then struggled to get back into the workplace. There were by the nineties a fair number of divorced women with kids who did not work because of this. It makes sense economically to keep these women in the workforce.

Yes exactly. If paying help towards childcare keeps women in the workplace then it benefits the government all round, they pay taxes, they pay into a pension etc.

This thread is bonkers , people don't seem to mind those on nearly 100k getting help with childcare . Earn just over that? Oh just put it into your pension

Once you do not have childcare costs like myself as our children are teenagers, anyone on NMW will either be getting no UC or very little.
The exception is if they receive benefits for a disabled child or adult, or they are on legacy benefits which were more generous.

@TheTimeIsNowMaybeNow it is because a lot of people look down on poor people.

I think saying NMW when you could mean a family on two full time NMWs is confusing. They would be unlikely to be getting help but a family on one full time NMW will be getting more than a little UC.

There are around 4m social home renters in the UK, and around 5m UC claimants. 40% of UC claimants, around 2m, live in social housing, with only 30% in private rentals and rental claims are capped, so the idea of greedy private landlords somehow making a fortune from UC seems to be a bit of a myth.