To ask if SAHM on benefits also have it hard

[Tryinghardereveryday]

I am not generalising, making assumptions or trying to offend.

This morning a was taking LO to nursery,
Which costs me a fortune. I am considered to have a good wage and I work FT. I own my own home.

A woman was walking her dog with her children. She lives in a council house, Her home is identical to mine.She’s single and doesn’t work. I am assuming she is in receipt of benefits.

I thought what’s the point of working so hard... I get limited time with DD whilst she gets to see her children full time. If I don’t work my home gets repossessed. I pay council tax, childcare fees and receive no financial help with anything.

Am I better off than those who have financial help? Does working FT provide me with a better lifestyle? This woman is not struggling. She also claims free childcare. A part from my annual holiday away (which I am grateful for) I don’t think I have anything more than she does and I don’t think that’s completely worth it.
The good thing about working is the contribution to my pension. But poorer older people also get additional assistance. Very few of us will get to pass inheritance to our children as our equity (anything above £23000) will possibly be used to pay for our care in old age.

I’m just feeling down and thinking what’s the point in working so hard. This is not an attack on this woman. It’s at the government, we live in a country where sometimes working does not pay for middle rate earners and we are constantly told it does.

Well if you don’t like jealousy and resentment then bitter, I will take advantage of the free hours since it winds people up so much.

@checkeredredshorts

Why is it that people who don't work at all and are in receipt of certain benefits can get 15 hours funded childcare, and people who work and meet certain criteria can get 15 hours funded childcare, but my family falls somewhere in between therefore our kids can't have a funded childcare place?

It seems unfair that not all children are being offered the same opportunity. I just don't understand the system!

I think you are talking about 15 hours for 2 year olds, is that right?

The reason is that research shows on average that 2 year olds do not benefit from childcare, they are better off at home. Disadvantaged 2 year olds do benefit from earlier childcare I.e from age 2 and so it’s funded for those families only.

It’s not an economic policy as such, it’s a social policy, designed to improve outcomes for specific children.

Do you actually have children? As I can't imagine a real mother making decisions for her dc based on what winds other people up!

Yep, 4 actually. I wasn’t fussed about sending my youngest, so it’s hardly a big decision, but since people are so resentful I’m entitled to it then like I said I will take advantage of something that obviously a lot of people wish they had! Seems I would be crazy not to.

Best quit your job and do what she's doing.

Then come back and update us.

checkered you earn substantially more than the U.K. average. If you have a huge mortgage then that's not the fault of a single parent getting a free nursery place if they're earning minimum wage or on benefits and using a food bank.

I don't need to know your financial circumstances to know that your dc are already at an advantage to a child in a home with parents on benefits.

Like I said before, the entire premise of this thread is just revolting.

If people seriously can't understand privilege whenits clearly snaking you in the face then I give up.

Snacking you in the face, not snacking.

"Can we rephrase "benefit" as...."tax-payer hand outs"....which is what they are. I hear your pain and I feel it too." Wtf! Why?!

So you can bash those on benefits even more?!

You DO realise not needing to claim is a matter of LUCK and NOT VIRTUE?

"Absolutely, living on benefits should always make you worse off than working." You think they should be punitive? That the poor should be punished and vilified for BEING poor? Delightful people NOT! Wtaf!!

"People on benefits pay tax too, you know." Yep!

"Threads like this always end up bashing people on benefits" this one STARTED like that! Unashamedly! - followed by the expected back-pedalling

"They take out a lot more than they pay in though." Doesn't change the fact!

"but it pisses me off when people say that people on benefits are paying their own way - they aren’t." But nobody said that! They said we pay taxes - which we bloody do!

"The benefits system is there for those that need it" would LOVE to know what you define as "need" (though I also dread to think!)

"However, implying that those living on benefits are contributing more than they take out is incorrect." AGAIN nobody said that!

"It's only with benefits that 'tax payers' feel they have the right to slam those in receipt of tax payers money and demand justification" absolutely!

"but you know how poor you are going to be each month" no you don't! There are CONSTANTLY changes to the amount of benefits paid and those changes only make it into the news on the set "budget" days, several times a year brown envelopes 'due to X law change Y benefit is now Z amount, this change will start from A date and your first payment will be...'

Anyone who has been on benefits will be very familiar with receiving those letters! I'm lucky not to be on uc yet but I know many who are and am on the various Facebook pages to prepare myself and TRY and understand how it works (which is virtually Fucking impossible because much of the rules make NO sense) and every DAY there are tons of posts "just seen on my journal I'm only getting X amount this month, but my bills are X + y how the hell am I gonna manage?! Can anyone advise/help?" Sometimes it's sadly just a case of page members helping that member "juggle" or signposting to food banks etc - but I notice a lot of the time page members (which inc welfare advisors) are coming on to discuss with the posting member and saying "that doesn't look right, you should be getting a, b and c elements/help" and very often they're correct, dwp have fucked up! But it takes dwp MONTHS to correct and they're often arses about it! BUT on the rare occasions a mistake is (apparently) in favour of a claimant THAT money is "recovered" pretty much instantly! Or they certainly try to!

Examples of how dwp treat claimants:

Outright lying! - telling claimants they're not eligible for things they ARE (I had this happen to me when I first claimed and was naive and didn't know better)

More subtle misleading - giving claimants the impression it's not worth even trying to claim certain benefits cos they "probably" wouldn't get it, giving impression it would negatively affect another benefit.

Interfering with communications to make the history of them look VERY different to the truth - this includes DELETING journal entries (both those made by claimants AND those placed by dwp staff meaning there's 'written proof' of lies etc) it's now I've noticed often advised that claimants screenshot journal entries so there's a record if that happens. Refusing to let claimants record meetings and calls, lying on assessment forms, 'Losing' or claiming they never received claim forms either at all or within deadlines, advisors and other claimants are advising claimants to send forms by recorded delivery so that a dated record of when dwp received is created AND advising that as soon as they are able via Royal Mail to screenshot the notification of this.

Denying that claimants arrived on time to appointments when the claimants were there in plenty of time but their arrival was not correctly acknowledged/recorded by dwp staff.

If the dwp acted with INTEGRITY and HONESTY I suspect that would actually save the country money because there wouldn't need to be money and resources spent on getting claimants benefits and rights reinstated - how much are all those mandatory reconsiderations and appeals costing?!

So NO we are at the whim of a callous govt ego would (and are) happily seeing the poor DIE rather than treat us with dignity and humanity.

"you need to have a pretty decent buffer" if you're on benefits there IS no buffer!

IceCreamAndCandyFloss - your views on this matter as seen on many threads are abhorrent! You clearly have NEVER needed such help - as I said that's LUCK not VIRTUE - you are no better than me or anyone else.

"IceCreamAndCandyfloss you're a notorious benefits and SAHP basher" yep!!

"You can’t pay tax if you’re on full benefits because you never earned the money in the first place . You’re just moving money around ." Oh please! Benefits claimants putting money back in the system via taxation on goods etc (not to mention some benefits are taxed) are being more generous with the little we have than the billionaire wealth hoarders and tax evaders!

"However , if you can’t work then I don’t think you should be supported to have children" so only the rich "deserve" to have children?! And what about when peoples circumstances change? In some cases while they're pregnant?

I had dd when I was married, working, solvent. By the time she was 5 I was single, disabled and desperate! Shit happens!

Poor women not entitled to have sex? Relationships?

"We don’t need hopeless people having children" Wtaf! So all benefits claimants are "hopeless" now?! We have no value, no humanity, what even if we're sick, disabled, carers... Lovely Fucking attitude!!

"it becomes a vicious circle of crap parenting and damaged children " AND we're all crap parents producing "damaged" children?! ODFOD!!!

"Dating, education, engagement, marriage, house , children. Crap men wouldn’t have the opportunity to become crap fathers if the daft women didn’t go near them."

I met my ex just as I had started my nurse training, completed my training and we got engaged about a year later having been together almost 3 years, we didn't even live together before marriage (not actually because we didn't believe in it, purely financial/practical as he was in army), we married (traditional white wedding) and moved into army accommodation, neither of us earned enough to buy and with him being army it made sense to live in army quarters. After 1 year of marriage we decided to ttc. Unfortunately a series of medical issues inc a mc/ectopic pregnancy meant dd didn't turn up until almost 5 years later and was a traumatic/dangerous birth. We were moved again while I was still on Mat leave/recovering from birth. I retrained/career changed to become a childminder to fit around dd/family life and did that for a couple of years. Then the marriage hit difficulties which turned out to be due to he was cheating with a supposed mutual friend. Completely out of character for him to the point his own close friends and family thought he was ill! Marriage ended and he became someone not only I but his own parents didn't recognise! A few months prior I had sensed things going wrong and made the decision to not take on more charges when the ones I had at that time moved away, thereby becoming a sahm again for a short period. When we split I had NO income and was stuck in the arse end of nowhere, no transport (he took the family car sneakily dead of night) and no nearby support network. He knew this and still emptied the joint account (even though it included tax credits and child benefit for dd) I had a frantic few days/weeks organising getting some money to feed dd, a new bank account, starting benefits claims, finding a job, a home and a nursery place for dd which I very LUCKILY was able to do most of within 5-6 weeks (the benefits took much longer)

My ex I knew VERY well before I married him, there was ZERO hint either before or during our marriage that he would turn into the deadbeat arsehole he has! His own dad was divorced before meeting his mum and had 2 children from that marriage. He continued to pay half the mortgage until the youngest was 18 and paid a decent wack of cm WITHOUT being made to! Both families lived within a couple of streets of each other, his dad maintained a good co-parenting relationship with his ex and was/is very involved in his kids from that marriages lives. And that is how my ex was raised, that men DON'T disappear and abdicate their fatherly responsibilities! I've had my ex in laws on several occasions apologise for his behaviour to dd and I, state they are ashamed of him and in the early days (when he still sort of listened to them) even "motivated" him to behave better at times.

There aren't always "red flags" that a man will be a dick as a father/ex.

As for why I'm now unable to work I was doing "everything right" when I was hit in my car by some twat texting! This not only left me physically disabled but also triggered a mental breakdown (which is not purely down to the accident but that was a "last straw" type thing) from which I have never truly recovered - not least because NOT ONCE in nearly 14 years have I had consistent, competent MH support/treatment.

I DID do everything "right" so PLEASE DO tell me what I am supposed to have done to

A prevent being in the situation I am now

B DESERVE to be in the situation I am now

???

"that’s what tax credits are for." You do realise tax credits are a benefit?

"Why should society help people who are too damn lazy to help themselves?" ODFOD

"Of course shit happens , which is why I’ve prepared for it" oh ffs! Not everyone CAN are you really so unbelievably unaware that you don't GET that?!

"We’re not doing them any favours in the long run ." Oh don't be so Fucking patronising! We're not children!

"but I'd rather someone take the piss at that end of society, rather than bankers taking the piss and gambling our economy whilst keeping their money in offshore accounts" here here!!!

"I would certainly rather have a system like the USA's. I have lived there and found healthcare to be much more efficient." From what I've seen its only "efficient" for those that can afford decent insurance or indeed to pay outright! Huge issues with healthcare provision for the poor, disabled, women and especially learning disabled and mentally ill.

On the self employed bollock:

Anybody noticed (I just have!) that for child maintenance (mostly paid by men) it's accepted by the govt if those men say they AREN'T earning even equivalent to nmw, and so "can't" pay cm? But if these men aren't claiming benefits what the FUCK do the govt think they're living on?

BUT

For UC, if you're self employed after a short period of claiming on this basis it's assumed by the govt that you're earning the MIF and UC cut accordingly! And I'm willing to bet this affects women FAR more than men!

"Anyone who is potentially economically active but who is currently relying on the state to support them and who thinks that situation will continue is in for a nasty shock." The VAST majority of people who are fit to work WANT to work. AGAIN I say that it's disingenuous and hypocritical to vilify people for being unemployed WHEN THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS and to do NOTHING TO CREATE JOBS!

"They will need to do more than “enforcing” it for benefits not to be necessary."
Absolutely! The problem with deadbeat (usually) dads is manyfold - not paying, even if they do pay the amounts are nowhere near enough, nrps shouldn't be allowed to reduce amounts when having (or indeed just moving in with!) other children, abusive ones using it to control their ex still, the self employed bollocks, the leaving the country bollocks! (Are they SERIOUSLY saying they cannot stop them doing this if they are doing so to dodge their responsibilities!), CMS inefficiency...

"My ex doesn’t work or claim benefits cms can’t do anything about that so I don’t get a penny in maintenance and it’s been this way for years. There are no consequences for not paying maintenance" a friend of mine is in your position - her ex married a VERY wealthy new woman and he quit work and now only does voluntary stuff when he can be arsed. No children with 2nd wife. These loopholes NEED to be closed!

"I think the problem is the people who ABUSE the system by claiming what they don't need anymore" who are VERY much in the minority! No system is perfect, having a system that ensured nobody could abuse it would be FAR too punitive on those who DO need the support. Which is the road we're going down at the moment.

We need to look at how society as a whole is doing when the system is too strict OR too lax - neither extreme is good for society.

Do those saying things need to be stricter REALLY think we should be having MORE food bank use, MORE adults going without food so their kids eat, MORE people not hearing their homes and becoming sick as a result, MORE Homelessness, MORE poverty related illness, MORE deaths? Really?

HelenaDove is extremely knowledgeable on the social housing side and I capitulate to her expertise. But it's certainly not my understanding that council housing was ever intended ONLY for the poorest and most indigent!

And if this govt wants people who are not well off to risk private tenancies they NEED to MASSIVELY tighten up regulation of landlords and give tenants more rights AND enforce them - but they won't! Why? Because a hell of a lot of them ARE private landlords and property developers!

CheckeredRedShorts READ THE THREAD! it's been pointed out MANY times the 15 hours is intended to improve the futures of the children of those not as well off as you are. Children of poorer families are immediately disadvantaged and often continue to be throughout their lives -
Maybe look at this

https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

"I wouldn't say all kids of parents out of work are immediately at a socioeconomic disadvantage" bull!

"You have no idea of our bills mortgage and other outgoings." The fact you HAVE A mortgage says enough! If you wish please DO tell us what your outgoings are - because in MY experience people that think and comment like you very often have a shit ton of luxuries they class as necessities and are often paying more than necessary even for necessities. Both in real life and on forums like this I have often asked this and I've yet to have it happen that the person making comments like yours isn't actually living quite a pleasant life with luxuries they take for granted! Like owning your home!!!

"Which is why it frustrates me that not all kids get this same opportunity." Tell you what - you and your family are welcome to that opportunity when you're ALSO willing to take on the disadvantages that the people who get it now do! No? Thought not!

@Graphista, that's grim, I thought at least the advantage of universal credit was it was meant to simplify things and work better with people's lives, obviously not.

It makes me really angry thinking about it as alright Jack people are always going on about how if the less well off we're better at budgeting and cutting their cloth they'd be OK. How the hell are you supposed to manage that?

Maybe you should stop assuming you know anything about this woman's lifestyle.

And FYI people on benefits find it very hard to live. The Tories have made sure of that. That's why so many people rely on food banks now. The UC system makes poor people poorer. Maybe that will make you feel a bit better, OP?

I always find it very difficult to believe these people who say "I know someone who is on benefits and gets more money than me."

I do not discuss my financial situation with anyone. Likewise I don't know what my friends earn. I don't know what my family members earn. Let alone someone who I only "know" vaguely!

I simply do not believe that all these people on benefits are willing to discuss their financial situations so openly with everyone. I don't know anyone who does that IRL. People just make stuff up for these threads to benefit bash imo.

I think also its not always as obvious how much money someone has from their lifestyle as we think it is.

I know what all my friends and family earn, we talk about it. Why wouldn't you?

I was always taught by DM that you shouldn't ask what someone earns, I even struggled to ask my DH when we were filling out mortgage paperwork

Op - why would you assume she's on benefits?

I'm a single mum working part-time. I am not on benefits. Stop assuming all single parents are on benefits and getting something you're not. Especially as it seems to be making you miserable.

Because it's no one else's business. I think it's rude to ask what someone earns, and why would I just randomly start telling people what I earn?

Honestly some of the comments on this thread make me so sad for society. I genuinely dont understand why those who are better off do not see it as their social responsibility to help those who arent. Even if you are very very selfish and only interested in your life, it's in your wider interest that we have a decent welfare state - people having access to a better standard of living means nicer shared spaces, healthier people in society and not having to see deprivation. Do people really want to be walking down a dilapidated street stepping over sick people? Sounds dramatic but hopefully makes the point that the welfare state should be seen as in the interests of even the most selfish of people.

My mind genuinely cannot compute how people seriously think that others are struggling purely due to their own recklessness and that they themselves could never be in that position. I'm sure many who are never thought they would be either. I personally earn over national average and though I could do better I am always looking for ways to give back - why wouldnt I? Why would I want another human to suffer? I just dont understand

OP, why don't you go and type into a benefits calculator how much you'd receive in benefits if you didn't work and lived in social housing. Then look at the things in your life you could do without and see if you think you'd be better off.

I earn £20k, pay a fortune in childcare, my income in topped up by tax credits but the amount doesn't cover the cost of childcare (and my dd is school age). I'm still a hundred times better off than the woman with three kids who lives on benefits a few doors away.

I run a 2nd hand car, have Sky tv, go on a budget holiday each year. My daughter goes to a hobby. When we need new clothes we get them. All of those things are unachievable for her. I hand her bags of my DDs Primark and supermarket clothes when they get too small. Life on benefits isn't a fucking holiday.

I personally remember the one where the author was wondering whether or not she should move out of a council house, as she can afford to privately rent, but doesn't want to loose a secured home. This example purely shows that the system is broken, because council houses should be given to those who CANNOT afford to privately rent, and this applies to all the benefits/ welfare.

Why would anyone want to lose a secure home? Have you ever private rented? Because I have, and it is absolutely soul destroying to live with the constant fear that you can be kicked out for any reason whatsoever, no fault of your own. Owner wants to sell, owner doesn't like single parents, owner wants more rent, owner doesn't want to make repairs and therefore kicks a tenant out for reporting repairs, owner taking revenge on tenants that have reported them to the council for not keeping the house in a habitable state...... All things I've been given my notice for. All I wanted was to have a home where I could live and not have to constantly move. That's what I couldn't afford, constantly having to have X amount for a months rent and another bond for yet another place, while having to fight to get the last bond back, the cost of moving, having to move schools and work because we'd had to move out of the area AGAIN, having to live in places where anti social behaviour is rife and no-one does anything about it because it's all that was available, where I was scared living alone with a small child because I was threatened every time I left my front door.
Those are the reasons I'm in social housing now, and I'm grateful for the fact that as a rent paying decent tenant, repairs get done so it doesn't rain in the fucking kitchen like one private rent, and that as I just live my life quietly and pay the rent, I'm not in constant fear of a notice being served and having to move yet again. 8 times in 15 years I've moved, my DD moved schools 3 times, I moved employment 3 times - hardly conducive to a stable and reliable lifestyle is it? And I've lost 3 deposits because the LL just didn't give them back (in the days before protected deposits) I've never missed a rent payment, I've always looked after where we've lived and abided by the rules. So far the only winners have been the LL who've pocketed the money. At least I know what I'm paying in rent now goes back into the housing stock that the HA owns as it's a non profit organisation, and is used to repair and improve the homes they own and the areas they have homes in. It's used for things like training courses for tenants, for play parks where they have several properties. So I think actually I'm fucking well contributing more paying my rent to them than a private LL that just treats renting a house to someone as a commodity rather than it being a necessity. Without a proportion of rent payers that are employed, the system wouldn't work would it? There's a mix of people who live in social housing where I do, and it works. They need a % of people like me in social housing to make it work.
And quite frankly, I'm fucking well allowed to have a home that I'm not in constant fear of being kicked out of.

Newmum, I don’t disagree with having a welfare state. We should catch people should they need help after redundancy or falling ill.

What I disagree with is a system that lets people opt out of personal responsibility and make choices they can’t afford but want like living in x area, having children, not wanting to work or don’t feel they should have too as other tax payers will pay instead. That’s not what the welfare system is for.