To ask if universal credit should take into account what your living expenses are?

[Cheeseandlobster]

I have a family member who had a baby dd this year. She lives with her mum and dad in a granny annexe and pays no bills, rent or food. She sends me screenshots every time she gets a payment saying she is amazed at how much she is being paid (around £750 every 4 weeks). She also sends me screenshots of what she is buying and it's often urban decay makeup, Michael Kors designer clothing, etc. She has openly said she has no intention of ever leaving home or working as she has never been so well off and had such nice things.

She is a great mum to her dd and her dd has everything she needs but this isn't what benefits are for and she is now making a lifestyle choice of staying on uc for as long as she can. I have explained that once her dd is older she will have to find a job and tried to encourage her to think about what she would like to do when that time comes but she is adamant she won't be working again.

This isn't her fault in a way as the system has allowed her to do this and her mum and dad are choosing not to charge housekeep. I also know people on the other end of the spectrum on uc who have large bills and are really struggling to make ends meet

So should uc take into account what your outgoings are too? I don't know how much it would cost to administer but the differences in living styles between those living at home and those living independently seem huge and it doesn't seem fair to me

I agree no-one is owed a high life - and so I said a year - not ten. At the end of the day, the certainly deserve more than someone who has paid in only 10k per year - at 50k tax they have at least always covered their own costs.

So, I know a family of Oxbridge graduates. Grew up in a manor house. Parents very well connected, very wealthy. Children all got good, very well paid jobs. Yes, partly through hard work, but in large part also because they had the best start in life, were given many advantages, and were very well-connected.

Some people don't get that start in life and work on supermarket tills. Now that's helpful, because who did we actually need during lockdown? Really? Key workers were carers, NHS staff, supermarket staff, refuse collectors and delivery drivers. How many of those paid more than £10k a year in tax? You'd have to be earning well in excess of 40k a year to pay that much tax. How many carers earn that much? And yet who, when it comes down to it, is in fact essential? Yes, you've got it. All those low paid workers in essential jobs that, according to you, deserve sweet FA if they lose a job. (And they will, despite those jobs being essential, they do get cut to the bone during recessions).

@KittyFantastico

UC is not for designer clothing or horses or cosmetic surgery

It is for whatever the recipient wants to spend it on because of a little thing called freedom of choice. No one has the right to scrutinise anyone else's purchases and decide whether or not they are worthy/justified just because that money comes from benefits rather than wages. The moment the money leaves the DWP bank account and enters the recipient's bank account it is theirs to spend as they please.

Why not?

@Babyroobs yes UC will pay 85% of childcare costs but if you're still earning minimum wage you won't come out with any more than you do on benefits, which is why people don't bother. Minimum wage needs increasing.

Bashing the OP and trying to be facetious is just childish. The whole 10 bedrooms and private school nonsense misses the point. The OP makes a serious point, what is the purpose of benefits? To support someone to buy expensive makeup that those in work sometimes can not afford. And yes I realize it’s an anecdote and not everyone experience. But a collection of anecdotes becomes public opinion, which then translates into political manifestation and eventually public policy.
OPs friend clearly does not NEED the amount she is receiving from the public purse and that grated on the silent majority. Hence the political change since 2008. Of course those that do need it will get swept alongside the public opinion but a few so liberally living a nice life afforded by others will always stand out. In the 2000s, the flat screen tv in a council house stereotype didn’t just get manufactured by the right wing press. It had a lot of truth in it and it led to public sentiment towards benefit recipients changing dramatically. This is what happens when you stick your head in the sand about perceived injustice about some people taking more than others from the system.

It does seem very unfair that some people have parents who subsidise their lives hugely and still receive the same amount in benefits as those who don't have this additional income.

I'm not sure if anything can be done in practical terms to level the playing field.

I have two friends who have been on benefits long term who have parents who subsidise them significantly. This gives them a much higher standard of living than many working people have. I'm glad for my friends obviously, but I think the system is wrong to allow this as effectively they have regular hidden income.

@JessStu

Because that child as a grown up tax payer will be payIng your state pension in a few decades.

Not if they follow their mother's example and are net takers from the system.

PS I have a private pension. That child hasn't paid a penny into my private pension. The majority of people who are net contributors will have a private pension.

Not true. You have to be a net contributor to get a state pension, and the one third of U.K. workers/net contributors do not have private pensions. In addition, many private pensions get either government subsidies or tax exemption on earnings which is ultimately paid for by the tax payer. So even if they don’t contribute a penny to your contributions they are paying either by giving up taxes you should pay on pension earnings or by paying towards the government subsidies that increase your pensions cash value.

No one has the right to scrutinise anyone else's purchases and decide whether or not they are worthy/justified just because that money comes from benefits rather than wages. The moment the money leaves the DWP bank account and enters the recipient's bank account it is theirs to spend as they please.

“Why not?”

Because they’re not your slaves. They are not your anything. You have no right to tell people what they can and cannot buy (if it’s legal).

Women don't impregnate themselves yet the focus of the contempt appears to be solely on the women left, literally, holding the baby.

I agree more focus should be on the fathers of these children and making them step up financially at the very least, if not practically too. A woman can only have one baby a year whereas in that same time period a man could father up to 365 babies with 365 different women. So why is the vitriol directed towards the women and not at the waste of space men who aren't supporting their children?

Why not?

Why not what? Why cant we scrutinise purchases made by people on benefits and decide whether those purchases are legitimate or not? Perhaps because that would be a gross violation of personal freedom and we don't live in the sort of controlling country that would consider that acceptable.

Your first assessment period would have been from 1st May to 30th June

Wouldn't the first MAP be 1-31 May @Babyroobs?

But I was thinking same as you, earnings posted late. And it doesn't need to be the employer uploading late, either, it appears that HMRC don't always upload promptly to DWP.

A new tenancy can mess up money a bit too. I've had 2 clients who've moved and because the tenancy start date is very soon after the start of the MAP, they won't get their first month's housing costs until they've already paid 2 months' rent (a month in advance of the tenancy start date and the second month).

I have two friends who have been on benefits long term who have parents who subsidise them significantly. This gives them a much higher standard of living than many working people have. I'm glad for my friends obviously, but I think the system is wrong to allow this as effectively they have regular hidden income

But that extra income is a gift. If your mum gives you £100 for your birthday, should you get less in benefits that month? What if those parents paid for the shopping, or kids' clothes, or car expenses? Your friend would still have a better standard of living, because she wouldn't have to cover those costs herself.

People with well-off and generous parents will always have a better standard of living than those without. It doesn't matter if they're working, or students, or on benefits. It's not fair, but some unfairness is inveitable.

Unless we just give everyone an equal amount of money according to family size, and deduct every penny above it, and give them the same sort of house etc. But that wouldn't be much fun.

You have to be a net contributor to get a state pension

Of course you don't. The majority of people in receipt of state pension are not net contributors. Most people who rely solely on state pension have worked hard in low income jobs their whole lives and never earned enough to offset their use of state provided or state subsidised services (education, healthcare, roads, etc etc etc).

But so what? Why should you be regarded as less valuable because you aren't a net contributor? Contribution to society is about far more than money. Very rich people who pay high taxes aren't better people. They contribute more financially? Great. Other people contribute in different ways- it would be a very sad person who only valued the financial contributions of society's members. And a very sad and limited person who couldn't recognise that they did not get rich in a vaccum and that they benefitted over and over again from society's systems and structures.

Whilst I agree your family member should be putting money aside, in the grand scheme of things, she gets £9000 per year to provide for her daughter. This is below the poverty line.
That she doesn't have bills, have to pay for groceries, or pay keep, just means she is fortunate.
I wouldn't begrudge her because as PP have said, she lives in a 'gilded cage.' Her future, if she maintains this course, will be quite different.

@sst1234

Bashing the OP and trying to be facetious is just childish. The whole 10 bedrooms and private school nonsense misses the point. The OP makes a serious point, what is the purpose of benefits? To support someone to buy expensive makeup that those in work sometimes can not afford. And yes I realize it’s an anecdote and not everyone experience. But a collection of anecdotes becomes public opinion, which then translates into political manifestation and eventually public policy. OPs friend clearly does not NEED the amount she is receiving from the public purse and that grated on the silent majority. Hence the political change since 2008. Of course those that do need it will get swept alongside the public opinion but a few so liberally living a nice life afforded by others will always stand out. In the 2000s, the flat screen tv in a council house stereotype didn’t just get manufactured by the right wing press. It had a lot of truth in it and it led to public sentiment towards benefit recipients changing dramatically. This is what happens when you stick your head in the sand about perceived injustice about some people taking more than others from the system.

This. Some of the responses on here have been ridiculous - especially at the beginning of the thread

@Snog

It does seem very unfair that some people have parents who subsidise their lives hugely and still receive the same amount in benefits as those who don't have this additional income.

I'm not sure if anything can be done in practical terms to level the playing field.

I have two friends who have been on benefits long term who have parents who subsidise them significantly. This gives them a much higher standard of living than many working people have. I'm glad for my friends obviously, but I think the system is wrong to allow this as effectively they have regular hidden income.

Exactly. It doesn't seem fair for one person on benefits to have a standard of living that enables regular and frequent designer purchases. I can't afford those and I work FT.

You Anbu I think the whole benefits system is crazy, a work colleague does less hours than me and is able to afford a two bed house plus garden for her and her daughter. I work more hours and can barely afford the rent of a two bed flat with no garden. It's all wrong.

I wouldn’t envy any adult raising a baby alone whilst being entirely reliant on their own parents.

It’s not a life I’d want for myself or my children.

That said, it sounds like the baby is very young and perhaps she’ll use her good fortune to look for a different career or train as something else.

@Cheeseandlobster

Would you want to live in your parents’ home though and effectively be a child despite having a baby?

Some people don't get that start in life and work on supermarket tills. Now that's helpful, because who did we actually need during lockdown? Really? Key workers were carers, NHS staff, supermarket staff, refuse collectors and delivery drivers. How many of those paid more than £10k a year in tax?

Spot on. A lot of the essential jobs are, indeed, the lowest paid and, often, female dominated.

The benefits are not enabling her lifestyle, her parents are. It would not be fair for the parents to be obliged to keep her, but if they choose to do so.?

Regarding parental subsidy I think at a certain level this is indeed a gift, but at a certain level it's definitely an income subsidy. One of my friends had had her mortgage paid off by her parents and a car gifted together with free servicing and repairs and is also regularly taken on holiday- that much I would consider under the banner of gifts. On top of this her parents also gift her £15k cash each year which I think is more of an income subsidy but is still considered as a gift.

Not true. You have to be a net contributor to get a state pension

This is an outright lie.

Not only do you not have to be a net contributor to get a state pension, you can also receive the state pension plus housing benefit, without being a net contributor.

I highly doubt that £750 a month allows her to buy lots of high end designer gear.

And anyway, if her parents can afford to subsidise her, why should they be denied that privilege? I would give my children cash gifts to elevate their standards of living if my circumstances allowed it. That’s my prerogative and, quite frankly, no one else’s business.

It seems to me that you’re likely jealous of your friends lifestyle. Focus on you.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Do you understand what a net contributor is?

gets £9000 per year to provide for her daughter. This is below the poverty line.

She doesn't get £9000 per year to provide for her daughter. The grandparents are providing shelter and utilities for the child. That £9000 just has to pay for clothes and food, then the rest is disposable income. It's a lot more disposable income than a lot of working people have. As someone said below, sticking your head in the sand about the injustice doesn't end well and it's why the general population now have a hardened attitude towards benefits claimants.

No it's not anyone's fucking right to scrutinize what people on benefits spend their money on.

Wow.

I lost my job in March due to COVID. Those of us who work minimum wage often don't have savings.

Should I be scrutinized if I have a little left over at the end of the month and buy a bottle of wine..

How good it must feel to judge others from a position of knowing you'll never be in their circumstances.

It's funny how those tax payers who are fuming about those on benefits having any sort of a life, never seem bothered or make posts about big businesses dodging paying tax in the UK, or their hard earned tax being wasted by the government on vanity projects and inflated expenses, heavily subsidised bars for MPs etc.

Strange ain't it.

Disgusting attitude of push / kick down.