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

People on low enough incomes to be claiming UC and WTC will likely be paying very little tax. Virtually nothing in comparison to what they get paid in tax credits/ UC.

Designer handbags shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayer, no. Because so many others on the breadline need more food and fuel and can't get it and it isn't fair. If you were an investor you'd want to know where your money was going and it would be expected that you would have sight of the company figures. Equally I think that if benefits are paid out then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see where they were spent.

@Viviennemary I imagine there are very few people that are genuinely bankrolled by a partner or parent. Simply because there's only around 7% of dc in private education, and of those very few will use only private healthcare for the entire family, and even less that don't intend claiming state pension. Or is it just that taking from general taxation is only scrounging for low income single mothers?

And to use the phrase so popular on this thread, I don't see any difference between 'my taxes' paying for Amelia and Jack at their state school, Julia and her third nhs consultant led pregnancy, Dave the diabetic and his regular free prescriptions or Kate and her universal credit. It wouldn't cross my mind to think any of the former are my business, let alone to judge them or suggest they aren't deserving of 'my hard earned wages'. So why would I consider the latter any different?

Would it be acceptable to jump on the school appeal threads and tell people to stop complaining about the schools 'my taxes' fund, and they should have planned better so they could afford independent schools? What's the difference between taking £12k a year from the public purse for a couple of London state school places and taking the same to survive on with a baby? Especially when more of the former could manage without taking from the public purse for education, than there are low income single mothers that could manage without benefits.

But I already know the answer. The middle classes, and the bourgeois interpretation, unfortunately not unique to mumsnet, of what it means to be middle class, use state education too. Therefore it's an acceptable thing to expect or depend the state to provide. Ditto pensions and the nhs. But benefits are something only the poorest use, therefore grabby, work shy and unacceptable to expect or depend on the state providing them.

Besides, all this 'my taxes' is utter bollocks. Even for higher earners, the amount that goes to single parents is so minuscule nobody would notice if they suddenly stopped paying it. And it's particularly laughable on a forum where a lot of members are sahps or have pt pocket money jobs, and are therefore not only net takers but often don't contribute anything at all.

It's blatant double standards.
Sahp with hubby at work = relentless 24/7 365 days a year job.
Single sahp = lazy bastard

State purse funded things I need or may need = that's what the system is for

State purse funded things I'm fortunate enough not to need and consider myself invincible enough to ever need = the system is all wrong and they're undeserving.

Equally I think that if benefits are paid out then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to see where they were spent

By extension then the company you work for could ask for a breakdown of where and how your wages are spent as that is their money?

And a NRP paying maintenance could ask the RP for an itemised breakdown of how the money was being spent?

And pensioners should have to provide details of how they were spending their pension to current employees of the company or, in the case of state pension, to "the taxpayers"?

And everyone in receipt of child benefit should be sending the DWP details of where the money is going?

And landlords who receive rent payments from those in receipt of housing benefit should give details of how that is being spent?

Or we accept that people are entitled to spend as they see fit and external control over the money ends once it enters the recipients possession because we don't live in a totalitarian state where everyone has to justify their very existence in order to prove their worthiness?

@Babyroobs

People on low enough incomes to be claiming UC and WTC will likely be paying very little tax. Virtually nothing in comparison to what they get paid in tax credits/ UC.

I definitely pay more tax than I get in UC 🤷‍♀️

@PurpleTigerLove

We actually ended up in the situation due to me being redundant - so please take your judgements elsewhere.

No I don't expect others to lose out so I can stay home. I expect the governments to assist those with children or address the ridiculous childcare costs and make more viable for people to work! I'd be better off by £70 if I'm lucky, and after all petrol, food costs and additional nursery costs such as lunches and snacks I'd doubt id even be better off at all. Id then be in a position where I wouldn't be able to afford rent, bills, weekly food budget. So I won't be putting myself in that position until my child is at nursery which I am entitled to do just as much as everyone.

My partners works, pays taxes etc, and is out the house 90% of the time so I'm not lazy. I do 90% of the childcare, 100% of the housework and maintenance, 100% of the preschool education etc. Do not come at me with SATP are lazy.

The system is flawed by childcare costs - it's a ridiculous country where people are made worse off by the amount they need to pay to work.

[quote OnNaturesCourse]@PurpleTigerLove

We actually ended up in the situation due to me being redundant - so please take your judgements elsewhere.

No I don't expect others to lose out so I can stay home. I expect the governments to assist those with children or address the ridiculous childcare costs and make more viable for people to work! I'd be better off by £70 if I'm lucky, and after all petrol, food costs and additional nursery costs such as lunches and snacks I'd doubt id even be better off at all. Id then be in a position where I wouldn't be able to afford rent, bills, weekly food budget. So I won't be putting myself in that position until my child is at nursery which I am entitled to do just as much as everyone.

My partners works, pays taxes etc, and is out the house 90% of the time so I'm not lazy. I do 90% of the childcare, 100% of the housework and maintenance, 100% of the preschool education etc. Do not come at me with SATP are lazy.

The system is flawed by childcare costs - it's a ridiculous country where people are made worse off by the amount they need to pay to work. [/quote]
People on UC can get up to 85% of childcare costs paid, which is even more generous than tax credits, but yes if you don't get help with childcare costs I can understand how it does not seem worthwhile.

Yes we would get help if my partner earned less, but currently even a full time minimum wage job would put us over the threshold which would cancel out the childcare help.

I believe benefits are a part of a civilised society, however, it is false to claim that net contributing tax payers AREN’T paying for benefits via their income tax and NI.

Again, I agree with others, just because someone isn’t a high earner doesn’t make them a less worthy person. Anyone earning under about 30k is being subsidised by others. There is nothing wrong with this, everyone living in a fair society should be entitled to an education, healthcare, housing, food and clothes, even if they can’t afford to pay directly for those things themselves.

*It may not be luxurious but that £750 came from someone else’s wage packet

No, it didn't.*

No she isn't or she would be getting more than that

.I do 90% of the childcare, 100% of the housework and maintenance, 100% of the preschool education etc. Do not come at me with SATP are lazy

I’m a single parent. I work full time, I also work part time and I also work seasonally. I do all of the above you claim to don (although no official childcare needed now so I’ll give you that), just swap preschool education for homework supervision and the house is all mine too. I wouldn’t dare to call any SAPH lazy but many of us are successfully doing much, much more. Only I’m called a scrounger and you’re a ‘working family’. You can buy what you want, I am expected to account for my purchases. I am also paying for your children’s schooling, healthcare, etc etc whilst you have the luxury of being with your children. Mine were in wraparound from 7:30am - 6pm. Are you one of those women who taught their little darling to chant ‘single mum, benefit scum’ at my child in the playground? There are a lot of smug SAHP out there, believe me. Why should I contribute when you don’t?

@Howaboutanewname

.I do 90% of the childcare, 100% of the housework and maintenance, 100% of the preschool education etc. Do not come at me with SATP are lazy

I’m a single parent. I work full time, I also work part time and I also work seasonally. I do all of the above you claim to don (although no official childcare needed now so I’ll give you that), just swap preschool education for homework supervision and the house is all mine too. I wouldn’t dare to call any SAPH lazy but many of us are successfully doing much, much more. Only I’m called a scrounger and you’re a ‘working family’. You can buy what you want, I am expected to account for my purchases. I am also paying for your children’s schooling, healthcare, etc etc whilst you have the luxury of being with your children. Mine were in wraparound from 7:30am - 6pm. Are you one of those women who taught their little darling to chant ‘single mum, benefit scum’ at my child in the playground? There are a lot of smug SAHP out there, believe me. Why should I contribute when you don’t?

‘Single Mum, Benefit Scum’, what sort of area do you live in, a very posh one like Chelsea where everyone is rich??

There’s loads of single parents out there and no one bats an eyelid.

[quote OnNaturesCourse]@PurpleTigerLove

We actually ended up in the situation due to me being redundant - so please take your judgements elsewhere.

No I don't expect others to lose out so I can stay home. I expect the governments to assist those with children or address the ridiculous childcare costs and make more viable for people to work! I'd be better off by £70 if I'm lucky, and after all petrol, food costs and additional nursery costs such as lunches and snacks I'd doubt id even be better off at all. Id then be in a position where I wouldn't be able to afford rent, bills, weekly food budget. So I won't be putting myself in that position until my child is at nursery which I am entitled to do just as much as everyone.

My partners works, pays taxes etc, and is out the house 90% of the time so I'm not lazy. I do 90% of the childcare, 100% of the housework and maintenance, 100% of the preschool education etc. Do not come at me with SATP are lazy.

The system is flawed by childcare costs - it's a ridiculous country where people are made worse off by the amount they need to pay to work. [/quote]
Couldn’t you work nights/ weekends/ from home if you can’t afford childcare?

@Purpletigers

And if a woman can’t support a child should she not have sex either ? Or is it only the man who should abstain? In fact I think your idea is perfect . No more sex for men or woman if they don’t want to / can’t support a possible child . I think the world would be a much better place if lots of people stopped having sex and procreating before they are ready to support / want a child .

They wouldn’t even have to stop having sex; just forms of procreative sex.

They could still have oral sex, for example.

Couldn’t you work nights/ weekends/ from home if you can’t afford childcare?

Yes this is what the vast majority of parents I knew when my kids were small did to avoid childcare costs. In fact me and dh worked around each other for 15 years this way.

@WitchesGlove ime judging single mothers and believing they are somehow inferior is almost exclusively a lower middle class affliction. I know that has no particular bearing on income, but generally speaking most don't live in 'posh' areas full of rich people.