Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

341 replies

Cheeseandlobster · 02/08/2020 18:26

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

OP posts:
Babyroobs · 02/08/2020 19:11

She wont' be pressured to look for work until her child is 3 and even then only work earning 16x nmw a week. To be honest I think they barely enforce the rule anyway from what I've heard.

Original poster
Cheeseandlobster · 02/08/2020 19:11

@HerNameWasEliza

Her parents are effectively subbing her lifestyle. I know some will disagree but in my book she should be giving her parents some money towards house upkeep and bills and probably if she paid her way she'd not be getting designer clothes. Up to her family if they want to give her cask though. I don't think we can have a system which takes away what your family give to you and reduces your UC accordingly.
I agree and so do her 3 older brothers who all had to pay housekeep- even when they were working part time whilst in college. This has caused friction in the family already and it's not teaching the youngest child how to live realistically. She runs out of money in the first couple of weeks but it doesn't matter to her because all her food, heating etc is covered. She had no incentive to save
OP posts:
AliceinBunnyland · 02/08/2020 19:12

But if I live in a massive 10 bed mansion, my gas and electricity bills will be enormous. Should the taxpayer fund that? If not, it seems that you don't actually want it to be based on expenses and you just want this woman to struggle more.

Well of course there should be an upper limit. UC can only be expected to fund reasonable living expenses. If you want a 10 bed mansion, you work for it. Otherwise you downsize.

KittyFantastico · 02/08/2020 19:13

the consequence is that we have ended up with an army of single mothers on benefits who aren't thinking about what they are going to do when the benefits stop.

An army? There are 1.6 million single mothers in UK. Not all will be on benefits and 1.6 million is a small percentage of the estimated 30 million people claiming benefits (and that was pre-Covid so is higher now).

Perhaps instead of making out that single mothers are a feckless army mindlessly claiming benefits with no thought of what happens when their children are grown you should ask yourself why minimum wage is not a living wage and why more isn't done to make the fathers of those children take responsibility both financially and via shared care.

bibbitybobbitycats · 02/08/2020 19:17

@popcornlover

I sympathize OP, you have a valid point. People get very, very defensive on MN whenever benefits are mentioned, for some reason........ Hmm
Maybe some posters resent the undercurrent of nastiness when first time posters come on and start passive aggressive goady benefit bashing posts. There was a period when the furloughed who were getting a bashing instead, but people seem to have got bored with that and have reverted to the usual.
Original poster
Cheeseandlobster · 02/08/2020 19:18

@damnthatanxiety

But if I live in a massive 10 bed mansion, my gas and electricity bills will be enormous. Should the taxpayer fund that? If not, it seems that you don't actually want it to be based on expenses and you just want this woman to struggle more.
Don't be bloody ridiculous. As other posters have said - outgoings should be capped too like local housing allowance is depending on where you live. I do not want this woman to struggle at all but I stand by what I say. UC is not for designer clothing or horses or cosmetic surgery as others have mentioned earlier in the thread. This has led to her having no goals for herself in life - she wants to keep doing what she is doing for as long as she can. And she is bright- she could be anything she wants to be. Hopefully she will change her mind as the months go on
OP posts:
KittyFantastico · 02/08/2020 19:20

People get very, very defensive on MN whenever benefits are mentioned, for some reason........

Usually because a load of factually incorrect rubbish gets posted along with lots of "a friend of a friend gets benefits and is coining it in, she wipes her arse with twenties" posturing swiftly followed by the arrivals those who think it is a race to the bottom and we should go back to the days of workhouses because people on benefits don't deserve dignity or autonomy.

Original poster
Cheeseandlobster · 02/08/2020 19:22

@bibbitybobbitycats this is not a benefit bashing thread. If you read my comments you will see I have also lived on benefits in the past. It's about disparity in uc funding a designer lifestyle for some and for others not giving them a pot to piss in. I was asking if (reasonable) outgoings should be taken into account. I think that is a reasonable question

OP posts:
KittyFantastico · 02/08/2020 19:24

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.

safariboot · 02/08/2020 19:25

What you are saying is that if people have family support, the benefits system should be punitive towards that.

JessStu · 02/08/2020 19:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JessStu · 02/08/2020 19:27

The moment the money leaves the DWP bank account and enters the recipient's bank account it is theirs to spend as they please.

Maybe vouchers would be better then.

doadeer · 02/08/2020 19:28

But she's not in a good position is she? Sadly if something happened to her parents she would be very vulnerable withoit a career or her own home and supporting a child

Argggghhneedclarity · 02/08/2020 19:31

Maybe you could advise her to put some into savings if you have that kind of relationship... unless her parents are going to allow her to stay rent/ bills- free forever, things might get tricky for her...

bibbitybobbitycats · 02/08/2020 19:31

@safariboot

What you are saying is that if people have family support, the benefits system should be punitive towards that.
Oh, fucking hell I have heard it all now. So if someone is on UC their family and friends should never ever help them out in anyway? No babysitting, no help with food and bill money? No housing them in a granny flat, make them live in a shitty hovel until the council can find them a place in five year's time?

I am out of this thread, it's making me too angry.

bibbitybobbitycats · 02/08/2020 19:31

Oh, @safariboot I totally misread your post, i am so sorry!

KittyFantastico · 02/08/2020 19:32

They've made their beds, so they can lie in them.

Do you have the same callous attitude towards the men who left them in that position?

Maybe vouchers would be better then.

People on benefits are deserving of the same shopping choices and dignity afforded to those not on benefits. Why should they be marked out as a benefit claimant when doing their shopping? Have purchases restricted? I can guarantee there would be a check-out lane set up for "DWP cards only" and some shops would have "no DWP card" policies.

There are a million reason why vouchers are not used and should not be used.

Sevo7 · 02/08/2020 19:33

I do get what you are saying OP. I was musing about leaving DP as he’s being a complete prick and did a benefits calculation the other day. We currently get nothing except child benefit however my wage is quite low on its own.

It worked out I would get the same amount for living with my mother (rent and bills free) as it would for having my own property and all the associated costs. The only money I wouldn’t get would be the rent element obviously. I was very surprised at how high the amount was tbh that I’d have as disposable income. However I should add that no amount of money in the world would make me want to live with my mother again!

Tyersal · 02/08/2020 19:35

@kittyfantastico yes it is but it didn't be the case that they have more money to make better choices than those of us working

Original poster
Cheeseandlobster · 02/08/2020 19:37

@Sevo7

I do get what you are saying OP. I was musing about leaving DP as he’s being a complete prick and did a benefits calculation the other day. We currently get nothing except child benefit however my wage is quite low on its own.

It worked out I would get the same amount for living with my mother (rent and bills free) as it would for having my own property and all the associated costs. The only money I wouldn’t get would be the rent element obviously. I was very surprised at how high the amount was tbh that I’d have as disposable income. However I should add that no amount of money in the world would make me want to live with my mother again!

Exactly my point. It shouldnt be the same! I am not saying the benefits should be punitive or there should be vouchers but there should be an element for those living in their own home and less for those who are lucky enough to have support with living costs.
OP posts:
Original poster
Cheeseandlobster · 02/08/2020 19:38

@Sevo7 I hope things work out for you by the way Smile

OP posts:
JessStu · 02/08/2020 19:39

@KittyFantastico

These are only your opinions. The way that the electorate has voted recently should tell you that most people disagree with you.

amy85 · 02/08/2020 19:41

UC is paid monthly not every 4 weeks

And she won't be allowed to not work forever and keep receiving that amount of UC once her DD is an old enough it's work or get sanctioned

okiedokieme · 02/08/2020 19:48

The fact her family are subsidising her is up to them. She gets just the basic amount for her situation, no rent allowance I'm guessing, if her mum is buying the nappies etc more fool her.

LakieLady · 02/08/2020 19:51

If she got maintenance from her child's father, she'd be even better, off as maintenance doesn't count as income for benefit purposes!