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

And who do you suppose would find this comprehensive plan to look at peoples outgoings?

What would it take into account?

If I lost my job I'm committed to phone contracts, sky contract, my kids attend clubs etc, so should I get more than someone who doesn't have those commitments?

Honestly the time spent not working and the impact on her CV will more than make up for the money she is getting anyway, so you can be all smug when she is struggling to find work and getting hounded by the job centre.

Living expenses no, they are a choice in general. However, I do think the major factor should be how much you've paid in and for how long.

Someone just starting out and not having paid anything in should get no choice where they live, be provided just the basics and no spending on any frills. On the other hand, some=one who has paid in a million pounds worth of tax over the last 20 years should be supported for a year without a significant change in circumstances.

@Babyroobs I can only speak for myself as I'm a single parent in receipt of working tax credits but they are very strict about you looking for work when your child starts school. You have to go onto the JSA element. Although I am still on the old style benefits so it might be different, but everyone says UC is a lot stricter.

I don't see the issue with people with babies getting more than people without babies either - of course they get more, they have a child to support.

Yanbu, we're putting one through uni and one lot of school fees to pay. Also have horses at home and due to location a 4wd is the only way to guarantee you can get anywhere year round. I absolutely agree these expenses should be included so I can give up work.

Joking aside, I do think the rent element should cover the full rent when the claimants are living in the cheapest suitable private rental available and on a waiting list for social housing. And I think there should be a travel element for those in areas that can't access reliable public transport.

It seems very unfair to me that two families could have the same income, but only one will have to top up their rent and/or keep a car running simply to keep their job.

Also only 5/10 for effort op, you forgot to mention she was also an Eastern European Muslim asylum seeker planning to claim disability benefits when she's made to job hunt. Take it you haven't been working for the daily mail very long?

YABU
It’s a basic amount meant to cover essentials. If people economise by living in multigenerational households, that shouldn’t result in less money.

I totally see where you're coming from. I would be financially better off not working!

OP do you really think £750 per four weeks is living in luxury? It's less than £187 per week. That won't cover much in the way of designer clothes and posh make up. I think both you and her need to work on increasing your expectations of life.

On the other hand, some=one who has paid in a million pounds worth of tax over the last 20 years should be supported for a year without a significant change in circumstances.

This is also unreasonable. To pay in £50k in income taxes every year, you’d have to earn ~£145k per annum. If you lose your income, why should you get a take home benefit income of £87,700??
That’s a shocking level of sheer entitlement.

People like her are the reason we have UC and why we still have a conservative government. As long as people keep having children they can’t support or don’t want to support , the welfare system will be under threat .
I think you should only be allowed to take money out of the system when you have paid a set amount into the system over a minimum number of years . No one should be able to stay on benefits until a child is 3 and then only work 16 hours a week .
Of course she’ll have another child before she has to go back to work and so the cycle continues. And people question why children are living in poverty? It doesn’t take a genius to work it out .

In part because their fathers don't support them either

@PlanDeRaccordement

Why should they have to pay 50k per year to support others in the first place if that much money is concern?

Surely, those who pay in large amounts should reasonably expect to receive proportionality better benefits? Seems only fair.

[quote darkwader]@PlanDeRaccordement

Why should they have to pay 50k per year to support others in the first place if that much money is concern?

Surely, those who pay in large amounts should reasonably expect to receive proportionality better benefits? Seems only fair.[/quote]
That £50k in income tax goes to suppport them too. Have you not heard of the NHS?, Roads?, Police?, Courts?, Schools?, all government.
You know that rich people in nice neighbourhoods get the better schools, the police patrols, the better roads and streets, the nicer treatment in court, the fast track in NHS?

@Purpletigers what a load of shit. I was in the same position, I didn't have another child, I went back to work and I am better off financially working than not working.

@darkwader
And besides, a person with take home income of £87k a year should have saved some of it? Enough to not need UC straight away?
It’s ridiculous to think if you’d lost your job or ability to work that your circumstances won’t change. No one is owed the high life for life.

It’s hardly a load of shit when it does happen - a lot ! I’m sure there are stats on it . She should not be allowed to stay at home until the child is 3 . It should be the same length of time as maternity leave .

You'd be subsidising childcare anyway...what's the difference?

What are your plans for pursuing the father?

And people question why children are living in poverty? It doesn’t take a genius to work it out

Because the current benefit system is not fit for purpose and actively prevents many people from either taking on work or taking on additional work because financial barriers are an inherent flaw?

Because austerity punishes the most vulnerable while failing to address the inequalities within our society?

Because child maintenance dodgers are allowed to get away with not supporting their children?

Because minimum wage is not enough to live on without benefit top ups?

Because despite it being illegal to discriminate against women/mothers many employers do and will not take on women from certain demographics or will expect a level of commitment not able to be easily met by a single parent with caring responsibilities thereby forcing many single parents into low paid work, often on zero hour contracts?

Because people would rather whinge about other people getting "free money" instead of asking the government why they aren't doing more to help lift children out of poverty, why they have closed initiatives such as Sure Start despite them being proven to improve outcomes for vulnerable children, and why they aren't addressing systematic barriers blocking employment?

It's called the benefits trap for a reason.

So let me get this straight. All the pension age members of the House of Lords should get fucking massive state pensions, and 85yr old Doris that worked in Woolworths for a few years then had a long career as 'housewife' should be given enough for gruel every second day. In fact, fuck that, it would be more economic to dole out the gruel from the workhouse. Serves Doris right for not making better choices back in 1955.

@PlanDeRaccordement

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.

What I'm not clear about is why someone who has not paid in very much at all can take more out - surely no-one is owed a meal ticket for life (or even more than a few months) on the work of others.

UC should be based on what you've put in against what you've taken out. Once you've taken out more than you've put in across all government services, you really can't expect much at all. However, I'd give more 'credit' to those who will likely pay more in the future again.

Kitty - all those things aren’t to blame for someone having a child before they have a job and can support themselves . If you don’t have a job and a stable relationship , why would you bring a child into the world to live in poverty . We do have choices .
Is it really the governments fault that feckless people have children who are
vulnerable because of their parents ?

@TrainspottingWelsh

Yanbu, we're putting one through uni and one lot of school fees to pay. Also have horses at home and due to location a 4wd is the only way to guarantee you can get anywhere year round. I absolutely agree these expenses should be included so I can give up work.

Joking aside, I do think the rent element should cover the full rent when the claimants are living in the cheapest suitable private rental available and on a waiting list for social housing. And I think there should be a travel element for those in areas that can't access reliable public transport.

It seems very unfair to me that two families could have the same income, but only one will have to top up their rent and/or keep a car running simply to keep their job.

Also only 5/10 for effort op, you forgot to mention she was also an Eastern European Muslim asylum seeker planning to claim disability benefits when she's made to job hunt. Take it you haven't been working for the daily mail very long?

If you bothered to read my posts you would see I have been on here for 18 years which mnhq can verify so go away with the Daily Mail rubbish. I asked a genuine question

If you don’t have a job and a stable relationship , why would you bring a child into the world to live in poverty . We do have choices .Is it really the governments fault that feckless people have children who are vulnerable because of their parents

Is it the child's fault?

Kitty - it is a benefits trap. Benefits harm the recipients in the long term. Perhaps if they were only awarded after having paid in for a given number of years and then only for a year , fewer would feel trapped .

It’s never the child’s fault . It’s the parents’ fault .