Am I worse off than someone on on UC??

[Underduvet33]

AIBU here to be annoyed? I recently heard someone say that they get £1300 in Universal credit per month and work 12hrs a week earning approx 300 pounds per month- plus they get all their childcare free as on UC plus require less childcare as only work 12 hours a week

That leaves them with 1600 to spend on rent etc (do they get help with this too??)

I don’t get any benefits I have 2 children in nursery full time- so I can work full time. Even with one of my children receiving 30 hours free - after childcare costs are deducted from my take home salary I’m left with 1100 a month to pay rent bills etc. i am in a good job with a good profession but it seems I’m worse off than someone on benefits?

Have I got this all wrong? If I quit my job worked and worked a small part time job claiming benefits of get more money per month in my pocket and spend more time with my kids?

I really think I must have misunderstood because I don’t get the impression that people on benefits are living the high life?

What have I misunderstood??? Were the numbers I told incorrect??

I work FT as a single parent and earn just enough that I don't receive any top up. I do sometimes envy a friend who works part time as a cleaner and gets legacy tax credits and gets to sunbathe and enjoy her garden in the summer.

But I would hate to be a cleaner. I love my job. I did claim benefits whilst my dc were young and didn't work, then I moved into part time work, then I worked part time and started a degree. Then I worked full time and completed my degree.

I have thought about going back down to part time and claiming UC for the next couple of years until my youngest is 18. But I really do enjoy my job and I've got career progression. I know if I stay FT I'll end up earning more plus my job is really flexible. If I want to start early and finish early I can. If I ever need to go to the dentist, drop dc forgotten sports kit off, go to the gym ect I can fit that around as long as I get my work done. I also like that I've got a decent pension going. I would say that I've got more in terms of money and less money stress then my cleaner friend but I only get about £400 more a month than what I did when working PT and getting tax credits. It's easily swallowed up by needing office clothes and to look more put together than when I had a rubbish kitchen job.

I suppose if you hate your job it's going to be a harder pill to swallow that you're working FT. My job makes me happy although I would love more time off in the summer - but then I do get 30 days off a year so it's not that bad!

Growing up we lived on an estate where many were on benefits and getting more money than my working parents… but after a few years
My parents jobs got better, we had more money and moved off the estate and bought a little house. Lots of the families stayed kn benefits which decreased as their kids got older.
Don’t envy people need benefits to survive or end up stuck in them long term.it’s a struggle.
Be thankful you can pay your own bills and that your kids will grow up expecting to
Work and Pay their own bills and have more opportunities because of that.

I hope you now go through cms to get that money for your children. What an arsehole your ex is.

Oh I most certainly do. Luckily for us he is religious and paying child maintenance gives him social credit within his congregation, so he now gets to pretend he's a good person, and I can pay for both childcare and the mortgage.

UC is a safety net, not a lifestyle ‘choice’ of any kind despite what some might say.

What if her rent was £900/month though? Doesn't seem that much after that. It's all relative. Also id assume she has 3 children and is on her own with that amount and the fact they are OK with her working only 12 hours would suggest there is at least one child under 5, once your children are all in school uc expect you to work 30 hours per week

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@Autumn42 - I don’t think it’s “unfair” to expect single parents to work at least part time. I managed to work full time as a single mum in a really busy job. It’s certainly possible and not that difficult in a less demanding part time role[/quote]
Yes I did myself and even full time for several years but I know there were periods of time when very difficult to work at all due to things the children going through etc so I don’t think it should be mandatory.
It paid off for me though as when my partner and I got together I lost all entitlements anyway, we were able to buy a house based on both our salaries, I have a pension pot plus earn more than I would of if hadn’t invested that time in my career. Yes it was a bit frustrating at the time of being a single parent that I wasn’t much better off working (actually would of been better off just working minimum hours in a local school hours minimum wage job without the extra commuting and childcare costs)
It does annoy me when I hear people on UC complain they ‘can’t’ earn more because of the tapers when what they actually mean is they won’t earn more. I was proud to be ‘earning’ as much as I could myself , although every time I did some overtime my housing benefit had to be reassessed and was usually messed up which made it a bit of an admin nightmare

@Butterbegood

UC is a safety net, not a lifestyle ‘choice’ of any kind despite what some might say.

What do people mean when they say this though? Many people working full time receive UC because they don't get paid enough. How many hours is acceptable to work for you to be "worthy" of getting UC?

@ByHook0rByCrook

I think my favourite bit of benefit bashing was when my dc's father informed me he would no longer pay the mortgage because he found out how much UC I was receiving- to help care for our disabled dc. I was working part time at the time, and it made me realise I needed to scramble to get the mortgage in my name to protect my dc from their feckless, selfish father and keep a roof over their heads, because he certainly didn't give a fuck.

Luckily I managed to find full-time work from home and have subsequently been able to sort out financial independence since then but fucking hell. The cold-heartedness displayed in threads like this is nothing compared to fathers like him.

Sorry if I’m misunderstanding your situation but why would he be paying the mortgage for a house he no longer lives in or childcare if your getting UC? Would he not just be expected to pay CSM calculated maintenance?

His name was on the mortgage as well, and up to that point he wasn't paying any child maintenance. He just stopped paying the mortgage and expected me to use UC to cover it - whilst his name was still on it. As far as I'm concerned it put his children's home at risk.

Yes, this is a worry for the future for me. I work 28 hours a week, I can't work any more than that as I have no more childcare available (my mum already dropped her working days to help me out with school runs and there's only spaces at wrap around club on one day a week which I use). So I'm only paying £50 a month into my pension right now! God knows if I'll ever be retiring. I have a mortgage fortunately so at least that's some security.

That excellent even a small amount with compound interest you would be suprised what you can build up. I’m 50 they are now talking about making my state pension from 67 to 68 if this is passed in Parliament. Lord knows when you would be eligible or even if there will be a state pension. Just keep up anything you can afford xx

@Smallkeys

Yes, this is a worry for the future for me. I work 28 hours a week, I can't work any more than that as I have no more childcare available (my mum already dropped her working days to help me out with school runs and there's only spaces at wrap around club on one day a week which I use). So I'm only paying £50 a month into my pension right now! God knows if I'll ever be retiring. I have a mortgage fortunately so at least that's some security.

That excellent even a small amount with compound interest you would be suprised what you can build up. I’m 50 they are now talking about making my state pension from 67 to 68 if this is passed in Parliament. Lord knows when you would be eligible or even if there will be a state pension. Just keep up anything you can afford xx

Thanks, DS is turning 9 this year so in 2 years time when he goes to secondary school I'll hopefully be able to increase my working hours as he'll be taking himself to and from school.

It's a worry regarding pensions! I'm 31, who knows what the situation will be when I'm at that age. Means tested most likely or no state pension at all.

I've working in welfare rights and also claimed benefits.

In general both legacy benefits and Universal Credit are structured so that you are always better off in work.

Low wages and part time work is "topped up" so that it's always better to be in some kind of employment rather than completely reliant on benefits.

In the past it used to be very common for single mothers to be forced to stay on Income Support for years at a time because childcare costs would swallow up their entire wages. Features like childcare elements, work allowances, tapers (where benefit income gradually reduces with income rather than abruptly ending) are intended to prevent this kind of "benefits trap".

"Better off in work" means better off for your specific circumstances. So its often possible to point to someone who seems to be doing "better" on benefits. But it usually turns out that they have different circumstances (higher rent, disabled child, etc).

I've even seen posters on here complain that someone is getting "more than my wages in benefits" and it turns out OP is married to a relatively high earner and is comparing herself to a single parent. That's obviously not a like for like comparison!

Having said all that.......

Any benefit system will have a somewhat arbitrary cut off point for entitlement. If you're just under or just over that point (which will be different depending on your circumstances) then you have some tough choices to make about whether you should work and if so, how many hours.

I'd always recommend people do a "better off calculation" before starting a new job. You can ask for this at a CAB or just mess about with Entitledto.

Try entering different figures for earnings, working hours and child care to see how it works out. Don't forget to factor in the cost of getting to work.

Sometimes you can be technically better off working more, but the difference is swallowed up by work related expenses. Or is simply too small of a difference to feel worth it to you.

I can certainly relate the the poster up thread who refered to a "sweet spot" of part time work topped up with benefits.

When I returned to work after mat leave my "sweet spot" was 25 hours per week. Once Tax Credits and childcare costs were factored into the equation the difference in income between 25 and 40 hours wasn't worth it to me.
Ironically I also cost the state much less at 25 hours as a large proportion of my Tax Credit entitlement was the Childcare Element.

Now DS has his autism diagnosis my sweet spot is 9 hours. This is enough to make my benefit income more livable but not not enough to upset my entitlement to Carers Allowance.

I'm now in the position where someone else could easily point to me and say "Dashoflime only works one shift and she gets more in benefits than I get in wages" and, depending on their circumstances, this might be true.

However, if I returned to my old job, DS would still have his DLA and I would still have my Disabled Child Element in my Tax Credits. So overall, I would be "better off" working more, as the system intends.

TLDR: The benefits system is set up to ensure that each individual is better off in work, taking into account their circumstances.
Not to make it so that every single person in work has a better living standard than every single person on benefits.

@Ponoka7

Also she isn't just 'on benefits', she is on top up benefits, why shouldn't she get enough to manage?

So people just ‘on benefits’ shouldn’t have enough money to manage?

I guess it varies.

When I was a lone parent, working 20 hours a week with tax credits / housing benefit around £700 pm plus wages I was comfortable. And enough to save for driving lessons take ds away etc
It change to UC and it went up by 240! To £940pcm

I met dh. When he moved in I notified them. He was in a crap job then rubbish wage. £1000 pcm, Plus my 20 hours. But we were so much worse off. Despite it being 1 household pot. As they said we wernt entitled to anything which is fair enough. So although the 'money' was the same figure so to speak. We then had 2 cars to run out of it. His Csa for dsc, 2x fuel costs etc. Pay all the rent etc. So basically his wage covered his stuff and the rent that I originally had help with. Leaving not much. Then my wage covered food.

No holidays etc.

And yes it's the right thing to do but now I know why so many don't report a dp moving in etc. If I had done it illegally I would have still got £940 UC and my wage and we would have had his wage too.

Thankfully now he's in a better paid job after training etc.

@dashoflime

I've working in welfare rights and also claimed benefits.

In general both legacy benefits and Universal Credit are structured so that you are always better off in work.

Low wages and part time work is "topped up" so that it's always better to be in some kind of employment rather than completely reliant on benefits.

In the past it used to be very common for single mothers to be forced to stay on Income Support for years at a time because childcare costs would swallow up their entire wages. Features like childcare elements, work allowances, tapers (where benefit income gradually reduces with income rather than abruptly ending) are intended to prevent this kind of "benefits trap".

"Better off in work" means better off for your specific circumstances. So its often possible to point to someone who seems to be doing "better" on benefits. But it usually turns out that they have different circumstances (higher rent, disabled child, etc).

I've even seen posters on here complain that someone is getting "more than my wages in benefits" and it turns out OP is married to a relatively high earner and is comparing herself to a single parent. That's obviously not a like for like comparison!

Having said all that.......

Any benefit system will have a somewhat arbitrary cut off point for entitlement. If you're just under or just over that point (which will be different depending on your circumstances) then you have some tough choices to make about whether you should work and if so, how many hours.

I'd always recommend people do a "better off calculation" before starting a new job. You can ask for this at a CAB or just mess about with Entitledto.

Try entering different figures for earnings, working hours and child care to see how it works out. Don't forget to factor in the cost of getting to work.

Sometimes you can be technically better off working more, but the difference is swallowed up by work related expenses. Or is simply too small of a difference to feel worth it to you.

I can certainly relate the the poster up thread who refered to a "sweet spot" of part time work topped up with benefits.

When I returned to work after mat leave my "sweet spot" was 25 hours per week. Once Tax Credits and childcare costs were factored into the equation the difference in income between 25 and 40 hours wasn't worth it to me.
Ironically I also cost the state much less at 25 hours as a large proportion of my Tax Credit entitlement was the Childcare Element.

Now DS has his autism diagnosis my sweet spot is 9 hours. This is enough to make my benefit income more livable but not not enough to upset my entitlement to Carers Allowance.

I'm now in the position where someone else could easily point to me and say "Dashoflime only works one shift and she gets more in benefits than I get in wages" and, depending on their circumstances, this might be true.

However, if I returned to my old job, DS would still have his DLA and I would still have my Disabled Child Element in my Tax Credits. So overall, I would be "better off" working more, as the system intends.

I’ve experienced the benefits system over many years and now am married and working and not entitled to anything and what your saying is totally spot on. Like you say it’s swings and round about’s and people often forget their important aspects of their circumstances when comparing themselves to others. I’ll often read posts saying how dare it be implied benefits are enough to live off when it turns out the poster has a mortgage, not seeming to realise benefits are not intended to cover the long term investment of a mortgage. Equally people not entitled to benefits but with the security and investment of mortgage and pension complaining that they’re not massively better off than someone on benefits

@OrganisedChaos22

I guess it varies.

When I was a lone parent, working 20 hours a week with tax credits / housing benefit around £700 pm plus wages I was comfortable. And enough to save for driving lessons take ds away etc
It change to UC and it went up by 240! To £940pcm

I met dh. When he moved in I notified them. He was in a crap job then rubbish wage. £1000 pcm, Plus my 20 hours. But we were so much worse off. Despite it being 1 household pot. As they said we wernt entitled to anything which is fair enough. So although the 'money' was the same figure so to speak. We then had 2 cars to run out of it. His Csa for dsc, 2x fuel costs etc. Pay all the rent etc. So basically his wage covered his stuff and the rent that I originally had help with. Leaving not much. Then my wage covered food.

No holidays etc.

And yes it's the right thing to do but now I know why so many don't report a dp moving in etc. If I had done it illegally I would have still got £940 UC and my wage and we would have had his wage too.

Thankfully now he's in a better paid job after training etc.

Yes exactly the same when moved in with my partner, much of his salary went in csa payments, running his car and the bigger house we needed for when his children came to stay extra food etc and yet I lost all my tax credits so went from being comfortable to it being a struggle to afford the basics. If I hadn’t got a half decently paid job then it wouldn’t have been possible at all for us to live together. Now my older children have grown up it’s not such an impact, although still my older children don’t get full entitlement to uni loans because of my partners income but neither can expect him to subsidise them either

@TibetanTerrah

There's no point attacking me *@Piggyk2* - I never said UC was the high life. OP asked about being better off and I gave my perspective. Working two jobs to have the same disposable income - i.e. very little - as if I had a child and worked part time.

As I said, it is what it is. There's no envy from me.

I'm not attacking you. Your ill informed. You have no actually real life experience of UC personally I gave you mine which is factual nit what you "think".

Those that moan about how much you get on UC have never actually experienced it.
It’s all based on an individual’s circumstances, an amount is deducted from your UC depending on how much you earn.
If you rent you can earn £335 before UC reduced more if you don’t have housing costs. Then 55p is taken from UC for each £1. You’re still paying tax and NI and paying into the system you are receiving help from.

£1500 a month might be great for some but for someone that has a car/financial payments/childcare it doesn’t stretch as far.

I’ve gone from benefits to full time work, with kids. I don’t know if I’m better off (was on sickness benefit) but I do not care. It’s so much less stressful to be able to pay the rent independently. To not be worried about that brown envelope. And then there’s contribution to a pension, career progression etc. Being on benefits isn’t the high life, it’s a safety net but a “hostile environment”. You are assumed to be fraudulent from the outset.

@Piggyk2 The same could be said for you. You have no idea how much I earn, how much my bills are, how many hours a week I have to work (hint: it's a lot) and how much money I have left after paying everything.

I'm not suggesting anyone on UC gets 'too much', and have never said that. But I have looked at it, and if I had a child I could work a lot less with basically the same amount of disposable income.

I would also point out before you start name calling yet again, that if I thought having a child and being on UC was that easy, I'd just go and get pregnant. It's not easy. But my life isn't either. It's not a race to the bottom, I simply answered the OP with the facts of my actual life, not what I 'think'.

[quote TibetanTerrah]@Piggyk2 The same could be said for you. You have no idea how much I earn, how much my bills are, how many hours a week I have to work (hint: it's a lot) and how much money I have left after paying everything.

I'm not suggesting anyone on UC gets 'too much', and have never said that. But I have looked at it, and if I had a child I could work a lot less with basically the same amount of disposable income.

I would also point out before you start name calling yet again, that if I thought having a child and being on UC was that easy, I'd just go and get pregnant. It's not easy. But my life isn't either. It's not a race to the bottom, I simply answered the OP with the facts of my actual life, not what I 'think'.[/quote]
You couldn't just leave it could you?

I have no idea how much you earn... you started comparing first. I replied and told you how it was which was factually not based upon your "thoughts".

I wasnt born a mother and I too have worked 60 hours each week even whilst pregs.

Have you actually read my posts? Have you? Because even the GOV will ONLY fund childcare to a certain point.... so once you have kids.... you can't just think I'll work 5 days sometimes it isn't possible money wise. On UC you pay all your UC UPFRONT it's a struggle juggling everything.

I have done both so I can give you a 2 sided view.

I never named called. You yourself said your opinion was unpopular... and continued to speak upon others situations.

Do t shoot the messenger. I'll let you have the last word!

If people are working 12 hrs a week why are they not working full time like the rest of us?

Are you really that lacking in imagination?

Lack of work (there really aren't as many jobs available as the right wing claim, plus as a single parent you have to find a job that works around childcare - that means you generally can't work before 9 or after 5, evenings, weekends, bank holidays etc)

Lack of childcare

Lack of decent public transport to where the jobs are

Jobs have ridiculously too high entry requirements

All sorts of reasons

In principle I could go out and have a one night stand, get pregnant and id be entitled to most of my rent covered for a much bigger flat.

But you'd also have higher costs with a child - you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" that aspect

Re "better off in work" calculations usually only look at the difference in income!

They don't account for commuting costs, childcare above what you might be able to claim for, clothes, shoes and equipment you may need to get, if there aren't decent storage options for lunch you're likely buying lunch at work, the loss of things like free prescriptions (not the case in Scotland thankfully)

It's not just about more income

@LizziesTwin the sil isn't "daft" she is trying to cope NOW it's incredibly hard and stressful being a single parent, sometimes you do make short term decisions that aren't ideal for the long term as that's what works for you right now!

Work always pays!

No it really doesn't!

It should - but it doesn't

And when I say should I mean wages should be actual LIVING wages not the crappy nmw we have now that even a single adult with no kids can't afford to live independently on!

And AGAIN it's not benefit claimants keeping wages low, it's those who are doing MUCH better and have the power to change things - CEO's, mps, high level civil servants etc

4 times bigger than where I live now.

Utter rubbish! There are limits on housing costs that are paid in benefits

The cold-heartedness displayed in threads like this is nothing compared to fathers like him.

Agreed and the ignorance

As I said, it is what it is. There's no envy from me.

Aye right!

No one knows if they may be in such a position in the future !

Absolutely! I always say on these threads life CAN turn on you

At 30 I was married, healthy, working in a good decent paid job, by 35 I was a divorced single mum with a disability

There were a couple of threads at start of lockdown posted by people suddenly out of work and not being paid - this was before furlough etc came in - complaining and claiming that THEY should be treated better than "other" benefits claimaints because they were claiming due to Covid which was beyond their control. As if other claimants had deliberately chosen their circumstances just for the hell of it! There was one in particular who very vocally complained about being expected to use her savings (in excess of £20k iirc) to live on because it was in her mind set aside for a house deposit and she should have been allowed to keep it aside for this AND claim benefits.

She rightly got her arse handed to her and then...quelle surprise she had the thread deleted!

A few were genuinely shocked at how low the amounts were and the rules on savings and were indignant until those of us well used to being on benefits pointed out we'd had to accept that for years, decades even in some cases.

They also sometimes got huffy if we pointed out (in the genuine spirit of helping!) where they could make cuts to their outgoings, how they could reduce costs via loyalty cards, cash back schemes etc

I remember one being very insulted that I had said she should be getting her dcs back to school stuff in the supermarket or somewhere like Wilkos rather than the extortionately expensive WH Smith's!

The entitlement of these posters was quite something to behold!

@Graphista

4 times bigger than where I live now.

Utter rubbish! There are limits on housing costs that are paid in benefits

The cold-heartedness displayed in threads like this is nothing compared to fathers like him.

Agreed and the ignorance

As I said, it is what it is. There's no envy from me.

Aye right!

No one knows if they may be in such a position in the future !

Absolutely! I always say on these threads life CAN turn on you

At 30 I was married, healthy, working in a good decent paid job, by 35 I was a divorced single mum with a disability

There were a couple of threads at start of lockdown posted by people suddenly out of work and not being paid - this was before furlough etc came in - complaining and claiming that THEY should be treated better than "other" benefits claimaints because they were claiming due to Covid which was beyond their control. As if other claimants had deliberately chosen their circumstances just for the hell of it! There was one in particular who very vocally complained about being expected to use her savings (in excess of £20k iirc) to live on because it was in her mind set aside for a house deposit and she should have been allowed to keep it aside for this AND claim benefits.

She rightly got her arse handed to her and then...quelle surprise she had the thread deleted!

A few were genuinely shocked at how low the amounts were and the rules on savings and were indignant until those of us well used to being on benefits pointed out we'd had to accept that for years, decades even in some cases.

They also sometimes got huffy if we pointed out (in the genuine spirit of helping!) where they could make cuts to their outgoings, how they could reduce costs via loyalty cards, cash back schemes etc

I remember one being very insulted that I had said she should be getting her dcs back to school stuff in the supermarket or somewhere like Wilkos rather than the extortionately expensive WH Smith's!

The entitlement of these posters was quite something to behold!

It did make for some rather brilliant entertainment.

The ignorance was astounding.