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?
Excellent point
Because frankly being poor or not isn't about morals or lack thereof but about the personal circumstances one finds themselves in, in the vast majority of cases through no fault of one's own. Also morality measurements/judgment seem to be applied FAR more to the poor - who are pretty powerless to change their circumstances - than to the rich - who often DO have the power to change not only their own circumstances but that of others
Would he not just be expected to pay CSM calculated maintenance?
Wow! Do you really thing that's ALL nrps should pay?
If his name is still on the mortgage it's still also an asset for him, childcare if he works too then why shouldn't he pay half/for when he's at work and therefore unable to have the dc? These are joint dc you don't leave/divorce your kids (although many nrps act like it!)
"Better off in work" means better off for your specific circumstances.
No in most cases it means more income WITHOUT accounting for increased outgoings
That's obviously not a like for like comparison!
Agree with that - a lot of that on this thread!
Don't forget to factor in the cost of getting to work.
Glad you mentioned this but it's just one potential cost of working
Sometimes you can be technically better off working more, but the difference is swallowed up by work related expenses.
That's a relief to see
Not to make it so that every single person in work has a better living standard than every single person on benefits.
But here I have to reluctantly agree with the "bashers"
It SHOULD be the case that working offers a better lifestyle than not working. Not because it's morally better but because that simply seems fair and right.
Where the "bashers" and I disagree is that the way to achieve this is NOT to penalise benefits claimants (who are often barely managing, didn't choose to be claimants, have zero power to change things for either themselves or the "bashers")
The correct and best way to achieve this is better wages, better working conditions, more flexible employment options, better childcare provision and better social care provision so that people with additional challenges to working but who could work can do so.
Two things I think would actually solve a LOT of problems (unemployment, economy issues, work/life balance for population, health of population) are -
1 To have the maximum working week be something like 30 hours. That way employees aren't getting frazzled and their health and relationships being affected, there'd be more jobs available as the work still needs to be done and so there'd be more people in work and earning, most working class and lower middle class people spend rather than hoard their money so there's the economy boost.
2 have an actual living wage, I reckon around £12 an hour. Again those on lower level wages tend to spend rather than save, economy would be stimulated, people would be less stressed which is healthier.
As they said we wernt entitled to anything which is fair enough.
Is it though?
Not everyone is in healthy and fair relationships financially. The one claim per couple nonsense really screws those in abusive relationships, in relationships with addicts or even "just" in relationships with someone who isn't good managing money. Also it's funny how the state treat you "as if you are married" only when it BENEFITS

them to do so!
although still my older children don’t get full entitlement to uni loans because of my partners income
See I think that is wrong. You and their father's income should be included and you both should be helping out your dc as much as you can, your partner shouldn't be held liable for the costs of the dc, same applies when they're younger too imo. BUT this would only work IF nrps were paying reasonable amounts of cm and this was enforced (and yes I see your partner also pays cm - even more reason why he shouldn't ALSO be held liable for your dc, their father should be covering half their costs)
Those that moan about how much you get on UC have never actually experienced it.
Very much my experience too, see my comments on those who due to the pandemic ARE now claimants
You are assumed to be fraudulent from the outset
Yes this really pisses me off! The vast majority of claimants are ordinary honest people just trying to get by
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.
But you likely haven't accounted for the costs of said child. If you don't have dc chances are you have no idea of all the costs and practicalities involved!