Do you agree with these benefits?

[Sophieleigh26]

Do you think the amount people get in benefits (before deductions like earnings) is the right amount, or it should be more / less?

MONTHLY AMOUNT
Single & under 25 £265.31
Single & over 25 £334.91
Couple both under 25 £416.45
Couple over 25 £525.72

£244.58 extra allowance for children (up to 2 children)

A single parent not working (24) with one child (1) would receive £509.89 a month, before deductions (loans, debt etc)

obviously these are just summaries and there are different rules if you have children born before 2017, for example, or disabilities, childcare costs.

YABU - It seems ok / right
YANBU - It should be more / less

so they must have had a good private income then because no way could they live just on DLA for there cost's and save /pay a mortgage/council tax

apologies if they are no longer here

My dad is no longer with us. But they didn’t have a good private income. My mum worked in a factory and my dad worked maintaining local parks (cutting the grass). I can assure you that the savings they have is saved from their income over the last 30yrs since they stopped working which has been state benefits and small pensions (my dad retired under ill health grounds so assume got his pension earlier but my mums only had her pension 4yrs and it’s not much. Even now with a state pension and small work one and half of my dads work one she’s able to save. They aren’t people who spend a fortune every month so they were always able to save some, invest in fixed bonds etc. They certainly weren’t struggling.

How can they live on such paltry amounts? It should be more.

Mortgage was very low and paid off 15-20yrs ago

What are broadband social tariffs please

but if your mum has 60k and was saved up over the years she cannot of been on means tested for years as over 16k you are not entitled to any means tested so have no idea how they managed, but as you said she was very frugal and yes once the mortgage is paid can make a big differrence

@pointythings not a race to the bottom but a check that working pays. Yes both should be higher. But a fair comparison needs to be done by looking at what benefits would be if they were a salary subject to tax and NI.

Some suppliers offer a cheaper monthly rate if youre on UC or other benefits.

www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/social-tariffs

Same with some mobile phone contracts/prepay, like Voxi

My total is about 570 for me and my daughter.

These are our essential monthly bills-

Water -£30 which is a reduced rate and I am not able to have a meter fitted. Can't get it lowered and in my last place I had meters and used a lot less. I never qualified for a benefits discount there as I didn't use enough.

Gas- £40 a month (might go up, no idea, until winter hits I've barely had the heating on but our clothes smell from where they take so long to dry).

Electricity- £60 a month

Council tax- £12 a month

Bus fares- £18 a week, approx 72 a month. Although if I want to go out of the town and drop my dd to my mum's for a break or visit relatives it's an extra £8 per day. There's a lot of groups and family resources in the next town over which also need a seperate £8 bus ticket for. Despite only being a 20 min journey. Can fly with easyJet for the same price sometimes.

Phone- £12 a month

Debts- £20 a month

Everything else goes on food, internet, toddler groups, toys, felt tips, delivery charges for food delivery.

I guess child benefit covers her clothes and we get a lot on marketplace or in Primark.

It's not a bad life, but I'm aware that some people have rent costs to pay out of that. The thing that frustrates me the most is not having room to grow my situation and flexibility as we have to decide if we can afford to leave the house every day. Nothing within walking distance for kids.
Barely any childcare places where I live, so a waiting list means I can't improve my life until my daughter is at school. You can't go to a job interview and say "would you mind holding the job for me for a few months whilst I wait for extra hours at nursery to become available". I would have enjoyed the toddler years a lot more if I'd been able to have decent childcare availability, gotten a job and been able to afford a car and nice days out without worrying.

I also don't think the single people with no kids rate is high enough though as they have the same bills which I do. My only extra costs that they don't have are slightly more food and toddler groups.

Exactly. Sadly , if I am working full time and I am not better off than someone working the minimum hours a week they can to keep so many benefits then what's the point of training and working hard? . Benefits should be for people that can't work due to illness. For those who can work benefits should be temporary. There is no reason why someone that's able to work should choose not to work (or to only work a minimum amount of hours) and support themselves and their families with benefits for years on end. The only way to ensure that, is making sure benefits are not for life. It baffles me the amount of people that are on benefits their whole lives, is just unsustainable.

Try having to live on benefits, they could double & still not be enough. When I first started on benefits I had £35 a week after all my bills were paid to feed & clothe me & ds. As well as utilities you have a portion of council tax to pay, there isn't much if anything left at the end of the week.

The amount is far too low. How do people live on that?

They don't. It always makes me baffled when people go on about xyz neighbour or relative who could work but chooses not to, and has been on benefits for years.
No one chooses to live off £70 odd a week. If they are doing so and managing then they must be working on the side, but that is a whole separate issue.
Under UC, you can't choose not to work. You have to prove you are looking and get sanctioned if you can't.

Criminally low.

Is this not just meant to tide them over until they get a job though?

I thought this too. Its very different working out what's needed to cover a few weeks between jobs and trying to support a non working family for years.

Its low but if it is supposed to tide you over it’s ok. Its designed to be much better if you’re a working parent. Even if you’re getting help with your rent you can earn nearly £350 a month before it reduces your entitlement. To me that’s your food bill for the month and clothes too if you’re reasonably tight.

This grey area where you are considered too sick too look for work but not sick enough to get extra help is ridiculous.

Dsd gets over £1000 a month plus rent is paid directly, yes this includes pip but seems a lot more than you are saying here, (sn adult)

It was your choice to have a child so young OP. Most people wait until they're much older are settled and have saved a bit.
Expecting us all to fund your choice of lifestyle is very entitled.

I think the amounts are a little low for under 25s and about right for everyone else. If you have them much higher, people don't work (as happened several years ago). Benefits are meant to be short term measures in place until people get a job and support themselves, so pay for basic food and housing costs.

PIP and DLA are not means tested.
Let's assume PP's Dad was on enhanced rater for both components, he'd be getting £156.90 a week and if Mum's on standard rate for both that's another £86.30 a week.
With no housing costs that's far in excess of what a couple would get on universal credit (about £121 a week) so, yes, with good money management it would definitely work although with not a lot for any of the increased costs of disability which the disability benefits are intended for.

Are you a Tory voter by any chance?
It's much more convenient to blame people for their circumstances than tackle societal inequalities etc and make life better for everyone (yes including innocent babies who need feeding!).

It is easier to bark 'get another job, you should have tried harder, it is a lifestyle choice' etc etc. But where do you draw the line? The financial system is not fair to start with as there is huge inequality yet people have been conditioned not to object to the obscenely rich or handouts to MPs etc (wallpaper anyone?).

People see a 40 hour week as the norm but this was once 6 or 7 days. From a biological point of view, people have had babies before money even existed, it is hardly a lifestyle choice for most people. In some European counties with higher taxes and higher benefits, everyone gains and the media don't scapegoat the poor like here. Because everyone gains there is less resentment and pensions and public health services are better.

You really do get the government you deserve.

But they dont cover basic food and housing costs.

Its less than £350 per month. The bulk of that is gas and electricity now. What are people meant to eat? Nevermind petrol etc..

@Wiluli as soon as you work full time even if on minimum wage you won't qualify for most of these. So i would daybits mainly for people that dont work or work a minimum amount of hours.

I'm a single mum and student over 25 and get £1040 universal credit per month which I top up with my wage. So get around 1500 in total per month whilst studying. Doesn't leave me with much but can still afford my rent/bills including wifi, phone and car and insurance/food etc each month, however I rarely have anything left over. It does for now and I'm grateful for the help whilst I train to do a professional job.

The amount is about right. People should always prefer to be working than be on benefits. And there is really no excuse for any able-bodied person not to be working at present.