To think £800p/m is pretty generous?

[Cuppasoupmonster]

Off the back of the ‘trapped women’ thread, out of curiosity I used ‘Entitled To’ to find out what I could claim if I was a single mum of 2 primary aged kids with no savings and an ex who paid the minimum in maintenance. The hypothetical single mum earns 1,300 p/m and rents a property costing £900 p/m.

The calculator said the minimum she would be entitled to would be £800p/m, which in my view is about right. Yet I hear a lot that benefits are a pittance and had assumed that to be the case, but I was pleasantly surprised by the result.

Am I overlooking something? Not trying to be goady, I’m genuinely curious.

YABU = £800 isn’t enough in these circumstances
YANBU = £800 is about right or even generous

I have a 3 bedroom house and my mortgage is £440 per month. I rented a 2 bedroom flat for under £400 per month from a housing association previously. It was a new build.

I live in Scotland

Because a single person who isn’t disabled doesn’t have anywhere near the same expenditure as families &/or disabled people do. Why would they get anywhere near the same amount in benefits?

Well for the reasons given here? Hidden expenses, running a car, a new sofa etc?

Off the back of the ‘trapped women’ thread....

Presumably your point was to rubbish claims made by women who say they are trapped and can't afford to leave? It would have been less goady and more honest to research how much it costs to find somewhere new to live when you are a single parent with 2 kids. then how to sort out childcare and other expenses when you start a new job.

All of which apply to everyone. A family &/or disabled person would still require more in benefits than a single non-disabled person. Unless you are saying only single non disabled people have transport costs, hidden costs and furniture?

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying, obviously 🙄 and I was only reposting what has already been said - that every person claiming benefits should have enough for savings, tuition for their kids and treats. Which I think is completely unsustainable.

If I left DH and moved into my daughter's old flat I'd get £201.43 per week out of that is have £675 rent plus council plus £4 per month council tax then food bills, clothes power etc. So roughly £820 on average per month and £679 would go on putting a roof over my head. That flat wasn't the best in town, TBH it was grotty.

In order to pay £800 CM per month, the absent dad has to have a job paying substantially more than that.

If she's entitled to £800 per month she will have deductions first based on her monthly income.
So if the income is £1300, I think it's £350 (approx) they don't include then for every £1 over the £350 earned, UC deduct approx 50p.
So £1300 minus the £350 is £950, then deduct the 50p for every £1 earned which is £475. So the £800 entitlement minus the £475 leaves £325 which is what she would receive from UC.

£1300 income plus £325 UC would mean that monthly she would have £1625. After paying rent of £900 that only leaves £725 for everything else for the month.

So why did you reply “Hidden expenses, running a car, a new sofa etc?” to my question of why would a single person get anywhere near the same amount in benefits as a family &/or disabled person?

Because that’s what other people on this thread have said benefits should cover.

Again, why would benefits needing to cover those items mean a single person should get anywhere near the same amount as a family?

A single person has expenses of rent, food, utilities, transport, sofa..

Families have expenses of rent, food, utilities, transport, sofa.. except their rent, food, utilities, transport.., cost more as there’s more of them and on top of that they have other expenses associated with having DC e.g. clothes, school trips/contributions, childcare. Why wouldn’t the family get more in benefits than a single person? They have more expenses.

Disabled person has expenses of rent, food, utilities, transport, sofa.. except their rent, food, utilities, transport cost more because of their disability and on top of them they have other costs associated with their disability such as equipment. Why wouldn’t the disabled person get more in benefits than a non-disabled single person?

It’s definitely a contributory factor. While of,course there are some people who think that they are with a decent, serious dependable man yet who still end up alone there are also an awful lot of women who choose to have children with someone who’s clearly a terrible choice.

There’s nothing wrong with wishing that everyone, male and female would make better choices.

Yes, and why wouldn't you encourage this?

If I was a single adult I could rent a room for £400 pcm. This includes gas, electric, water, CT and WiFi. (Possibly TV licence I'm not sure) Her and her housemates split Netflix etc between them.

The room comes with a double bed, bedside table and chest of drawers plus built in wardrobe. Shared kitchen has everything it needs. (I know this as it's what my friend pays)
If the bed/ oven/ washing machine etc break her LL will replace it.

She has to feed and clothe 1 person.

As a single parent with 2 teens I need something bigger.

My rent is £800 pcm. Which is about £300 cheaper than anything on rightmove currently (I have a spectacularly kind LL)
That's only the rent though. I also have to pay gas, electric, water, CT (reduced rate but still have to pay some). WiFi is essential these days.
Other than the oven and fridge freezer my house was unfurnished so I have to supply, and therfore fix/replace, everything else.

I also have to feed and clothe 3 people.

Obviously I 'need' more income than her. (And yes having the DC was a choice, not being a single mum and having a mental breakdown leaving me too ill to work was not.) As the benefit system is based on need a single parent gets more than a single childless adult.

It's almost impossible to find a rental big enough for a family of 3 under £1200 a month where I live ( 2 bed). Universal Credit is capped at around £800 and the shortfall is met by the claimant which isn't so easy on minimum wage.
I always get a bit puzzled by these threads where it's claimed us working single parents are raking it in.

If you live in social housing this is doable, if you live in private rented accommodation you'd struggle massively on this as you'd need to top up your rent.

@Cuddlywuddlies yes and you've also left off Internet and heating and maintenance costs for running a home. Never mind all the extras like school trips/ uniforms/supplies/Christmas/birthdays etc I think part of the difficulty is people can manage day to day on benefits, but when it comes to larger expenses like oil for example, it's more cost efficient to buy in bulk but that's going to be really difficult when you're living hand to mouth and unable to save really. I do budgeting work with some single people on benefits and these days with the cost of living escalating never mind the huge top ups in rent needed- I'm struggling to get the math to balance. It's not easy for anyone on benefits.

Plus the majority of claimants are working at least some hours in the week. And there are plenty of others who aren't working for very good reasons or aren't able/allowed to work.

For those that say benefits are coming off people who are working and people claiming shouldn't be comfortable - I think what you mean to say is that people should be advocating for better wages and lower cost of living. I'm more than happy to pay taxes to know that I have the safety net of benefits should I ever need them even though I've been lucky enough to only ever have claimed for 2 weeks in my life so far. But I don't think we should be pitting low earners against people on benefits as if its comparable or as if one is taking something away from the other. We should be directing this at the government to fix the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, the sheer madness of childcare costs and be advocating for more appropriate pay in the first instance.

Try being a single parent then come talk to me..... this assumption single mum's are ''living it up'' on benefits or indeed single parents by choice is offensive.

Don't even get me started on nonsense like ''minimum child maintenance'' ...

people can manage day to day on benefits, but when it comes to larger expenses like oil for example, it's more cost efficient to buy in bulk but that's going to be really difficult when you're living hand to mouth and unable to save

But that’s the same for a lot of us that aren’t claiming UC and receive nothing.

David you seem an absolute prince of a man yourself, what do you contribute to society ?

It's low, but many working people are on low incomes too. It's a hard one.

My friend is a single mum, she lives at her parents' but doesn't declare this so she gets £900 a month and has said she'll be doing that until her child goes to school. Her belief is that the company she worked for went bust while she was about to go on mat leave so her job isn't there to go back to and she's too tired to look for anything else, and childcare costs would eat all her earnings anyway, "so what's the point?" The dad pays but it is very inconsistent.

There'll be many people "exploiting" the system, so to speak, because childcare costs are insane. My other friends, a married couple who are still together, pay over £700 in nursery fees - they each WFH one day a week too!

I don't know what the answer is, but it seems set up to make it difficult for parents to return to work, and if you're single, it's probably a lot easier to suffer on a slightly lower benefit pay out than work 40+ hours, struggle with childcare costs and then also trying to juggle the work/life balance. It's a really tough one.

Are you part time? I suppose some might be upset that you get benefits to subside being part time