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

People always compare people on benefits to working people and say its unfair because they're looking at the fact that person A on benefits gets x amount of money whereas Person B earning y amount of money doesn't.

It's a false economy to look at it that way. The point of developed societies is that we shouldn't be letting people have not enough to live. Yes that means that people who earn little or nothing will get money so they can live. They also lose out on so many things that working brings and will have no prospects if they live a life on benefits. Or, like millions, they're already working but still entitled to top ups because of the high cost of living, and are receiving the majority of their entitlement through the child/childcare or rental element, which is often temporary.

It's just stupid short sighted jealous psychology. If you think it's so wonderful and easy being on benefits and are jealous of single mums getting £800 per month to pay rent and help bring up 2 kids, then give up your job and go and join them!

OP do you get tax-free childcare?

www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare

Benefits stop when children leave education. Children grow up fast. Before your hypothetical single parent knows it, s/he will have no benefit entitlement (unless disabled) and no owner-occupier asset. And probably not much of a pension on that income either.

You, on the other hand, will have an asset that has appreciated in value, and two pensions (yours and DH's). The state will never have poked its nose into your finances, bank accounts, working hours or medical records. You will have freedom and choices and opportunities. In short, you will be far better off.

You've already shown your true colours referring to women as wastes of space so I don't think your opinion holds much value.

Except those not eligible for UC have more income than those in receipt of UC when you take into account individual circumstances otherwise they would be entitled to UC themselves. For example, a family with 2 DC not in receipt of UC will have more income than a family with 2 DC in receipt of UC otherwise the first family would be entitled to UC themselves.

You keep saying that you get nothing but you have been told you would get child benefit. You're being disingenuous and I think you're just trying to stir the pot. This thread is disgusting

But we cannot make benefits equal to work. If we do this, there will be no incentive to work. If quitting work meant your rent/mortgage was paid, you had money for holidays and savings, what fucker would work? I wouldn’t. It needs to be enough that the person/family can be adequately housed and have money to live day to day, but why should people who work FT (for example) be subsidising the savings of somebody who works PT because they’ve chosen to have children?

But we cannot make benefits equal to work. If we do this, there will be no incentive to work.

Benefits aren’t equal to working. Which is why, as per my workings which you ignored, you have a total income of £4045 whereas your hypothetical person has £2698.69. People are always better off working as they keep 45p in the pound they earn and anyone with children or LCW gets a work allowance.

If quitting work meant your rent/mortgage was paid, you had money for holidays and savings, what fucker would work? I wouldn’t.

Why don’t you quit then, claim UC and see how you manage.

why should people who work FT (for example) be subsidising the savings of somebody who works PT because they’ve chosen to have children?

They aren’t.

@Thatsnotmycar i didn’t say they are. But there’s lots of posters here who want them to be - they seem to think you are entitled to have not just basic expenses covered, but holidays, tuition for your kids(?!), savings etc…

Well given that after a month unemployed I’m getting a whopping £33 from JSA tomorrow and the expectation is my husband will keep me I frankly couldn’t give a shiny shit if some folk are ‘raking it in’ 🙄 with benefits. I’d rather the tax and NI I’ve paid for the last 25 years supported families than funded covid fuck ups and bank bail outs.

@Travis1 shouldnt your husband be supporting you if he is able to though?

This

It's a fact of life that if you are poor, unexpected events will tend to mean a bill to be paid or something broken down needing replacement.

If you are rich, an unexpected event is more likely to mean you get money, an inheritance, higher than expected dividends or other windfall.

Sad but true.

Almost anyone could survive on benefits, it's the unexpected bills which then tend to tip people into the horrors of debt.

Why should he? I mean it’s by the by because we treat everything as joint but why is it acceptable that the expectation is he’ll pay for everything when our household income has more than halved? What if he was financially abusive? What if he had walked out when I lost my job?

by your logic why are we both then paying tax and NI if neither of us can claim because the other should subside us?

And @Cuppasoupmonster you have spectacularly missed my point but given your obtuse responses on this thread that really does not surprise me

We receive £1000 in income (private pension) and get £20 a week on UC even though we're both unable to work and have ESA status. I don't get it at all.

Because he’s your husband and when you married you agreed what’s his is yours and vice versa and he has a greater duty to you than other taxpayers? There can be millions of ‘what ifs’ in life but the state can’t be there to pick up after every unlikely or unpredictable scenario. If he walked out you would be single and able to claim as a single person. People marry for, amongst other reasons, the financial consolidation. Part of that is financially supporting each other when necessary.

Because a private pension is deducted pound for pound from your Uc award. that is why you get so little as you ahve that income coming in.

Do you rent or have a mortgage?

Yeah but we're married with 2 kids and a mortgage. I know they won't pay the mortgage but esa is nil because of this pension too. So we're expected to live off £1080 a month.

If you were both entitled to contributions based ESA, one of you getting a private pension would not affect the others ESA ?

Mortgage but the Ill health is recent and was not expected. Mine was but that was fine as we had his work income, his wasn't and now he can't work.

Do both or either of you get a disability benefit? if so the other can claim carers element.

‘Unlikely or unpredictable scenario’? Really? You think it’s ‘unlikely’ someone would have a financially abusive partner? You really are just acting like a twat now and it’s clear your only objective from this thread was to encourage and engage in benefit bashing

I thought that too. His ESA claim is recent but my award was given months ago.

We've just put in for carers allowance so will see what happens there.

Only good thing is the free school entitlement so I can cut shopping bill down a bit.

Personally I think it’s survivable , but it will be a life of having to struggle . £1200 for transport , let’s imagine car insurance and fuel even if only £250 plus £300 energy bills , £50 for phone and internet , £500 for food . It’s doable but a very limited life