To ask your monthly household income, and how much you save, on average per month?

[NeverGuessWho]

I am BU to ask, I know.

I am a lone parent, earn a low wage, and am on UC, with three teenagers living at home.

My total household income is £2,740 per month (net).

Currently, saving is sporadic, but I need to change my mindset so that saving is prioritised and can be maximised.

I'm just looking for some inspiration and to gage an idea of what's do-able on my income.

Thanks.

She is still a low earner if her wages are low. The total amount she stated included benefits. She didn't mean her entire income was low, she meant her salary.

So you must have a minimum of 6 grand in savings then. So you're not struggling like you make out.

I didn't say I was struggling, I simply stated my income and that I don't have much left after all my outgoings. I am very very happy with my life a d as long as I can keep a roof over my head and provide food and pay the bills, that's fine with me. However, as said, my savings are earmarked and I can't afford Amy extra luxuries but I don't really need them a yway, so I'm not complaining!! Why does everyone on here think you have to justify every comment you make? Also, when I first read OP's post, I hadn't realised that included UC but I don't see the relevance of that anyway! Since my divorce, my level of income & lifestyle has dropped massively but I'm so much better off in more ways than you can imagine.

exactly. 2700 is not low income..

Whether they're earmarked or not, you have savings. It's a bit of a misdirection to say you only have £80 left every month if you have thousands sitting in the bank.

Oh ffs, does no-one actually read posts? This is why I hate MN - everyone is,always trying to be top dog & 'catch' people out. As I said previously, my savings are earmarked for replacing my heating system and will wipe most of them out.

That’s not a low figure, but between 4 people that’s not a lot is it? How much is rent , kids, utilities etc? Probably nearly all of that. I bet everyone saying that’s loads of money are single and only need a small property. If a significant amount of the income is UC and housing costs, I expect OP will downsize when the kids have flown the nest and with 3 less people to run around after and care for she’ll be able to work a few more hours too. It’s all relative. To answer the original question though, we have a total income of around 3200. But we have higher living costs due to DC having needs and we like our food and need a decent car on the road so we save exactly fuck all each month. We do have access to instant, interest free loans from wealthy family which we have a flawless track record of paying back on time, so we’re privileged in that a crisis fund isn’t needed.
We’re kinda in that ‘fighting for our lives’ stage of parenting and keen to give DC lots of nice experiences and stuff so we do live slightly above our means sometimes and I’m sure when life’s a bit more manageable we will be a bit more frugal and build up some savings.
it’s almost impossible to judge someone’s finances from a single set of numbers as everyone has different experiences/ priorities.

I did read the post, you were insinuating that you were worse off than OP and she should think herself lucky when actually you have thousands in the bank.

2,700 isn't really a high income like some have suggested, when you have rent, bills and 3 teens. My income is the same as the OP , made up of a widows pension, UC, Scottish child payment and child benefit. I have 5 children under 18 at home and one of my adult children. Yes I own my own house outright but I'm definitely not rolling in it and don't usually have enough to save though I need to start.

It’s semantics. It always happens on benefits threads. It is often an awkward realisation, that if you have children and are ‘topped up’ it’s to way and beyond the average salary before tax. It’s often not spoken about because it is the elephant in the room. You can be taking home as much with top ups as someone on a high salary.

It was this year the ONS released statistics which found that 55% of households take out more than they put in. The net dependency ratio is the highest on record. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking knows it’s unsustainable - hence the panic and defence.

You don't have much left but manage to have over 16k in savings ?

The issue is that £2700 may not be high if you have 3 teens at home, but that also applies to anyone who actually earns this amount, or less, without being topped up to it. Up until recently I earned less, as a single mother, too, but because my net income was still above the threshold I wouldn't have been able to claim anything other than child benefit. I now earn the same as what you get a month, but I work 60-80 hours every week to keep up with the workload.

So there will be a whole bunch of people in full-time work, earning less, not entitled to the same amount of money.... and that seems somewhat wrong. Because once you're above the threshold it doesn't matter what your circumstances are, how many children you have, whether you own or rent, whether one of your children has a disability.

And then resentment builds, because what is the point in working in a job, often promoted into it with a significantly higher workload, full time, if people can work part-time or in NMW jobs and they end up on a higher income?

The whole system seems somewhat screwed up.

And, OP, quite honestly, to then bring in the question of savings seems a tad ignorant when we are in a situation where many people on less than you can barely afford to live, let alone save significant amounts.

I don't blame you for the state of things in this country, of course, but many people on an average wage would look at your single income and be green with envy.

About £6k I think (combined) and we save nothing. We’re repaying huge debts and paying a nursery bill that is more than the mortgage.

from next month we’ll have no nursery fees - woohoo!

we will save but we have a doer-upper that needs extensive work so most spare income will be spent on that.

I assume you haven't been in the position too long. You know that after 5 years you will be an M6 and getting £2.5k per month so maybe don't quit just yet.
Not quite sure what about the OP made you think working as a teacher isn't worth it

This is so true. Top up benefits are meant to be to enable people to survive, I'm surprised they pay enough to save as well. Then people can claim child maintenance on top and it not even affect these benefits at all. I understand the reasons why it doesn't but actually their income can be significantly higher. the whole system needs a shake up. However as I have said before op is only getting this much UC because she has 3 teenagers so gets 3 x child element. The 2 child cap was brought in around 2017 and anyone having a third child after this would not get paid for 3 children and may get significantly less as a first child born after april 2017 would get lower child rate. So someone in op's situation gets £853 UC child element on their claim, someone with 3 kids born after April 2017 would get £538 so almost £300 difference ( before deductions for earnings). Op is probably one of a smallish group of UC claimants who get this much , it is not as generous for people starting to have kids now !

Around £6.5k combined, but we do have two reasonably big mortgages to pay. We do save but for specific things usually i.e. £300 in the kids ISA's, £350 for holidays, plus money for Christmas and cars etc. In the general savings pot I put around £200pm depending on what else we have going out that month

I can see why. Probably about £60k of student debt. Teachers have an incredibly stressful job, probably average about 60 hours a week…to take home less than the op who isn’t working full time. What actually is the point? They have a a fair grievance.

Probably will clear about £2350 after deductions on the new M6.

£60k student debt is a bit steep - the average is £45k. But regardless it's surely about the long game. OP has three teens, her income will go down significantly in the next 5 years. The teacher on the other hand will have a career for life and has room for progression if they want to so will almost certainly surpass the OP with time. £38k is a good salary even after student loan deductions and that's if they decide to stay as a teacher without trying for upper grades or SLT. Yes their jobs are stressful and they work additional hours, but they are one of the only careers where you can work 32.5 hours per week basic for only 40 weeks of the year. It works out at almost £30ph which to me is very good. Most careers will require 40 hour working weeks for 48 weeks per year and not get paid overtime either. Not dissing teachers in the slightest, but equally don't think they are on a raw deal. The system of UC is obviously a controversial one, but most people on it are working.

Edited to add - I have several teacher friends. None are working 60 hours a week

Most teachers have to do four years so their debt is higher than average. It’s not about the long game when you can’t afford to live in the here and now. I don’t dispute that a lot of adults now are going to struggle when their children are of age. The ignorance about teachers and their working hours is now clear. You just wanted to have a pop at the poster because they have all the holidays. Wasted even discussing it further with you. It’s a very clear teacher pop. I’m not teacher basher but…then proceeds to spout ignorant and uneducated nonsense. I can’t hate teachers…I have teacher friends. It’s all very…I’m not racist but..

You should never have a situation where people are topped up to over and beyond the average salary. It disenfranchises people, breeds resentment and changes economic behaviour. State dependency is now the highest it’s ever been and there are not enough people paying enough to sustain it all. No denying, something will have to change soon. You can’t have a situation where people on top ups are better than those earning a full salary. You can’t have half the population taking out more than they put in. It’s just reality.

Try saving £2 coins and 50p coins. I'm on a pension and I do this. Every few weeks I pay it into a savings account and it's amazing how quickly it grows. I also have standing orders for savings which go in on pension days.

It really wasn't a teacher pop - I love my teacher friends and I said they work really really hard. I value all teachers and believe they are worth every penny, and they absolutely do work extra hours. But no, they don't work nearly double their paid working week, that is not their reality at all. Maybe my friends are not the norm 🤷‍♀️
UC is obviously a sore spot for some. But what is the answer? You reduce income for the OP and there are plenty of other people on UC who will also have their income reduced too who won't be able to afford to eat. The system is messed up somewhere but for the teacher to suggest she give up ft work is short sighted and short term and not actually any sort of solution for the system problems. She asked 'what is the point' and I pointed out that overall she will fare much better

But what you need to realise is that UC doesn't last forever. Long term OP is in a far worse position than you are.

Why do you expect to save, OP? You are being funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayer should be able to save their own money before they hand it out to others to save.

OP is a taxpayer. She works.

A lot of the time people can save not because they have more money than others or because their essential costs are lower but because they manage their money better and spend less of it on discretionary items.

Also the government encourages people on UC to save and budget for ups and downs in cash flow by offering the Help to Save account.