Families on UC

[happypickle]

Off the back off another thread and doing a few searches of the benefits calculator, it seems the sweet spot for a lot of families will be to be renting, have a low/medium earning (typically) husband and an unemployed mother who stays at home. This seems to yield the highest return for UC, no childcare expenses and a happy mum who gets to stay at home and be there for her children.

It doesn't seem to be fair that UC system supports this whilst middle earners will be expected to both work full time in order to pay their mortgage and pay extortionate child care fees to probably be in a worse financial position than those on UC.

I know the theory is that long term, the working couple will be better off as they will have better pensions and career progression. But is that really the case?

So you chose to have children you couldn't afford without benefits and deliberately don't work more hours so you can claim?

Go for it then.

Do it.

Go on.

Then you can report to the job centre every week and prove to a patronising moron that you've done 30 hours job hunting. Then you can explain why you quit work to claim. Then you can live with the risk of sanctions and losing a percentage of your claim and not having enough to pay rent or food for 3 months.
And forget renting a new home - anyone on benefits will tell you that finding a rental is impossible.

Well, social housing then .. good luck. Waiting lists are often years for people without extenuating circumstances. You'll get a band 2/3 and you can bid on houses every month, but they're all given to band 1 who have priority and there's 500 band 1 people bidding on every house.

That's ok though, you already rent... Till your landlord sells up and all of a sudden you're homeless.. now you need a home like the other Band 1 people. So you can bid on band 1 too. Only there's still 500 band 1 people ahead of you, and more being added every day.

So now you've quit work for a life of luxury in benefits. Yay.
You've been patronised and sanctioned.
Unable to pay for rent and food.
Been made homeless and living in 1 room in a hostel.
You can't move out because no one will take benefit claimants as a tenant.
You can get a social home as there's hundreds more in need than you.

But... Hey... You're only £10 worse off than working..

🤪🤪🤪

Meanwhile everyone else who doesn't claim gets the full benefit of their extra earnings - minus tax which I also pay.

I don't know what the answer is because I understand that they can't just indefinitely pay benefits without reducing them in relation to earnings, but it does feel shite doing literally the same job as the person next to me, but only ever being 45% better off for the trouble.

I don't know what the earnings cut off would be for me to be able to stop claiming but as a lone parent it's not feasable for me to take on a second job without more or less abandoning my child every evening and having no time to do everything else that's involved with running a household.

Actually I work extra hours when my husband is off during the school holidays so some months I get less. Maybe blame the schools for paying your child's school TA a shit wage. I don't have any guilt though. Pretty sure I will working until I drop dead.

We also have no family nearby. The set up works for us.

The answer was a pretty good one- back in the day tax credits paid a bit all the way up to a deputy head kind of salary. It meant there was a really, really gradual taper and middle class professionals with kids also got a little extra support. We didn’t hear ‘benefit scroungers’ bandied around so much, especially not in relation to parents where at least one adult was working full time because so SO many more families were eligible.

I was worse off on tax credits as the housing benefit element was less generous. I got no housing help. I think it's very individual.

I’m interest if those who are so against UC claiming are also insisting that every person at their workplace and in their child’s school and in the hospital and at the supermarket is paid a real living wage? You do realise people on UC are almost all working, most of whom in jobs that don’t pay a real living wage. It really should be called an employer subsidy because that’s effectively what it is in the vast majority of cases.

Wowzers! You do realise that there are many single parents who were married/ in relationships at the time they decided to have kids and that maybe something happened that caused them to have to leave their relationship? Such as DV? Being cheated on? Maybe having kids took a toll on their relationship and ended up separating…. And now have to rely on UC to get by!

Also a lot of people may have had stable jobs when they decided to have kids but maybe got made redundant?? Lost their job? Had children with a disability/ asd?

What a ridiculous post

Plus zero hour contracts mean you aren't guaranteed a shift. At least UC can provide a safety net if you don't get shifts.

Another day, another thread about the wonderful existence of families on UC. Naturally, started by an OP who isn’t looking to trade her challenging middle earning position for benefits 🤦🏾‍♀️.

Have a word with our representatives who pay benefits to facilitate a low wage, high rent economy.

The majority of persons on benefits are not floating around with wads of cash, having found their ’sweet spot’. They are more likely to be found working minimum wage jobs, grinding or too damn stressed to even be on MN.

The people I spoke with at work yesterday were generally worried about landlords increasing rents by extortionate amounts, over and above LHA rates, so UC won’t even cover it- regardless of how plummy the figure looks on paper.

The solution to benefits is to cause great pain to many people from the wealthiest to the middle at.

Let's put it this way.

Nursery nurses who can't claim UC and can't live on minimum wage wil now need to be paid £30 an hour. Which means the parents using that child care will have to pay double.

Shop workers need at least £25 an hour - every product sold triples in price.

Care workers - Minimum wage topped up by UC. No more UC, they need a raise. Now your elderly mum's care home bill has jumped up by 233%

Nurses - if they can't claim UC they'll need a raise. Put 15% on tax to pay it.

Starbucks workers need a raise too. They were being paid £12 an hour and getting UC on top to help and that meant Starbucks could charge £3.50 a coffee. UC is gone, baristas now make £22ph and coffee is £18.50 a cup.

Petrol stations pay til staff and delivery drivers a little over minimum wage and they claim UC to cover the rest - NO Benefits - Petrol now costs 3 times as much to cover the wage increases.

The streets you live on that get rubbish collected? Well, those bin men and women can't claim UC anymore for their families so their wage needs to go up, which is paid from Council tax.. so now council tax is triple.

I think I'd love to see a world where every single benefit recipient in the UK reads some of the abhorrent opinions on MN and says,
"Fuck it"
And downs tools.

Nursery workers - on strike
Nurses - On Strike
Care home workers - Strike
Bin men and women - strike
Coffee shop workers - strike
Petrol stations - strike

And many more people I haven't mentioned.
Tube workers
Caretakers
Canteen staff
Hospital porters
Ambulance drivers
Toilet attendants
Greens keepers at local parks
And more and more and more.

If everyone that receives benefits suddenly just stopped...

Every benefit basher that doesn't know what they're talking about would be fucked.

Hell.. most of the benefit bashing imbeciles can't even grasp that without the nursery staff claiming UC there would be fewer nurseries to look after their kids whilst they go to work..

I'm going to add this.

In the UK there's a few million people that rely on benefits. Never forget that the entirety of society relies on the people on those benefits.

UC want you to work as many hours as possible so you don't get penalised for working more.

You are thinking of tax credits where you could only work 16 hrs. This is being phased out now.

👏👏👏👏

I don't know what the answer is because I understand that they can't just indefinitely pay benefits without reducing them in relation to earnings, but it does feel shite doing literally the same job as the person next to me, but only ever being 45% better off for the trouble.

Only if you don’t include the benefits you receive. The person working next to you who isn’t claiming UC is doing the same job for less overall income.

@TuesdayWhistler we’re paying for it anyway through increased tax and NI, I’m in Scotland where the tax burden is significantly higher on a relatively lower wage.

The economy is artificially depressed because the government subsidies employers who pay low wages - resulting in higher profits for companies who can then manage their tax affairs to pay the minimal.

Brilliant post. 100% this.

There seems to be some discrepancy here .Yesterday we heard from a lady whose income in UC equalled that of someone on 65k a year! Obviously no one wants disabled children to go hungry .However this seems an extraordinary amount,If all families were on this amount we would all be broke as a country.My friend has a disabled Son and works in Morrisons doing 2 night shifts! Surely there must be a way of contacting deadbeat dads as well.

Yes, because they probably have income from somewhere else - likely their partner who also financially and practically supports their household.

I can't generate the same income as two people who earn enough together not to claim, as much as I would like to.

Oh and there is no available before or after school childcare for my eldest in my area plus no family nearby. Consider that sort of possibility before judging next time.

This is the most bizarre thinking ever.

You don’t want Starbucks to pay their baristas because there’s going to push the price of coffee, but you happy for the taxpayer to pick up the bill for the top up of the wages?

I think the point this poster was making is that if you’re against UC being used to top up wages, then the only answer would be to increase wages which would probably mean everyone paying more. They aren’t advocating for that. They are pointing out if you are someone who uses any of these services that you are indirectly benefiting from UC even if you get none directly yourself.

And where does this poster think the money should come from?

Perfectly explained.

Thank you.

So I am, with my tax, subsidising Starbucks instead of Starbucks paying their workers and I’m also subsidising everyone who buys their coffee?