Fed up of my cousins comments about benefits and UC

[glassor2]

I’m a single mum of two kids, ages 13 and 5. My older son has a relationship with his dad, but my younger son’s dad moved away a couple of years ago and doesn’t see him often-usually once or twice a year. He doesn’t provide any financial support, and since he moves around for work (he used to live in Canada and now lives in Australia), it has been challenging to get child maintenance to chase him.

I work 3-4 days a week (sometimes more if there’s overtime available) and receive a top up from UC. My mum occasionally helps with child care, but she also has a full time job. It can be difficult handling everything on my own, but I manage.

Anyway, I have a family member I'm quite close to, and she often makes comments, not aimed at me, but towards people who claim UC. For example, she mentioned that it's unfair for her to pay almost £300 a month in tax while others can work part time and avoid paying anything (I don’t earn enough to pay tax) and that she has to pay more to subsidise the people that don't. She even told the entire family that she pays almost £400 a month, including national insurance, which made things awkward and nobody knew what to say.

From what I know, she doesn't earn a huge wage, so I can see why it would be frustrating for her to have to pay that much. It's a lot of money. However, it's not our fault, and if she's upset, her anger should be directed at the government, not at those who are rightfully claiming.

Everyone’s situation is different, and some people need help. I never chose to be a single parent, and I can't control the fact that my ex chose to leave and decided not to support his child financially. I'm doing my best, just like many others on UC are.

I don't think she's intentionally trying to upset me, but she is.

AIBU? How do I tackle this?

But you are comparing someone on a specific salary with someone on UC that has very specific circumstances.

Everyone on UC is different. I am on UC and do not get the housing element. That is what makes up a huge amount for some people.

So -£600 from my figures? In that case you’d be £500 a month better off earning £101k. Do you think that’s a sustainable situation?

It's still money from the government pot though isn't it?

Ok so I’m out by say £600. Still you’d expect to be more than £500 a month better off earning £101k though wouldn’t you?

Fathers should not expect others to substitise their choices to have kids and not pay for them, I agree. The govt should make sure they pay

the national insurance she pays is not a contribution towards her pension. It’s tax, it just has a different name. It’s not hypothecated and it’s not ‘hers’ it’s used for general government spending just like all the other tax we pay.

Social housing is not automatically allocated just because someone is on Universal Credit, and it's not restricted to people on Universal Credit. It's also not free, you still pay rent on it. Some people on UC are in social housing, some are in private sector. All of them will have to pay rent. Their UC payment might include a housing element, which would be included in that £1500 example you quoted, and this might not cover their full rent as there are caps on how much it can be. They wills need to pay their rent from the £1500 so if their rent is, for example, £700 then they'd only have £800 left to live on. There is no such thing as free housing.

If you don't know how benefits work, why post so confidently that they'd received £1500 and get to keep 100% of it when it's patently untrue?

@ThatBoldBear you said a family income of £101k with ONE parent working and then said they'd have to pay nursery fees.
Why?
You don't need childcare nursery if there's a parent at home.
It would be their choice to pay nursery fees. They don't need to.

But I am in total agreement that it’s despicable that someone can work full time and that’s not enough money for them to live on, I don’t think that’s in dispute. We absolutely do need more affordable housing, transport, childcare, etc.

People opting to work part time but expecting a full time salary without doing the full time work is madness. There are thousands and thousands of working parents who would love to work part time to be able to spend more time at home, but it’s not financially viable, so they don’t. I don’t think that’s a controversial viewpoint.

Absolutely. I work with the most amazing,hardworking,compassionate people you could ever meet. Some of my colleagues are claiming UC to compensate their shitty low pay .

Ok so under your example you’d be better off by £600 a month if you earned £101k rather than on UC.

OK, I am going to give myself as an example.

I am on UC. I get a bit over £800pm. I don't get money for rent. That £800 is all I get.

I am on half of what someone on NMW takes home.... I still have to pay some council tax, and I have to pay all my bills.

How do I have more disposable income than someone on £101k? Because that makes NO sense.

I know a number of single mums on £100k+. They’re paying £2k+ for childcare for ONE child.

Don’t know, pick a reason.

Well for a start 93 is just their basic salary doesn’t cover expenses and as you say most earn elsewhere. Minimum wage is what 25000ish they pay 20% 5000 leaving 20000. Someone earning 125k may well pay 40% at 50000 but it does leave 75000 to spend in comparison it’s ten times more paid nearly 4 times more left isn’t it?

You are correct. But her level of contributions affect her eligibility for benefits like State Pension.. so she gets something back from it eventually.

That's different. I refering to BoldBears example of a two parent household with one parent working.

I did break it down already, my thumb is getting a bit tired now.

What's the reason?
Nursery before the age of 3 is childcare.
You only need childcare if you aren't at home with your child.
If you aren't at work..... you're at home.
Nursery before 3 is a choice if it's not needed for childcare.

Those jobs need to pay a living wage, not be topped up by the public purse. Yes, public sector employees are paid out of taxes, so it is semantics there, but anyone employed in the private sector should be paid a high enough hourly rate to not need benefits. But employers know they don't need to do this while the public purse is supporting them to keep their wages low.

£800 is all you get??? That's quite a lot of money for doing nothing.

Honestly I wouldn't bother having the argument with her personally, because I find people who make that kind of comment are rarely capable of thinking critically about what it means to live in a society. Same with a lot of people on this thread.

In purely transactional terms the care work you do for your kids is a net benefit to society (in terms of raising future contributors) - it's just made invisible because we don't value care work as we should. So you're doing two jobs really. That could be something you point out. Another is that if she'd prefer to work part time, she can choose that - she may find it's not as lucrative as she'd imagined. The BMW showrooms and posh restaurants of this world are not filled with single parents spending their Universal Credit money.

A man can get out of paying for his own child by deciding not to. Yet complete strangers (ie the tax payers) need to suck it up and pay more.

Fathers should not expect others to substitise their choices to have kids and not pay for them, I agree. The govt should make sure they pay

This ^ I appreciate it isn't always the father but it usually is... These feckless parents are making our society turn on each other.

How do you know she does "nothing".
You have no idea about her life.
Very rude thing to say.

Could you live on £800pm?