That a single parent having her salary topped up to over £6k shows how unaffordable family life now is

[Tryingtryingandtrying]

I was reading about a woman, take home pay if £2800 and topped up by UC to over 6k. This must be £100k or thereabouts equivalent before tax. How can this be fair when earning that much actually loses you child benefit and free childcare? As she has 3 kids she will now be even more better off, not sure what the answer is though.

Absolute nonsense.

Anyone who believes it is a moron.

Are you suggesting that multiple media outlets have printed this same story, over a number of years with no due diligence?

I dunno I'm just posing the question. I guess she wouldn't be able to work full time or at all? She would have to move, maybe. I think it's all a bit of a mess tbh. Childcare and rent have become insanely expensive. If they weren't so expensive, the benefit bill would be much less.

If the other parent paid for his children and they lived somewhere which wasn’t the most expensive city in the U.K. she could still work - the difference would be that this family would have to pay far more of their own money to fund their own children and life, rather than expecting other people to fund it.

She‘s got one hell of a sense of entitlement and no respect for her children’s right to a private life. I wonder if in a year’s time she’ll pop up again with 4 kids and her overdone narrative

They don’t. The same way on my £100k salary I don’t live in London and have three kids - because I can’t afford to…

It’s like saying, how does someone on minimum wage afford a private jet. Some people can’t afford some things and should make life decisions accordingly.

The government won’t help me with childcare costs at all so I can’t have three children. Why is that fair, when she gets help to go to work to earn £24k and pay much less tax than I do. There’s a fiscally better argument that she should be encouraged to stay at home and not have childcare funded, and I should have mine funded so that I can go to work and pay lots of tax.

Birth rates per IMD show that the most deprived have higher birth rates than the least deprived. It would be interesting to see a household income bracket to birth rate analysis (not including benefits). There’s likely a tipping point of wealth where it does not impact on family size. In my (limited) experience families with 4 or more children are either super wealthy or the opposite. There’s also a correlation between age gaps between generations and income. Higher income becoming parents at similar ages to when people in deprived areas become grandparents.

No one should want children to be living in poverty but how are governments going to achieve that without it being funded by taxes?

What are you talking about?

My point is we don't say to people on £100k "ahh I see you pay £2.5k in rent, that's £30k a year net, at the 40% rate that's £50k gross that you spend on rent so it doesn't count as income - so let's treat you as if you're a £50k earner".

People who work pay all their expenses out of their net pay.

Because she scrapes into the system which opens up the rent and childcare support.

I'm saying that rent and bills and food and childcare shouldn't be so expensive that you'd need to rely on tax payers money to have as many children as you want. The problem is the system, not the people and how many kids they have. The problem isn't lifting the 2 child cap so less children live in poverty, the problem is that this capitalist society means the bare minimal needs are unaffordable for millions of working people.
And personally, I don't want more children than I have, even if I could afford them. Would you have 4 or 5 or more kids just because you can afford them? Is that your only factor?

Where’s the link? Is this even true? Or is it like all the budget speculation, just made up?

Her childcare bill will only go down. She should live somewhere more affordable and pay more of her own bills.

Question - if London presumably needs minimum wage service providers who have to claim UC to afford the costs of liviing there, but the received wisdom is that they should move somewhere cheaper to reduce the drain on the state, how do you propose those sectors continue to function, as presumably their commute would be unaffordable?

I don't disagree with you. I guess the Tory's wanted landlords paid and childcare businesses opened. I guess I'm saying it's a bigger picture than simply benefit bashing. Something has gone wrong and I'm interested in the solutions.

So lots of people would move out of London... I guess they need people on low to medium income jobs in London. The problem is they can't afford it without rent and childcare help.

Absolutely I am.

The same news outlets who’ve been reporting the two child benefit cap ending means children being pulled out of poverty… it doesn’t because of the standard benefit cap which Rachel reeves has oddly not mentioned.

They know people have brains of goldfish and choose to not look at information, instead they like to be told what to think.

Yeah, we do need low and mid income workers in London. But people like her moving into London are part of the problem - they displace actual Londoners and drive prices up.

I find the amount mind boggling in the face of someone earning 100k is considered wealthy, but benefits can be topped up to more than that.
Maybe this is something that needs looking at for the 100k earner in certain circumstances.

However the woman receiving benefits is working full time and the childcare payments will only be for a short amount of time until her children are school age, after which her effective income will decrease. These payments are enabling her to continue working, so are serving an important function as well as ensuring she can support herself once she is older with the pension she will be paying into.

The 100k earner will surely be in the better position of the two once they no longer need to pay for childcare.

The point I take away for this is a single income of 100k can be a high income or a low income depending on where you live and what your family circumstances and stage of life are.

Why shouldn't migrants get benefits? My parents are both migrants and one is dead, the other has a state pension. That's a benefit. Presumably you think she doesn't deserve it?

Why the fuck are you lying about not looking at the name on the envelope? It wasn't for you or your house and you opened it to be judgemental and nosy.

Yes when her children grow up and leave and she gets no benefits, she might get a better paid job and pay tax. She might even be a high earner as she's been working while her children are small. Is that the argument?

I think this is important to note - we are being shown a snapshot in time rather than the bigger picture.

Very true!. I wonder how families who earn too much for benefits in London cope!. Rents are astronomical!

Isn’t youth unemployment higher in London? So give those jobs to young people, who then move out of London when they get older and want to afford a family home.

I think that's right. It's The Mirror clickbait after all.

She's 40 years old. She's been a single parent for 9 years, and her youngest is still a baby. It's quite a sizeable "snapshot".

They don't. They move out of London, or they don't have families.