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.

Unless she decides to pop out another baby!. That's the problem, removing this cap is going to make people be careless about having more kids.

Hi i'm a single parent and i take home about 2800k per month. Everytime i (and i do regularly check) i go on a benefits calculator, it tells me no! Lol. I mean i get the single persons council tax, child benefit £100 approx a month and thats it. I would love this extra money you speak of? Ive tried the lottery and its not working either. Suggestions??

Indeed, but on balance better than her not working because she can't afford childcare, becoming deskilled by that gap and potentially not earning or contributing in the future.

Having seen that she is pregnant with child number five I imagine that they would be blowing up any condoms like balloons to decorate their house since they don’t seem to understand the principles of basic contraception.

Why is it either or? Why can't she work, but live somewhere more affordable?

About 4 posts down from the OP

@Bellsbeachwaves I agree with you on this - the system has created this kind of thing and we need to look at the underlying issues -

for instance someone living in Leeds would likely get maybe £1200 top up at the absolute most because the rent element woukd be so much less and possibly childcare costs too .

we need to look at solutions which to me are making sure that we are not paying private landlords to charge what they feel like in a free market with significant demand ( like London) - my view is that there needs to be far more social housing in areas of high demand - or we look at situations like underwriting /gifting deposits/ on shared ownership - if people are working , I’m sure more would appreciate the security. At a point when the supply is improved bring in rent caps depending on size and area - yes some might get out of it altogether but plenty who are in it for capital growth will not . Give the pension and insurance companies massive incentives to convert unused commercial buildings into nice social housing or shared ownership housing or mixed - - and stop allowing developments to be built with no element of it - completely stop right to buy in any way .

There are none so blind as those that will not see and here is a prime example of it.

It hurts to believe it's true-that more than one media outlet has reported it-so just cover your ears and sing, "Say it ain't so."

It is true and if, for one moment, you accepted that it was, what would your thoughts be on it?

Yes here - one 'high earner' on £75k and I'm a sahm. No child benefit even though if I earned £50k and he earned £50k we'd be much better off with a higher household income and child benefit for three kids. Makes zero sense

No I’m just not stupid enough to be told what to think by the news.

Live in London, rent , have at least 2 but ideally 3 kids and often 1 with some kind of special need - I’m sorry to be blunt, but it’s a numbers game - once when I was spectacularly pissed off with my H I went onto entitled to , even though no kids at home now and realised that in London looking at the allowance levels I could just about get a 1 bed flat in some semi ok areas within the allowance, even if I had state pension but not that much in bank -I definitely couldn’t where I live now, lower rents yes , but so much lower allowances.

Do New York still have rent caps? I think that's a good idea, particularly in the more expensive cities. Exactly the rent element matches the market so the same person in Leeds wouldn't get as much.

Should the tax payer be propping up the housing rental market because that's what we are doing isn't it? Which I think the Tories are in favour of...

And I can imagine it feels unfair to some. Imagine if you're a tenner outside of the benefit line. Like £2468 take home or something... I guess you get the 30 free hours childcare but no help with rent. You'd be gutted wouldn't you! I guess in that case you would move. Or not take the job.

Multiple dc with disabilities I’m guessing and renting in a high cost area/ need specialist housing?

This IS depressingly correct...

And that assumes NO pension contributons and no student loan payments. So in reality you'd need to earn even more than 113k to take home what this woman receives.

The system is totally broken and wildly unfair

Contraception is free and widely available.
In this day and age People with no visable means to support a child have no business having them.

I think you will find that there are many benefits she will be able to claim.

She may become so anxious she can't leave the house.
She may develop a bad back.
Her grandchildren may allow her to claim for Specified Adult Childcare Credits

And if there aren't at least three more, I'll eat my hat!

I totally assumed this story would be bollocks till the link was posted. This is sheer insanity - and they are continuing to have more kids? WTAF.

The take home pay for someone on £100,000 is around £5,700 a month.

I'm not here to solve these problems and as I said up-thread I do think this needs looking at somehow. We've never had a penny in benefits and we feel really squeezed right now so I've no skin the game of defending this situation. I'm looking for the silver lining, I suppose.

My husband went through two periods of having to commute TO London from the North each week while our kids were tiny, in order to in one case improve his future earning potential, in the second case, not be unemployed.

Where do you get your news from? Do you lick it from the floor or make it up in your head?

But go on, for fun, bring yourself to imagine that this story is true-what would you think of it?

I hope that you would think it is a fucking disgrace and if you didn't, then I would be reasonable in thinking that reading anything might be a challenge for you.

I think if she's the type of person to work full time and get three kids into childcare every day, she's unlikely to develop a 'bad back.' Its more likely she'll become CEO of something.

She is a "DEI and inclusion strategist" according to her linkedin with 10 years of experience (of which at least 3 were on maternity).

I wonder how the total numbers would compare for those options, same number of children, same area.

1. not working until youngest at schoo then full time.
2. Children in childcare from say 9 months while working full time.

Does option 1 or option 2 come out better if you put paid in over a working life and subtract it from paid out? What are the stats on people getting jobs after a long period not working?

There's NO evidence that the two child limit actually affected behaviour in the way you suggest.

Really? The type of person to have 3 kids in a 1 bedroom flat, on her own, on purpose is likely to be CEO? Hmm. CEOs usually need some nous.

You can get condoms free!!!!

The second mum, I’m speechless at needing 6 grand a month to manage in London. Really?????