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.

I don't see why you are reporting it. As other posters have found, it's in a Mirror article.

OK, OP might have put a link in, but it is a national media news story. If it's rage bait, then it's the Mirror doing it.

Double sorry

Double post sorry

Financial reporters pissed after the budget
Still doesn't make sense

@Falravenits not made up rage bait, It’s self reported by someone the Mirror interviewed. It includes payments for childcare.

And she is a single parent working full time.

A £100k salary is £5700 after tax and NI, less once student loan payments are deducted from those who have student loans.

People are working, so there's obviously incentive. Such as getting out of the house, having purpose, feeling like a contributing member of society, being able to secure housing etc. That isn't my opinion, but being unemployed can be soul destroying. But we need to stop condemning women, being fully out of work, who are single parents, because we aren't saving any money by people needing to be topped up by UC. I'm starting to think that we should go back to not forcing parents back into work, especially if they can show that they help out elderly relatives etc. Forcing everyone into part time, low paid work hasn't worked. Neither has no-one having a spare bedroom, or children not having their own rooms.

I am a single parent, two kids, comfortably off and don’t claim benefits.

Stories like this really wind me up. The mum in this scenario is there, working, supporting her kids. She’s earning £2800 a month, which pretty much covers her half of the costs of raising her kids, whilst also doing the lions share of parenting.

According to the figures they’ve published, the state are covering the other half. Why is the criticism levelled at the parent who stayed? And not the one who left? Why isn’t the dad supporting his own children?

This situation is so common, and maintenance is so poorly and irregularly paid, that it isn’t even counted for universal credit income. If the country wants to spend less on universal credit then the focus needs to be on criminalising the fathers who left and stop supporting their kids, and not on criticising the mothers who stayed.

She will only be getting that sum due to childcare and housing costs.

Her children look quite young and she rents in North London. She also works full time.

Most of that money will be going to her childcare providers and her landlord! If she didn't get help to pay for childcare she would be jobless, and if she didn't get help with her rent (which is probably extortionate but that's not her fault, blame the landlord if you must blame someone) she would be homeless. Hardly better, right, especially for a single mum who works full time.

In fact, I just googled her name (Thea Jaffe) and found an interview with her from earlier this year which sheds some light on her outgoings....

"I'm in the area of north London I’ve lived in since 2009, rent for my one-bed apartment is £2,000 a month. Childcare for my two youngest children, who are a baby and a toddler, is £2,600 a month. I’m bringing in £2,800 a month from my employer. Added to that the after-school club for my 10-year-old, who is in year five, is £300 a month."

And just to repeat for those who are frothing over her feckless ways 🙄 - she works full time. But if she's paying out nearly £5k a month on rent (for a one bedroom flat, hardly a fucking palace) and childcare then she's not exactly laughing all the way to the bank, is she.

For the 2025/26 tax year, someone in the UK earning a PAYE salary of £100,000 pays £27,428 in Income Tax and £4,011 in National Insurance.

So a total Tax and NI deduction of £31,439. Leaving a take-home pay of £68,561. This divided by 12 is £5,713 per month.

For anyone surprised by this, calculations can be easily done on the Government's surprisingly nifty website:

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/estimate-paye-take-home-pay

And that's all fine.
But if we accept someone can get benefits to that give them income the same as the net salary of an 100k job then we cannot also as a government be withdrawing 30 free hours from people on 100k!!

It cannot at the same time be "the bare minimum needed to survive" and "a really high income"

I have no skin in the game. I don't live in London. And my kids are past the childcare age

But having seen countless women berated on here for saying they are struggling due to the 100k cut off for childcare (and that includes single mums) then it's absolutely staggering to think that 100k is just going to give them the same lifestyle as someone earning a low income and claiming benefits

So the 30 hours cap needs lifting substantially

And actually so does the child benefit cap! Because how can we say someone on 60k is earning so much they don't need CB yet pay someone else the equivalent of 100k salary

And also I think the 40% tax rate should only hit at a level above what someone can get on benefits.

So I will be ok with these incredible benefits payouts if and when there is a fair matching with what is seen as wealthy.

I don't expect people to pay 40% tax and lose child benefit and free childcare if that leaves them worse off than someone being paid benefits

The problem is, if she earned £113k, she’d be paying for all of these things out of pocket.

If it’s okay for Rachel to consider a salary over £100k to be fair for taxing further, and capable of paying for their childcare and not in receipt of CB or a personal tax allowance, then why are we topping people up to this lofty height? It can’t be both unimaginable riches and also a level of welfare.

I would rather children are supported and not living in poverty than not.

But when a single mum in London posts that she is earning 100k and really struggling she is rounded on and kicked for complaining (figuratively speaking, but some of the threads on here are awful)

When women with a partner earning 100k say they can't afford to start a family in London they are told they are unimaginably wealthy

It cannot simultaneously be unimaginable wealth and an amount someone can get from benefits.

So if someone can be paid this amount in benefits then we need to revisit the child benefit threshold, the 30 free hours threshold and the 40% tax threshold

But what about the single mum earning 80k with the same number of kids in the same area? She won't get any child benefit. She may well have student loan repayments. She will have much less money than this lady. Are we saying she and her children are living in poverty? It so why is she being taxed at 40%, why does she not get child benefit even?

Family's like this really annoy me. 4 kids and another one the way and both not working and she has the cheek to smile about it in the papers.
I come from a family of 8 children. My dad worked and my mum did child care. The only help they got was the family allowance which everyone was entitled to. There is always story's like this every now and again. I think it is done to wind people up. It has with me.

Rather than frothing at how much she is needing to live we should be angry that there is an inadequate amount of social housing and that childcare has become so expensive. Other countries have much lower costs for both.
Right to Buy and the lack of investment in social housing has led to this mess.

If I’m understanding you right, then this woman is better off on benefits than someone in the same circumstances who is earning £100k/year. Is that right? If so, that’s absolutely crazy.

The woman in question works full time.

Most of the £6k will be for London rent and childcare costs.

@thewintergarden this is exactly my point. She's only got 3 kids, and yet the state decides she needs the equivalent of 113k per year, and she states she is struggling on that. But earn £113k yourself and you are super wealthy, and can easily afford to live a comfortableife. No free childcare, child benefit, 60% tax. It's crazy.

Sorry I didn't link in the first post

I am well aware she works full time
But she's got a better net income than someone earning 100k

And so why are we withdrawing child benefit at 60k and free childcare at 100k if that is the bare minimum needed to lift you out of poverty in London?

I absolutely hear that and I think that being a single parent can be incredibly difficult. Being a two parent family can be too! I agree with you, the tax thresholds must be a real kick to people already struggling, especially with rents/mortgages being high and the cost of everything going up.

I don’t have any answers. I think life feels harder right now than it has done in my adult lifetime. I feel a low-level despair I have never felt before. I still feel strongly that we should support children living in poverty.