Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

381 replies

Tryingtryingandtrying · 26/11/2025 23:37

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.

OP posts:
Christmascarrotjumper · 27/11/2025 07:19

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:17

And she chose to have those children, no?

Yeap. And with a man who who doesn't even live on the same continent.

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:21

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:19

Yeah, and nobody chose crippling nursery fees while the majority of western countries have subsidies childcare that cost almost nothing and that everyone can afford.

Edited

You make that choice when you have children.

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:23

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:21

You make that choice when you have children.

No, you have children because you desire it in your core, you're responding to your natural, visceral instinct.

EasternStandard · 27/11/2025 07:24

Pigeonpoodle · 27/11/2025 06:46

So basically, Labour are saying to two neighbours with young children, one who’s worked their butt off to earn £100k, and the other who’s coasted into a £30k job…

”Neighbour 1: You earn £100k? You filthy rich POS, we’ll tax you to the hilt and remove every last benefit. Cry me a river if you’re struggling.”

”Neighbour 2: You earn £30k? Poor you! We’ll open the cheque book and give you so many benefits that it will be like you had a £113k job! How will we pay for this? We’ll just take it from the thousands in taxes we’re taking from your moneybags neighbour earning £100k”

I can’t believe the mess Rachel Reeves has created! Surely I’ve missed something?!

Madness.

Dorisbonson · 27/11/2025 07:24

Catsandcwtches · 27/11/2025 00:40

As a single mum I doubt she would be able to pay her rent and childcare on her wage alone in north London if it wasn’t topped up.

Then don't live in North London!

It's crazy that taxpayers who can't afford to live in London and have had to move out of London have to pay for people on benefits to there! Why do taxpayers have to move but it's okay for those on benefits to live in expensive places?

thewintergarden · 27/11/2025 07:25

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:09

You completely misread that and now spreading misinformation! This is what the article says: "In a good month when UC gives full entitlement, Thea has a total of £6,142.00, from £2,800 in take-home pay and £3,342 in universal credit plus child benefit. Her monthly expenses such as childcare, rent, council tax, energy and food etc are usually around £6000. She says: "So it’s living very much on the edge."

And that's fine. But equally that means her neighbour earning £105k will be struggling just as much so we need to stop pretending that is an enormous salary. Because clearly it is poverty wages in London

GentleOlive · 27/11/2025 07:26

No, it shows that she had kids she cannot afford.

The high likelihood is that even she had a partner, they would still be claiming benefits. Of not claiming benefits, they would be still be net takers.

People are try and use the red herring single parent argument to justify people having lots of kids they cannot afford. Often these people would be on benefits even as a couple.

So the answer is always, don’t have all these kids you cannot afford. It’s hard to sympathise with people making repeated bad life choices.

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:26

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:23

No, you have children because you desire it in your core, you're responding to your natural, visceral instinct.

Do you know what I desire in my core? I have a natural, visceral instinct to live out my days on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere. However I can’t afford that, so I don’t.

Hedgehogbrown · 27/11/2025 07:26

Tryingtryingandtrying · 26/11/2025 23:37

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.

Someone on Universal Credit gets 6k a month? Absolute bollocks 😂 😂 😂 You best get yourself on Universal Credit then!

Dorisbonson · 27/11/2025 07:27

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:23

No, you have children because you desire it in your core, you're responding to your natural, visceral instinct.

Unfortunately some of us have to tame these instincts because we can't afford multiple children It seems if you are on benefits you have the freedom to have lots of kids but if you are a working taxpayer you don't have that freedom.

What a great system, how fair that is, so wonderful to pay for other people's kids at the expense of your own.

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:28

Dorisbonson · 27/11/2025 07:27

Unfortunately some of us have to tame these instincts because we can't afford multiple children It seems if you are on benefits you have the freedom to have lots of kids but if you are a working taxpayer you don't have that freedom.

What a great system, how fair that is, so wonderful to pay for other people's kids at the expense of your own.

But the problem is the badly funded childcare, not the amount of children other people have.

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:28

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:28

But the problem is the badly funded childcare, not the amount of children other people have.

No. The problem is people having children they can’t afford and expecting the state to pay for them.

GentleOlive · 27/11/2025 07:29

Hopefully this Labour government will face punishment for this slap in the face to the people paying for this absolute farce.

People making sensible choices to have only the kids they can afford, then having to take from those very kids to give to people who have as many as they please and cannot afford them.

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:30

Dorisbonson · 27/11/2025 07:27

Unfortunately some of us have to tame these instincts because we can't afford multiple children It seems if you are on benefits you have the freedom to have lots of kids but if you are a working taxpayer you don't have that freedom.

What a great system, how fair that is, so wonderful to pay for other people's kids at the expense of your own.

Also, by that same logic, people will tell you to "just get a better paid job" 🙄

GentleOlive · 27/11/2025 07:30

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:28

No. The problem is people having children they can’t afford and expecting the state to pay for them.

Except it’s not the state paying for them, but people who then have less for their own kids. But I get the point you are making.

Hedgehogbrown · 27/11/2025 07:31

Tryingtryingandtrying · 27/11/2025 06:23

@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.

Can you do maths? 6k*12=72

Alpacajigsaw · 27/11/2025 07:31

Namechange822 · 27/11/2025 05:49

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.

Agree

im more annoyed at the first one, 27, unemployed, 4 kids and pregnant again. Stop fucking breeding

SoloTripSoloVibes · 27/11/2025 07:33

Alpacajigsaw · 27/11/2025 07:31

Agree

im more annoyed at the first one, 27, unemployed, 4 kids and pregnant again. Stop fucking breeding

At the end of the day the first woman (the poor woman who works and supports her kids, blah) chose to have three children with a Brazilian man. That was an active choice. She had the option to go on birth control or to get an abortion. She didn’t. She now has to face the realities of that decision.

MiddleAgedDread · 27/11/2025 07:35

Hedgehogbrown · 27/11/2025 07:31

Can you do maths? 6k*12=72

6x12 =72 net take home pay!! £113 before tax, NI etc.

JollyGreenSleeves · 27/11/2025 07:37

I’m a single mum with 2 kids, mortgage so no rent, no health conditions fortunately, no childcare as kids all of an age where they can be left if I’m at work. Zero entitlement currently.

JollyGreenSleeves · 27/11/2025 07:37

Take home of £2300. Mortgage is £900.

zaxxon · 27/11/2025 07:37

To look at it another way, if she's paying £2k rent, then SIXTY PERCENT of the benefits she receives is going straight into her landlord's pocket.

That's the part that really bothers me

hmmnotreallysure · 27/11/2025 07:38

We're on UC as dh was made redundant 7 months ago, my take home is £1200 and dh gets £700 in UC payments. We also get £100 child benefit a month. That is all we get, not eligible for any other payments or benefits at all. This doesn't give us enough to pay mortgage, bills, food and fuel let alone anything else that at comes up. How are these people getting paid so much?

Radiator981 · 27/11/2025 07:38

LeadBubbles · 27/11/2025 07:23

No, you have children because you desire it in your core, you're responding to your natural, visceral instinct.

Hands down @LeadBubblesthe most ridiculous thing I’ve ever fucking heard. Of course we all desire a hell of a lot stuff, I too desired many children but I knew we could not afford more than two!

There is a hell of a lot stuff I desire in my core that I’ve not done 😂. Someone please put @LeadBubblescomment in favourites somewhere.

EasternStandard · 27/11/2025 07:39

Dorisbonson · 27/11/2025 07:27

Unfortunately some of us have to tame these instincts because we can't afford multiple children It seems if you are on benefits you have the freedom to have lots of kids but if you are a working taxpayer you don't have that freedom.

What a great system, how fair that is, so wonderful to pay for other people's kids at the expense of your own.

Yes people working have to consider how many dc they can afford.

Swipe left for the next trending thread