Mum on UC gets £3342 a month?! Is this right?

[Londonisthebestcityintheworld]

Saw this in the mirror, scroll down to Thea's story. Single mum of 3 in London who earns £2800 a month and gets an additional £3342 in UC and CB. How is this even possible?!

That top up is the equivalent of earning £50K a year. The benefit payments would put her in the top 10% of earners.

I mean, to quote the kids, what the helly? Am I a total mug getting up and slogging my guts out and working while others get more in benefits than I earn?

Pregnant mum-of-four: 'Budget benefit change saved our Christmas' - The Mirror https://share.google/kdV8SOUW8I4xpA7nT

It says she works and takes home £2800pm. So it sounds like she is already "getting up and slogging her guts out", plus bringing up children on her own. A take home of £2800 works out about £41k, so she is actually a net contributor.

The fact the Gov have deemed her income not enough to live on is not her fault. Like others have said, the UC will be childcare and rent.

She is absolutely not a net contributor!!!

Lets keep this accurate to avoid extreme claims on either side.

She's not a net contributor.

Her outgoings are bigger than her salary only. She has a lower salary which means she can get a UC top up.

Maybe a person's full time salary shouldn't be so low that they can't afford rent or childcare without a UC top up?

Sorry, yes you are right.
If she was not on UC, she would be though.

It will be rent. London is very expensive

She takes home £2800 which puts her salary at £41k. That is not a low salary, but in London it would be so you can understand why she gets the top ups she does.

Well, exactly. It's considered low enough to be topped up by UC and for good reason in London.

It's the equivalent of a pre tax income of about £100k. So perhaps we can stop telling people earning that, that they are rich and should pay more and get nothing back.

She hasnt got a low FT salary

If she were single yes, with 3 children no she wouldnt be.

The Mirror is a Labour supporting newspaper.

I just feel demoralised. Have always worked, payed taxes and saved. She's also come to tax interest earned on my savings (which preclude me from getting benefits).

I am not here to single mum bash.

I simply can't believe tax dollars are going to top up any household that much. I fully understand the cost of rent and childcare... I live in London and have had to pay them from my wages.

I am really now wondering how many other people are being subsided to live in London at this level.

I can't be the only one who thinks this is madness. I have given up so much to stay in London and saved up a nest. So I can't get benefits... And that makes me a horrible single mum hating bashington doodle.

Surely this level of top up is bananas?

If she wasn't working she would be capped at £2110 a month, so she would actually get less UC.

Yes!! Thank you for doing the math better than I did. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks a benefit system is crazy when it is topping people up to the equivalent of 100k a year

Every other thread is talking about how folks could never dream about such a salary. How is it possible that being on benefits can move people into the top 1% of earners.

She is getting topped up because she lives in London, and her FT salary is not enough.

If she lived somewhere cheaper, then she would be on a lot less UC. But people on all salaries still need to live in expensive areas, especially if they work there.

The company she works for doesn't even appear to have a London office. I suspect she works from home. Their UK office is in Swiindon. She doesn't need to live in London, we shouldn't be funding it and she shouldn't be cramming 3 kids into a 1 bedroom flat.

So by your logic everyone in London with three kids should get topped up to 100k a year?

If that's what it costs to live in London why don't I get a top up? I have three kids. I've worked my guts out to afford them. Never gotten anything because at my earning level I lose child benefit.

This person earns less but gets topped up in benefits to more than I earn.

What exactly is supposed to be my motivation to keep working and not just blow my savings so I can claim to?

Labour government really isn't doing anything to keep high earners earning.

To be honest, I was hoping I'd misunderstood the article

I just feel demoralised

Do her benefits make any difference to your quality of life?

That counts for people on mortgages surely?

Why not change the law to say that people who have to buy in expensive places, should get mortgage support to the same level?

They affect all of us. We all pay tax, and we all use the services that are underfunded to pay benefits.

Having a mortgage and renting are totally different things.

It is wild that she's pregnant with No 5 when by her own admission she struggles to pay basic bills. Surely at some point you'd decide four was enough and go down the sterilisation path to manage family size for your current children's sake. I believe in - and have benefitted from - the state maintaining a safety net, but stories like this are why we're going to have a a Reform Government in five years time.

Well yes. My quality of life would be significantly higher if I was topped up to the equivalent of 100K a year.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and say. Here are two people in London..

One works and make 80K a year so, don't get any benefits.

The second also works but makes 50K a year... They get a top up of an extra 50k as that's the cost of living.

How can anyone say, yes I think the higher earner worker should be 20K worse off. Top up both up then.

Doesnt matter, still paying for your accommodation and if you have to live in London I would like to be compensated for living in London please. Just like the person the OP writes about.

I still havent see a breakdown though of income, cost of property, what type of property, childrens ages.