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

Unfortunately it does, because its all less money for social care and schools and the justice system and basic infrastructure and mental health services and all the other things which are chronically underfunded as it stands.

Reform supported lifting the cap too. I wouldn't vote for them - they will dismantle the country in ways one hasn't even considered.

My issue with labour is not that they fund benefits. I value a social safety net.

I've always been grateful for my health, my family and my ability to work. But work, particularly high earning work, comes with education costs and sacrifices.

I am not angry this woman is being supported to live in London. I'm sure she's a decent person.

What I am.angry about is how the system is meant to actually keep earners motivated to work when it seems, at every income level, you're actually better off making less money and claiming.

I am thinking now... Why don't I drop to part time, drop my salary....sign on and make 100k.

I don't think it matters. The article was put out there to cause froth, and it has achieved its aim.

We should be frothing! There's not enough transparency with benefits.

Can all of those people saying that people on £100 are loaded and can easily afford a mortgage and to pay 2 kids full time nursery now admit they were talking absolute nonsense please? Because they were. This woman gets benefits to top her up to the equivalent of a £113k salary because that’s what it costs to live in London with kids. But she gets the state to pay for her childcare but the earners don’t.

Really? You must have missed the countless benefit bashing threads where people seem to know the benefits their neighbour or hairdresser's aunt gets, down to the last penny and also the reasons why.

Why do you need to know the ins and outs of a strangers finances?

Exactly.

Realistically though there wouldn’t be many nurses, auxiliaries, shop workers, teaching assistants etc in London. I live in London, don’t get UC and I really want there to be all those people! It’s absolutely in my interest. Unless we pay a livable wage for low paid workers then the state has to top these kind of workers up.

Why are we supposed to be ok with her UC is probably going on rent?

If only someone would pay my rent for me to live in London! I’d get a huge pay rise alongside it and all my housing paid for!

If she can’t afford to live in London, she ought to do what the rest of us do and move somewhere she can afford to live. £2800pcm is a very attractive salary in the real world.

So only the higher earners should be allowed to live in London?

Because the OP likely wouldn’t qualify for the sort of benefits this woman is receiving.

I work and have savings so I wouldn’t qualify, either.

There line which divides a person receiving little-to-no state support and an absolute avalanche of cash is drawn based on a range of very arbitrary criteria.

Only people who can afford to live in London should live in London. Why is that hard to understand?

I work in an extremely affluent town. I have to commute. Almost all of my colleagues have to do the same.

If you look up the woman Thea Jaffe, she's been a vocal advocate of lifting the cap and how much she gets in benefits is in several publications (not just since the budget).

I am just extremely confused as to why the government tops up people in work to an income level that would preclude them from receiving benefits if they were able to earn that from work.

I'm supportive of topping up low salary up because of cost of living differences. But surely you can see this is insanity.

80K working household, no benefits
45k working household, top up benefit to 100k

It's all wrong

I've no issue with a top up

My issue is a top up that puts people in the top 1% of earners. Above the income of 99% of the population

I remember when I was in Sixth Form and EMA was still a thing.

You’d have kids who were given brand new cars by their fathers for their birthdays. Their dads lived in huge houses and earned an absolute fortune but the kids still received £30 a week because it was calculated on household income and their parents were separated.

But someone with two parents who were married and low earners would receive absolutely nothing.

This woman is irresponsible having a 5th child and expecting the tax payer to pay for it and support her. Most people in her position couldn’t dream of a 5th child and have to make hard choices or relocate to more affordable areas, or work harder for higher paid work.

Of course we should be angry. This disparity is unjust and unfair.

This! I’m annoyed at taxpayers funding expensive rent costs.

I do wonder if these expensive years when kids are young and childcare is expensive that people should be supported via a pay back system

UC that’s used to pay for childcare could be paid back like student loans are
as a % of take home pay once the need no longer exists

I think people are mixing up the families in the article.

Labour are just shit. Benefits before sorting out the country, exposing us to risk. The layabouts get better money and quality of life than military staff.

Lol at all the people saying, it’s housing, childcare, etc. She is clearing the equivalent of a 135k salary after tax and ni. That is disgusting. A person on that salary has to fund everything too AND for everyone else. They lose their entitlement to everything. The 100k salary thread is interesting. Higher earners are hated and told to cut their cloth. Get the equivalent of 135k in salary and benefit? What a struggle. The welfare state is eating itself and unsustainable.

Well perhaps that is proof that we do need more transparency. Salaries are much more public, and nobody seems to think there's anything wrong with telling people how to spend their earned money. It's public money, we should all get an informed opinion on it.

It’s the landlords who benefit most. Rents are far higher than lower earners can afford without help these days.

Cost of living and salaries don’t match up.

What about the other woman? 5 kids and pregnant again? Lunacy.

£6,142 a month take home ie after tax equates to 100k a year salary before tax