Can we all take a moment to pray for Thea, living life on the brink of poverty at £6k a month (£3.2k of which is UC).

[BananaramaDefence]

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 now the cap is removed she will get more!!

From this: Pregnant mum-of-four: 'Budget benefit change saved our Christmas' - The Mirror https://share.google/QGbNeuIKPAmg1qNG5

No wonder people get pissed of with welfare in this country. I work 40 hours plus a week, have children, have to pay a mortgage, childcare and I earn way less than this!!!

No child should live in poverty but at the same time no family should get this muxh in benefits.

Before people say, yes but it's to pay rent and collate, I also have to pay all that and my mortgage is half my wage!!

I did all that then he died.

It needs to be repeated so many times that there is not one person living in the UK who hasn't heard about it, as do the responses of those who think it is perfectly ok.

It need to be read out-by a Town Crier-in every factory, workshop and office.

What a pity Kemi didn't have this before she gave her budget reply to Laurel and Foolhardy-it would have made her blistering, brilliant retort even more blistering and brilliant.

Let's hope she picks it up and gives it an airing in the House.

No, it doesn’t. My dad humped huge sacks of coal around all day every day for 40 years, and he never made a great wage, he was an undiagnosed dyslexic and autistic At a time when suxh things weren’t known about so he got no qualifications and so only manual labour was really open to him as his writing ability was awful.
how much a person is paid is arbitrarily decided by society and how valued the work you do is in that society. Not everyone can be a high earner regardless of how hard they work.
A woman who is in full time work needing to be topped up by the government in order to afford to live is a failure of society, not the person who is doing all they can.

this ridiculous narrative that if you just Work Hard Enough, you too can be a millionaire is toxic, classist, racist, misogynistic, ableist bull shit.

I also did that, then I got really sick, almost died numerous times and then our son did die, and he couldn’t cope and fell into a bottle and hasn’t ever climbed out so I had no choice but to leave him.

Exactly!

Your dad worked hard. That doesn't mean that every low paid or poor person works hard. We're all individuals on a spectrum. Some people never work hard for a day in their lives. Sweeping statements like that are silly.
Sure, hard work doesn't always equate success. That is of course true. But it's a good place to start.
An American single mother with a masters degree doesn't need to be supported to live in London. That is a hill I will die on. Personal responsibility should be at least attempted.

If anything, I'd have thought your dad's experience would confirm the importance of work ethic. He obviously worked very hard despite the challenges, and I wish more people shared his ethos.

Well strangely kemi was part of a government who thought it was totally fine for a lot of years, now doesn’t suit her agenda in opposition

The point is @Crikeyalmighty over spending on the welfare budget doesn't suit the agenda of many people.

Workhouse-No. Work: Yes, any work that you are given in exchange for your accommodation and food.

Everyone falls on hard times and needs temporary support and most people have no problem with that but the key word is temporary.

Can't work because you are disabled: what form is your disability? Are you missing a limb, suffering from cancer or another life threatening disease, deaf, blind?

Then no, you don't have to work. It is up to society to support you, give you an average wage because you have enough to deal with.

Are you anxious, have ASD, sensory needs, selectively mute?

Then yes, you work. There will be work to suit you but if you really don't want to-then of course, you are not a slave , you will not be made to do forced labour but there will be no government cheques for you. Up to you and over to you.

Want to live in London. Fine. Pay for it. There will be no top ups.
Want to have 30 kids. Fine. Pay for it. There will be no top ups.

I know this won't happen but one day the pot will run dry and then the people who really need help won't get it because there was, in the end, just too many hands in the pot.

I really do not understand this.

My accommodation charges go straight to a building society.
My sister's accommodation charges go straight to her landlord.

Everybody's accommodation costs go straight to someone.

We do not get our accommodation costs to spend on ourselves-this woman is in a better position because her accommodation costs, whether they go to a bank, building society, council or private landlord are paid for her... and yet, you come on to bewail this.

Why? Are you saying she should not have to pay for accommodation? Why would that be? Is it because you object to paying a private landlord on her behalf? Would you prefer a council owned hostel? That might not be a bad idea.

She does not have to live in London. Why can she not commute for up to an hour, you know like many have to do?

No-one can legislate for the amount of children a woman wants to have. That is no-one business but her own private affair but when she asks others to pay for them, than it is no longer a private matter for her-it becomes a public matter.

No-one has the right to live somewhere they can not afford. That way madness lies-why can I not live in Eaton Square!

No-one has the right to have children that they then expect the rest of the country to support.

Is that unreasonable?

I kind of agree in many ways - we have an awful lot of very un resilient flakey people- However I do think it somewhat rich of the Tory’s to imply itsall on Labour when they themselves brought in many things that have contributed to the current situation - they for many years had no benefit caps on numbers for children , they brought in the can’t be arsed of funding the CSA scheme of letting parents keep child maintenance as a vote winner no doubt , but have created a ton of parents who get regular maintabance working part time and doing as few hours as possible, ( I employed someone like this, never ever wanted extra hours , unless I paid her cash) they are still claiming full benefits with a nice lump sum in many cases on top - meaning they are better off than many couples or single mums working full time and getting sod all - no wonder people think what’s the point - I’m not sure I wouldn’t do it if in that position if I’m honest - and many of these people if it comes down to hard cash are contributing little to the system and taking a lot out. Whilst I agree work needs to pay kemi was part of a government that certainly didn’t do much in that direction. Nor were they amazingly great to small business ( I have one) as it is I no longer have to pay employers NI as labour doubled the employers allowance in the previous budget . So it’s unlikely anyone in a 2 or 3 people company now have to pay it at all and unless really highly paid will certainly be minimised under 6 people unless all hugely well paid.. there have been many smaller things too that are positive and just don’t get reported because the media with their non dom type ownership with a few exceptions is against them from the off and only reports negative stuff -

If your accommodation charges go to a building society then you have a mortgage and are in fact buying an asset.
That is a huge difference.
UC does not buy assets for people.

UC is paid to people with low incomes and/or high costs.
If someone is "over-housed" in a big place or a luxury place, UC will not pay for the excess rent. UC only pays what people NEED (and often not even that).
If someone has kids needing childcare and rents in an expensive area, then their UC will be high.
Someone else in that area who doesn't get UC doesn't get it for a reason: they have savings, or a mortgage, or no children needing childcare.

If a working single parent has to commute for an hour, that just adds to childcare costs - if she can find a childcare place to open early and close late.
Plus such a situation would not be good for the children.
It is not reasonable to expect all parents on UC in London to just move out, or to expect low paid people in London to just not have children.

No-one has the right to have children that they then expect the rest of the country to support.
Children are a public good. Society needs children. Society should pay for children.
When children become a private luxury, that society is doomed.

UC absolutely does buy assets for people. Landlords are people aren't they?

There’s a lot of landlords who do very well out of UC.

Touché

That's not true. You get no child benefit if your earn 80K. You aren't entitled to any of the other benefits that come along with UC (as UC unlocks further benefits).

And the argument is that someone on 80K gets nothing. And the person on 45K actually earns more... The equivalent of 100K and rising with the benefit cap lifting.

That is what I have issue with. You are significantly better off by being a low earner. Make that make sense. Please!

'Real life'. I guess you are suggesting that my life is not real then 😥😥, oh how I despair it when those who refuse to be accountable for their choices play this card.

Let me take your points one by one.

1. My mother bought a house, an asset, she cleaned floors, worked in factories, gutted fish in order to buy it. She has gone into care. That asset has been sold to pay for her care and in fact has almost entirely gone. Her friend, who did not own such an asset and did not work to own one, has also gone into care:the same care home! The council pay her costs.

However, even if this were not to be the case-everyone has the choice to work to buy an asset even if that is a bedsit in Burnley. If you choose to live on benefits, then you choose-actually choose-not to buy an asset.

In the eyes of most people, that is perfectly reasonable. You should not expect to own a home if you do not work. You may choose to buy even the mst modest bedsit if you do work.

Is that unreasonable?

2. The government should not be paying the accommodation bill of anyone who can work. Why would this be expected? You seem to think it is wrong that the government will not stump up the whole rent and they have to top it up? No-one tops up my rent. Do they top up yours?

You say it should do so if they have "kids or live in an expensive area" and that others don't get it of they have a mortgage, don't have children or live in a cheaper area. You say this is a reason as to why some get welfare payments and others don't?

Why? They are all choices. If one is on welfare, the first thing to be knocked on the head is the choice of living in an expensive area. Should we all be able to live in expensive areas if we work there, lie up there or just fancy it.

Do you think that might be a problem when we all demand that or do you think that right is open to welfare claimants only?

Why? Why do they have that right and I, a worker, don't.

If I were to have five children should that entitle me to bigger.better accommodation paid for by someone else that Mary down the road who only has two and supports them herself.

3. You say to suggest commuting from a less expensive area would be detrimental to a welfare claimant by suggesting that their children would have to be in childcare for longer or that it would mean that low paid workers could no longer work there.

Firstly, many people who actually work have to leave their children in childcare-are you saying that welfare claimants shouldn't have to do what so many working mums have to do?

Why?
if they can't afford to live in London, then they must get low paid work elsewhere or commute.

Millions of working mums have to commute. Are you saying that welfare claimants shouldn't have to do this? Why?

4. You say children are a public good and society should pay for them.

If that is the case, why is every parent not given accommodation costs, regardless of what they earn. Why are all children not given food and clothes provided for by the government even if the parents are billionaires?

Or do you just meant he children of welfare claimants? Why? If a child is a public good and society should pay for them, that is every child-Bertie the billionaire's son and Walter the Welfare claimant son.

If a teenager ceases to be a public good, should the money doled out be paid back? Why not? They will have broken the agreement of every child being a public good.

What a long post I've written and I know you will disagree with all of it but that's because you don't think, other to say that welfare claimants should be given better treatment than others.

Pay your way. If you don't work, you shouldn't have an asset. Don't expect hand outs and don't feel that because you choose to live in an expensive area or have children that others should pay. They really don't have to you know and one day the worm will turn.

Only if single or a partner not earning , renting and with plenty of kids -

I do feel for women who through stuff going wrong are in that position, I don’t feel for them if it’s clearly a lifestyle choice and think it encourages choices that have a big financial cost to society -

I don’t get how this works though? Our joint take home figure is £3078. When my DH was made redundant it was less than this and were only eligible for job seekers allowance for DH (which I think was £92) Luckily he got a new job very quickly or we would have been living off my £1200 a month.

The lion's share of that money will be going on rent and childcare. Her rent could easily be £2k a month, and I've no idea what London childcare costs are like.

If only there was free childcare for all and social housing readily available, then the "welfare bill" would fall dramatically.

I completely agree that if someone is actually worse off by getting a higher salary than they used to, the system is broken.
I am aware of a horrendously unjust cliff edge at £100k to do with child benefit or childcare or both (not sure of the precise details).
A well designed system should mean that if your salary goes up, you will always be better off. Even if you are paying a hefty % of tax on that extra, you still get to keep some of it and be better off than before.

As you point out, there is also a cliff edge, albeit smaller, when you come off UC and lose things like free dental care. (The answer is to have free basic dental care for everyone.)

My figure of £80k was just an imaginary illustration, nothing to do with the real rules for £80k earners.

And this is one area I think there should be a big change - my personal view is to fund it a 2p totally ringfenced care tax/insurance , applies to all income and benefit levels and stops at pensionable age

first £80,000 of assets can be used , after that insurance kicks in and this can be for both residential or at home carers - I think it’s totally crap that people can lose all of value in a house simply because they need care and I think it contributes to some poor choices that elderly couples make and sometimes family’s make for them . It would make it far easier to plan too

Thanks @Crikeyalmighty and thanks for reading such a long post!

I'm posted out now, so see you on an other thread sometime hopefully!

This is the actual quote from the Mirror.

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.