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!!

So your previous post wasn’t the last thing you would say to me 🤣

In what country?

You said 'in my country' on a post.

So the children have to bear the consequences then? That’s okay by your logic if I’m reading it correctly.

Scotland.

Personal attacks ✅
Accused of posting from abroad ✅
Emoji ✅

House!

I don’t think that’s a full house on Mumsnet bingo. It’s only three numbers. It’s barely a line.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I thought you’d finished 🤔

I have because you’ve kind of proven my point. Yet you still keep quoting me. Some may call that goading. I’ll keep responding to call those toxic behaviours out but apart from that - there is no debate to be had here. Keep going.

Oh Scotland.

That country that has a child welfare crisis that can't be met and they don't have enough foster carers so children are inevitably left in neglectful and abusive homes.

That country is where you say every call to social services meets the threshold for intervention and parents are offered a variety of interventions?

Aye hen.

Weird. This will be my last post to you. And unlike yourself, I have self control.

And again. More quoting and goading with personal attacks.

Well, quite.

We have a child payment universally recognised for lifting children out of poverty. No need for the xenophobic language btw.

My mother was wholly against abortion (pun intended).
However, that didn't stop her shaking a new born when she just couldn't cope after weeks of sleep deprivation, an alcoholic husband and four other children to look after at the time. The consequences were life-long for the baby - almost deaf, very poor vision, attachment issues, serious behavioural issues, in and out of psychiatric wards for 30+ years, BPD, etc, etc, etc.

I was six at the time.
The most terrifying part?
The complete silence following the shaking on the part of the baby.

Encouraging vulnerable young women to keep having more babies is just wrong on every level.

Sorry, who is encouraging them? I'm sorry for your siblings, you and your mum.

You know very well that my post wasn't about child payments. It was about your objectively false claim that in 'your country' all calls to CYPPS from education were taken seriously and resulted in all families meeting thresholds and being offered a variety of interventions.

Which every objective measure including those published by the Scottish government says is not true and they simply can't meet the demand as there are not enough foster care placements to remove children who should be removed from parental care.

If there are so many children who should be removed but aren't and are experiencing extreme abuse and neglect, it's obvious that the thresholds for social care intervention must be high and lesser concerns don't even meet thresholds.

Which is the case in most areas of the UK.

So why were you suggesting that it's not the case in 'your country'?

Where in Scotland do you live and work?

What is "CYPPS"? Calling me a liar is actually a personal attack unlike the false ones I have been accused of btw. As is your xenophobia.

Isn't this the whole point of this thread though? Thea ends up better off than a working family that is earning too much on paper to qualify for the help she gets.

It's ridiculous to tell a single mum in London earning 80K a year that she is entitled to nothing. She has to pay higher rate taxes and gets no help with childcare or housing for her three children.

And yet, Thea who earns 45K down the road gets her rent and childcare subsidised as well as child benefit and whatever other benefits universal credit unlocks. Without considering the other benefits that are unlocked Thea ends up receiving housing and childcare support along with child benefit money that is equivalent to a 100K salary (closer to 113K now the cap is lifted).

It rewards the low earner while penalising the high earner.

And Thea is never going to jump her salary that significantly so ends up trapped by the benefits she receives. She will end up subsidised for her entire life in London.

It's absolutely ridiculous and I don't understand how anyone justifies it. Like for like, the high earner is worse off and that is not how any benefit system should work.

The UK.

So the UK has 1% of the world's population?

Around 0.84% if you wish to be pedantic.

I don't! So the 1% get 7% of the whole World's welfare spending?

@FirmOliveReader Just as an aside. " "are meant to be used when you are quoting someone. Not just randomly like you used them.