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!!

Yep, there was a thread a while back where someone on £120k or thereabouts, was saying they needed to cancel their Netflix subscription because they could no longer afford it.

Proof that financial competence is not needed to earn a high salary.

She is working: full time.

Lots of us would like to live in London but we can’t afford it on our WAGES.

This pisstaker is leading the life of Riley at everyone else’s expense.

Does that help?

Not hard enough to support her own voluntary lifestyle choices.

Benefits should only be for people experiencing INvoluntary misfortune like ill health or disability.

How is she a pisstaker? Is she claiming fraudulently?

If she needs a top up to the same net income as someone on 100k then why are we all pretending 100k is wealthy? Wealthy enough for a 60% marginal tax rate?
It's indefensible.

Fine if that's the minimum people need to live in London but then we can't tax it like it's unimaginable wealth

That someone on 100k (or 80 indeed!) also needs to pay for rent and childcare, those costs don't magically vanish

Maybe I will, then I’ll be able to afford the big family I would love to have.

Her salary is £2800. Her UC is £3400- which is £600 higher than her actual salary!! She has another baby on the way despite her salary not being enough to pay for the 4 children she already has, clearly knowing UC will cover the extra child. It’s strange that she has that option, while I don’t.

I don’t usually pay attention to these types of articles - but if this is real, then yes, it’s a joke! I say this as a lone parent, who has never received any benefits. I fully support benefits by the way - but there has to be a limit.

Give your head a wobble. I'm earning £33k husband self employed £19k and get NO UC or ANY help paying for this shit. Absolute joke.

A 27 year old woman with 4 small children and another on the way is far from ideal. Her husband does not earn enough to support all the children they are bringing into the world - "It's the constant worry of bailiffs coming to the door, they've come into the house and seen what goods we've got," - so this is irresponsible and selfish of them. She may be having babies to fill a void or to avoid having to go back to work.

I don’t understand why anyone on £41k would need top ups. Does someone on £60k and 4 kids get topped up to £100k too?
I need to look into this because it just seems ridiculous.

This is what I don't get, me and Hubby on £52k combined and get no help. We are lower earners so why not??

There are plenty of people working full time who need UC top ups. Presumably that's something they shouldn't be allowed to do because they're not disabled or ill?

Where does it say she has 4 children and is expecting another?

How many Thea’s are living like this? My guess is not many. Most people have the desire to work. Provide a for their kids. Do shut up from your bunker

I bet you are paid by your husband/parents

Well strange the Tory’s had it like this for years until last couple and yet barely a word written in any of the right wing press -I don’t agree with this choice and guess it’s for political reasons but funnily enough because it’s Labour let’s get all agitated - I also disagree with the Tory initiated policy of allowing child maintenance not to be counted against UC - sorry if it’s regular and consistent I think it should be -

Nearly half of families in the country only have 1 child - this is probably due to the high cost of childcare and also having a second child often means one parent giving up work or only working part-time, so it's normal that people react when they see someone with 4 and soon 5 children with no way of supporting them without other people's taxes.

Like the other poster, you are confusing Thea with another person in the article.
If you are going to rant about something, at least make sure you have the right person.

But the top up takes her to an equivalent salary of over 100k. That's the issue.

A high earner in London with three kids on 80 K no benefits
A low earner in same part of London with three kids on 41k, topped up to equivalent of over 100k

Because why? The cost of living is higher for the person on benefits?

It makes NO sense

That's not a race to the bottom or judgement. It disincentivises work. When all high earners drop to part time to earn 41K and top up as the lady in the article then wtf will Labour say.

It's idiotic. I stand by that.

Don’t be a dick. No family wants to lead themselves into poverty. If what’s done is done, it’s done. The only hope we have for our future is small people. Don’t deny them a meal. X

This woman works full time. The problem is the cost of living that means a full time wage, or two, isn't enough to live on.
Im a mother of 5. Most adults now. My husband owns his own business and works hard. I was a sahm for their younger years. No benefits. I know i was lucky. I went back to work 5 years ago. My youngest son has now came down with a serious illness. I've had to give up work to look after him. We've applied for PIP (he's 17) no luck so far. If he does get it, I'll be entitled to carers. Which is roughly £80 a week. Won't cover the short fall. This change won't make any difference to me. But fair play to those it does. No children should be living in poverty.
And it won't make any difference to what tax you or my husband pay.
Or make your life worse.
Maybe look at the tax dodgers. The billionaires. They the ones that cost this country fortune.
There for the grace of God go I.

The difference between a single working mother earning $30,000 a year and receiving top-ups for things like child care, and one who is earning $100,000 a year and not receiving the top-ups is that in a very few years, the first mother will lose the child care payments and continue to earn $30,000 a year, whereas the second mother will stop having to pay for child care but still be earning $100,000 a year.

Which of them is going to be better off long-term?

Her UC is high because she works full time and it will cover some of her childcare costs.

She is a single parent of 3 children and does not have a baby on the way. That isn't Thea. If she wasn't working full time, her UC would be lower because of the lack of childcare.

It will also lower when her children don't need full time childcare any longer.

So what?

The point is that the “taker” is making lifestyle choices on the backs of people who are forced to pay for her imprudent and distasteful voluntary actions. That’s fucking tiresome and unfair.