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!!

Given that she has 3 kids and is in a 1 bed,whilst rent will be high due to location the biggest chunk will be childcare.

I'm not in London, but up here it's £80 a day for most nurseries. We only get the free 30 hours at age 3, once averaged over a year it pays for 2 days, maybe 2.5. Call it two for ease. So even at our rates she'd be £80 × 3 days x 2 kids x 50 weeks (assuming xmas closure) /12 = £2000 per month on nursery. Add on 4-500 a month for after school and holiday care, let's call it £2500 a month on childcare. It could easily be far more depending on local rates, whether funded places are available, etc. Here you'd be paying full rate for both the younger kids - so total childcare bill would be around £4k.

Most people do not earn enough to provide solo for 3 kids in childcare. Even high earners. As a result having 3 that close together isn't a very common choice IME

We had no profit either.

Our monthly outgoings were £1500 per month and rent was £1250. We wanted to keep the flat and that was the market rate. But when the laws changed we paid 60% tax on £1250 times 12 as they changed the laws so landlords had to deduct tax on gross income (at their marginal rate) before allowable deductions. That was my first experience with the 100k cliff. Or net profit was also 0. But we paid tax anyways. Maybe you sold before this became law?

Off piste but there you go.

@UserFront242 I am aware she is reviving this amount in benefits, I believe that is excessive and that the additional scrap of the 2 child limit was not needed , to say that the money in this case lifts the children out of poverty is disingenuous

Duplicate post removed

Well, the DWP don't think it is excessive.

Well at least this govt will be out at the next election, given the general feeling in the county I suspect that things will change.

Most people won't be receiving that amount due to the cost of childcare etc in London.

The problem with benefits is that the amount that gets paid only ever gets larger as kids grow up thinking it is the norm and go on to claim themselves. Sooner or later it becomes unsustainable. Some would argue we are at that point now.

So we need to question whether the state should support people to live in 'a pricey part of London' which is what is happening here - if she lived in a northern city with northern rent and northern childcare costs her UC would likely to be much lower and contrary to MN beliefs she might not earn much less, after all NMW is close to £25k pa and many teachers, nurses and people in similar roles earn around £30-40k or more or so within a few years of graduating and you can do that job anywhere. Many tradespeople, PAs, professionals, civil servants and lots of other people earn that amount or more even outside the SE.

Living in an expensive area is a luxury. Having a large family is a luxury. I'd no more expect the taxpayer to pay for me to live in London or have a large family than I would a brand new car, buy all my groceries in Waitrose. heat my house to 25 C 24/7 or the cost of any other essential where the cost can vary by a large amount mostly dependent on choices made.

I have yearned my entire life to live in London but can’t afford it. It’s galling to work every day to pay taxes so some imprudent leech can do what prudent people such as I cannot afford.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for others’ luxuries - if you can’t afford to live in London or to have more than 1-2 children, then don’t.

@CheeseIsMyIdol if you want to live in London but can’t afford it maybe you should have made some better choices in life? Worked harder? Focussed on getting a better education. It’s your own fault you can’t afford it.

Wow on £80,000 and entitled to benefits. Just like the other single mum. Where's the outrage

It’s all over this thread. There’s about 20 pages of it.::

What, like Thea?

Just realised everyone can relax, as what Thea pays in tax on her £80k covers her benefits entirely. She she’s funding her own benefits. She’s not a leech after all. Hurrah!

You misunderstood. I was commenting on the working person earning £80,000 before benefits and also entitled to benefits, quoting someone who did the calculation, not on Thea.

I've said the same throughout

Whatever level of income is seen by UC as the bare minimum to survive in London - the child benefit cap and 30 free hours cap needs to sit well above that.

It cannot be that the same income should be punitively taxed as being "so high" and yet simultaneously be "the poverty line"

Exactly exactly exactly.

I feel strangely better that the single mom on 80K also gets benefits. She, realistically, has much more of a chance of escaping the benefits loop and become a net contributor after her kids are older and her childcare expenses are not as high.

That is not said to demonise the Thea's by the way.

It's telling to see people froth at someone on 80K gets benefits but not at someone on 45K being topped up to the equivalent of 100K.

Exactly like you said - it can't be high income for one and poverty for another.

It's the complete lack of transparency that gets to me. It's more or less impossible to have an informed opinion on benefits, taxes or incomes.

She seems to be doing okay?

Why is she whinging so much then?

She doesn’t seem to be whinging to me. She’s really happy as she’s going to get more money as a result of the lift.

But must have whinged to get to this point.