AIBU to claim UC with a 'high' income

[Loriclimbs]

I am very conflicted about lifting the two-child cap. I know many would benefit from it but it would lead us back to more abuse of the system. I, however, have three children myself. I have gratefully received UC in the past but as my income has grown I am currently no longer eligible.

With the addition of my youngest child, I will now be eligible for approximately £200 per month. I an a higher rate tax payer abd Icurrently pay over £1200 in income tax alone per month. I have to repay the majority of the child benefit I receive.

AIBU to claim what I am entitled to?

@Loriclimbs says she pays £1200 in tax alone, with a 5% pension. That would give her a gross salary of £5915, and a net salary of £4133.33.

Apologies for the typo. The allowance is £684. That still means a deduction of £1897.13.

The figures I used included 3 children. @Loriclimbs quoted £1550 for children which would be 5 children.

If you have over£16,000 in savings, you won't be allowed to claim.

Poverty is calculated as being a household income of less than 60% of median household income.

median household income roughly means 50% earn more and 50% earn less.

60% of 50% is 30%. So we will always have around 30% of households living in poverty by this calculation (unless we have a communist style “everyone earns the exact same no matter what job they do” system.

Median household income was £36,700 in the last ONS release for 2024. It is calculated as the amount of money households have available for spending and saving after direct taxes have been accounted for. It includes earnings from employment, private pensions and investments, as well as cash benefits provided by the state.

The median average FULL TIME salary in 2025 was £37,430 before tax.

Concentrating benefits on children means it’s becomes households without children who end up in that 30% and living in poverty. Those with children are by their nature likely to be younger and towards the start of their careers, less likely to have savings income or able to both work full time, so will naturally be in the lower household income bracket. Unless disabled/pensioner, those without children may be at the very start or their careers (but possibly without responsibilities) or well settled and require less financial top ups.

I starting reading this thread with the same level of uproar that most others felt. But having written the paragraph above, maybe concentrating on families with children does make sense.

i do feel that only the extremely rich or those that decide to rely on benefits can really financially decide to have multiple children though, which does seem unfair on those that make prudent decisions. ( and before I get flamed, I do understand that unfortunate life events happen and financial circumstances change!).

The £1550 includes childcare costs.

She also said her take home monthly pay is £3937. Assuming she means net rather than gross. Ignoring any previous comment about £1200 in tax, she is saying that her net figure is £3937 which is all that is relevant for a UC calculation really and makes a wage deduction of £1789. (However this doesn't tally up with the deduction of £1633 shown in the screenshot uploaded by the OP but say it is £3937 for this calculation)

If you paid into a pension you may find you’re entitled to some help from UC. Do the calculations again, taking off pension.

I dont agree with the lifting of the benefits from the 2 child cap. But fact is it has been lifted. If you are entitled to it now, then claim it. Noone is going to give you a good citizen award for not doing so. You didn't decide the rules

Coco bananas

Why?

Children with disabilities. That's why.
(if you read the thread it tells you this)

You won't be even without the savings. Two children and a mortgage. I suspect between £30-35,000 in wages would stop our UC claim. I would love to earn the wage you are earning!

There are advantages to both the school and the child for those on FSM. I didn't claim asy DC wouldn't eat school dinners, but the school asked me to claim regardless it is extra funding for them up until 6 years after the entitlement ends. Also, being on FSM is a contextual flag for UCAS, it won't give you a contextual offer on its own but it builds a picture and some universities give grants to students who were on FSM in the past 6 years.

What are we doing wrong then??!! DH was made redundant for over 7 months ago, he gets £700 UC, I work part time and get £1200 a month, we also get £100 child benefit, but absolutely nothing else at all. If I earn over my £1200 then the following month DH money is reduced for that month. The only thing against us is we have our own home. We're on the bones of our arse having to borrow money to literally keep the roof over our heads. DH is applying for any and everything. How are we eligible for so little in our circumstances when other people are eligible for so much more?!

Just to point out that we don't know yet if lifting the two child cap is going to apply to children born before it comes into effect or for children born after it starts, it will probably cause an uproar though if it is not backdated, also need to take into account unless an exemption applies the benefit cap will kick in. I agree with it being lifted in some circumstances but not all.

Hopefully once it’s in action and they realize how many ‘high earners’ are now receiving UC it’ll be reigned in. People are made to believe disabled people on benefits are ‘low income’ but it is not the case in this country.

Or maybe I’m starting to believe the conspiracists- about owning stuff. Mortgage rates through the roof, CGT, stamp duty, inheritance tax, everyone on UC…. I’m low income, disabled child so work PT, own a studio flat rented out and make about £120 a month on it. Even if I sold it I probably wouldn’t have more than £16k after everything. Pay own mortgage. Entitled to nothing because of ‘capital’. No childcare costs because quite simply no one will take my child. Yet someone earning nearly triple what I earn, can claim because they rent!

Yes, you own your own home, no disabilities, no childcare costs = no UC.

All of those froughing at the mouth about what people are entitled to. They were entitled to this before 2017. This has been a blip where people have had to really struggle and put people into real hardship and now they’re not.
Benefits are not out of control. We managed to fund them perfectly well up until that point what happened was we started punishing poor people

What’s out of control is pensions
you don’t have too many of them lamenting as to whether they should claim what they apparently are entitled to whether they need it or not do you?

Also for those feeling angry and saying they would be better off not working, save it. Have you considered how being on long term benefits affects your mental health, self esteem and confidence? I left a profession to care for ds, who left full time education last year. He's at home FT now as his needs go beyond what a day center can offer. I pay to get a 1:1 carer to allow me to work an 8 hour shift in a NMW job that I consider respite for me. I have 1 DC still in school so I have a work allowance of £411 per month, but next year when my DC leaves school 55% of my income will be reduced AND I will still have the same outgoings. I won't be able to afford to work my 'respite', my UC will be £400 pcm. I have no pension, no stable home and this is long term. I read a lot of threads on here and realize I am so behind wrt finances, my DC have never gone without (which I'm so grateful for) because I'm very frugal but carers in particular are massively hit when their disabled child finishes education and are thrown into absolute poverty. It causes a lot of depression and even suicide 😢

I remember in 1992 (?), our landlord coming to us and telling us he was upping our rent significantly, but it was fine because we wouldn't have to pay it, housing benefit would. He brought us round all the information/forms etc to be helpful! So he basically got a massive rent increase paid for by other people.

@verybighouseinthecountrysorry for your situation. But you must realise the amount of benefits some people are receiving is unsustainable long term? There isn’t enough money to pay for it

You have a mortgage. If you paid rent, you’d get more. Nil points for doing your best.

I'm pretty surprised that you don't have any savings on that salary. Or are you not aware that would affect your entitlement? You would have deductions for savings over 6k. 16k and over, you wouldn't be entitled to anything.

The main problem is mostly housing element and childcare. Rent is extortionate is large cities (and it's increasing everywhere), it is better for the government to pay a NMW worker's full housing cost and 80% of their childcare bill than to pay them to stay at home. They are instilling a work ethic into their own DC, they are contributing to the workforce and ergo the economy. Private rentals need to be capped and more social housing built.
When you look at the Nordic and Scandi models, out of work benefits are one of the most generous. The uptake is a lot less than UK however - there is a very strong societal consensus that you must work - but childcare is universally good and more importantly heavily subsidized by the government. The downside however is the removal of choice - it's apparently not really socially acceptable to chose to be a SAHP for example.
I see on UC groups here that they think it's against human rights to have work commitments when your DC is 3, and "where will I put them when I'm in work?" or "I didn't have children to give them to someone else to raise!". There are very strong cultures of entitlement within certain wc communities, who have been in families on generational unemployment with "bad nerves" and social housing. These DC are not equipped for the realities of the real world and this is where it is much better for these DC to be in childcare from a young age. The government needs to put more money into these children (eg Sure Start, children's centres etc) to try to break the cycle. That isn't happening though, and things will get worse rather than better.

And it's important to note that 40% of people "on benefits" ie UC are working full time. It's tragic in itself that a couple working full time are still considered to be in poverty.

I'm assuming the idea of what has been done is not just about supporting low income households, but boosting disposable income to drive spending and economic growth in mid earners too.

Finally, somebody asks something sensible instead of attacking disabled people and carers