Are other full-time working families finding there is nothing left?

[fatface001]

Alarm went off at 5:30 this morning, then an hour stood on a packed train into London for the commute. We are a normal family: one child and two full-time jobs. I’ve always enjoyed working and have always worked hard, and I don’t mind that at all — but I do expect that full-time work should still mean there’s something left at the end of the month for a normal life.

But that really doesn’t feel like the case anymore.

There’s nothing left at the end of the month. Everything has been stripped back, all non-essentials have gone, and even basic things around the house are being put off or done ourselves because there isn’t spare money for trades. It’s just constant cutting back.

What’s hard is that we’re both working really long hours and doing everything we’re “supposed” to do, but it still feels like we’re going backwards rather than getting ahead.

When I hear talk about “those with the broadest shoulders” contributing more, I honestly don’t recognise it anymore in real life. It doesn’t feel like anyone in our position has anything left to give — it feels like the pressure is entirely on ordinary working households just to stand still.

I’m not looking for luxuries — just the sense that working still gives you a bit of breathing room. Right now it doesn’t feel like that at all.

Is anyone else feeling the same?

Nobody is winning in current system - that’s the point!

My knowledge comes from my job. I am often helping/ working with families who qualify for UC. So I see the thresholds etc

I think we’re all, regardless of circumstances, finding life hard at the moment. But it’s nothing new - we’ve had plenty of of Boom and Bust before in the UK.

It’ll pass. 👍

My response was to a pp claiming that people on benefits ARE winning.

'I think the only groups winning here at the moment are the super wealthy or benefit people who don’t work'

I don’t want people on benefits to suffer, everyone who can work should be working and there should be work that pays well enough that benefits are only there for those who cannot work and are therefore more generous. I don’t think this is a particularly right wing viewpoint, I consider myself socialist. It isn’t good for people to only work 15 hours or not at all because they lose more than they can earn.

If you are working full time and stressed and tired and feel like you have nothing to show for it then it’s all a big pile of wank. It particularly sticks in the craw when people say you cannot possibly complain about the state of 2026 Britain because at least you’re not starving in a freezing hovel. No one should be starving in a freezing hovel and I don’t think that is where the bar should be set for a good life in the UK. There should be enough to go round and really we need some large scale study to understand where the money is actually going because I’m doubly pissed off that not only do I pay a shitload of tax, the people it’s supposedly going to don’t get enough to pay bills and eat.

LOL at the idea that someone on benefits might not worry about putting food on the table.

I was a teen in the 80s and clearly remember negative equity. The difference was that in the 80s you could lose your house and stand a chance of getting social housing instead or rent. Now mortgages are cheaper than renting. So masses of people losing their houses is going to be an absolute crisis.

Imagine the worry of having to pay all your bills and housing costs alongside the worry of refundancy. Makes benefits and social housing seem like luxury living. Guaranteed monthly income and low to no housing costs.

I read that ‘winning’ as - not destitute as would be the case if we didn’t have a social safety net. In that sense, not working and having a similar standard of living to someone on £30-40k plus is ‘winning’.

Yes I know and understand why people are on UC. But if they have their own money, they should be using that first instead of the states.

The NHS is on it's knees, people are dying in corridors but we can't give anymore more money to help that, it's more important we give it to Shirley down the road as she's a low earner and needs her wage topped up even though she has 15k in the bank! But we have to let her keep that 15k in the bank rather than saving the person in hospital just in case her washing machine or car breaks down, ah poor Shirley.

I'm not benefit bashing people here, I understand most people on benefits do not have a penny in savings and if they need benefits, they need benefits. My point is we should not be giving it to people who can clearly pay their own bills with the money they have in the bank. The threshold is way too high and that money should be spent saving lives, not allowing people to have a "buffer" in case they have a little life emergency. That is my point.

Ive got a good amount of savings. Im not going to stop getting it. Ive got 3 kids to raise. Get no help from the dad.

That just made me laugh😆

My son said to me on the way home …. When is Keir Starmer going to stop being prime minister. How long do we have to wait? That’s totally my fault that I must slag him off constantly 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

This. But of course the benefits bashers will be out in force...

Don’t act so high and mighty.

Most people don’t have any real concept of what we pay in tax across the year, why do you think self-employed people get themselves into so much trouble? What people understand is there is less money in their pocket and constant inflation pressures meaning the money they have is worth less and prices/taxes/rates/fines/bills only ever go up and once they go up, they stay up.

People are tired and pissed off and Labour have heaped on more pressure whilst being sanctimonious and self-righteous.

I'm not saying being on benefits is cushty and I know the majority of people on benefits won't have any money saved. I'm not benefit bashing, if people need it, they need it, happy to pay it.
But if someone has 15k in the bank, they don't need benefits, come on, seriously, they have more money in the bank than the majority of people in the UK have. It's wrong. The threshold is way too high.
Not one person on here has put forward a reasonable argument as to why people should be allowed to have that much money in the bank and then still go cap in hand to the state.

Genuine question why don’t you hire a nanny at that cost?

Which genocide? Sudan? Burma? Lebanon?

Anyway why do you think you can decide what she talks about online/in public? @Suncatch

I think this is a really good point and one I have made time and time again on threads like this.
The years when you are bringing up your children have ALWAYS been the most expensive and hardest years. There is nothing unique about today's struggling families that others have not been through.
Yes, we have a 'cost of living crisis' at the moment, but, as pps have pointed out, we went through a pretty rough patch in the late 80s and early 90s too. At one point, my mortgage went up from 7% (higher than now) to 14% in a matter of weeks. Yes, my mortgage was only £22k, but my salary was £6k.
I think one of the biggest issues today is 'lifestyle creep', where people have been able to spend lavishly on non-essentials which they have come to expect as basics. An example - when my oldest (32 now) was little, soft play had just become a thing and was a very popular option for birthday parties - in other words it was considered to be a treat. Now I read on here that it has become an expected weekly morning or afternoon out, along with baby sensory and all of the other clubs and activities that are now considered as bordering on essential for young children and babies.
Grooming is another area that has become normalised. Manicures used to be the preserve of the well-heeled only. Now every high street has at least one nail bar and usually a beautician too. Someone must be using them.
Yes houses are more expensive then they were, but what is considered a .basic lifestyle' has risen at just as high a rate.

So you are aiming your anger at hardly anyone then?!

whats the threshold then? If you have 2k is that ok? 5k?

Says its set at 3k then.
if someone has 15k in the bank, and then they suddenly become really poorly, or their partner suddenly leaves or they are suddenly made redundant and they have so very little in earnings each month, or no earnings at all and their expenditure is 2.5a month.
They are allowed 3k in savings. So they need to live off that 12k....so for 4 months they use their 12k to live off....still no job, still ill etc, then they can claim?

But they have a mortgage? A car? Then something happens to the house or car? They have no buffer to fix it. Then what?
UC really doesnt pay a lot, youll never build up another buffer on UC youll have none left over to save.

I am sorry but if you have a household income of 40k or more and youve had that income for several years you really should have more in your savings than 15k come on 😂😂

I have a very modest income of nowhere near 40k at all and 2 dependant children and I have some savings, not 15k but if I had double my income I would certainly be able to save a lot more a month

JKR "The 2026 Sunday Times Tax List has revealed that JK Rowling contributed £47.5 million to the UK exchequer last year, securing her position as the third-highest taxpayer in Scotland and 36th across the UK."

That JKR? The one who keeps dropping herself down the "Rich List" due to all the charitable donations she makes?

Is that JKR the JKR you mean?

https://www.scottishfinancialnews.com/articles/jk-rowling-contributes-ps475m-in-taxes

What about the others on the Rich List above & below her - did they also fail to talk about "the genocide"?

As an example, how much money do you think a single parent, with 2 dependant children working part time around school runs, with a mortgage and a little car gets from UC?

I can guarantee you its less than 22k (as in thats what they get in work income and benefits) and from that they are paying the same bills as everyone else with the only exception as a 20% reduction on council tax.

So even if your "only" earning 30k (which by the looks of this thread is f**k all as people on here are saying they have a household income of 40k, 60k, 100k etc and are complaining theres nothing left) then you are already 8k up on a single mum working and receiving UC top up (and shes doing it all alone!)

The government need to sack off the triple lock on state pensions, before coming after middle earners for more tax.
And sort out welfare reform. I'm a lefty, and I'm becoming resentful of how much tax I pay towards others who either don't need or deserve the funds they're getting.

This.

The current COL situation is nothing new.

They come and they go.

Very few of the people I know feel like they are winning - at anything
Either they’re working every hour they can to meet ever increasing bills and having nothing left to show for it or they’re never getting to see their partner and/or children and still having nothing left to show for it
Food bills seem incredible
Given what’s going on in the world it seems shocking to complain but by everyday standards people are having a tough time

@OneShyQuailisn't the average UC top up £1270 a month according to the ONS? If you even look at the general claiming criteria, add in housing benefit, child element, childcare element, even before any disabilities etc it’s way over a £30k salary in total.

A £30k salary is just over £2k a month. Top ups are beyond this