Page 25 | Are other full-time working families finding there is nothing left?

fatface001 · 2026-03-31T07:40:35+00:00

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?

RedRock41 · 31/03/2026 22:57

CurlyhairedAssassin · 31/03/2026 22:30

Unpopular perhaps but in my view it is not at all right someone can keep capital in housing sometimes worth £1m or more. That can’t continue. Either downsize or put a charge on the property as quid pro quo. How can taking from a poor working household be right in current climate when said home owner is richer than most renters can ever dream to be? What about the inheritance for our kids?

No. Not if this is their only roof over their head. (Of course if someone owns a second property then absolutely you have a good argument, although if they were renting that out and expected them to sell it, then that makes the tenants homeless and what happens to them?).

For some people the situation that led them to needing to access benefits could be temporary. When you take into account moving costs and stamp duty it would be totally wrong to say that someone could not claim benefits if they owned their own house. People work damned hard to pay their mortgages off BECAUSE they weight up that it's worth it because that at least they have a roof over their head if everything goes tits up with their job, and plenty of home owners have a social conscience too - another advantage is that they DON'T have to rely on the state to pay their housing costs at least, if they do lose their job etc.

Come on, just HOW did we get to the stage where we are trying to argue that we should remove the roof over the head of home owners who have paid for it themselves, maybe never having claimed benefits in their lives, if they happen to go through a period of bad luck with ill health or redundancy? It's beyond me that someone should think it reasonable that someone in an already stressful situation should put their house up for sale. Do you even know what an arduous, long drawn-out, expensive process that is?

If they have a spare room they could get a lodger to bring in some income. If they are forced to downsize, where are all these smaller homes going to come from, for both the home owner and the lodger?

Never once said a owned outright home owner should have to sell their home. Point is to claim means tested benefits as a working renter you are allowed a maximum of £16k in savings, even then it’s tapered after £6k. For care homes, home owner equity up for grabs to a ridiculous extent.

In contrast, and you’re right, lots end up in difficult circumstances for a number of reasons, is it right that a home owner can spend decades on means tested benefits regardless of level of equity in their home without giving a charge to allow the tax payer to at least get something back when they sell?

Reality is likes of:

Young family A. Couple kids. Both work. Rent. Unable to save due to cost of living crisis so survive pay cheque to pay cheque, less than £500 in bank paying tax to support family B. Family B, £500k equity in outright owned home (bought from inheritance), savings of £5k and on full means tested benefits?

Which family is overall better off?

OneShyQuail · 31/03/2026 22:58

Katypp · 31/03/2026 22:51

Well sometimes. But not always.
My friend i spoke of upthread is living quite nicely on benefits supplemented by maintenence, on the equivilent of £75k a year, all tax free of course.
And although her income is higher than two nwm workers and she doesn't work, she will get any hardship payments that may be paid because she is 'vulnerable' because she is on uc.

Show quote history

How on earth is she claiming so much money and not working at all?

Unless she has a child under 3 she mist be working, unless she is claiming very high rate disabilities in which case she is being totally fraudulent. Or does she care for her dependents, are they on high rate disability?

I am very cautious about these tales, because it is difficult to fraudulent about money earned as its tied to your NI number, and you do have to prove your disabilities/illness/capability to work. So how exactly is she doing it?

If she is "earning" so much money what is she doing with the excess? She cant be stashing it away as her UC would stop at 16k.

Is she your friend or your "friend" if the latter and you are so aghast have you considered reporting her?

If she is getting all that money "honestly" I am totally aghast at how, never in all my time working with families receiving UC have I ever heard anything like it.

Crikeyalmighty · 31/03/2026 23:03

@Katypp. Yep - and I know like myself you are social minded but not an idiot - it’s one reason I disagree with maintenance not being used as part of the calculation - maybe disregard for 6 months but if it proves to be consistent and reliable and it can be pretty large in some cases- it should go into the income pot for calculations - if it stops then it can be reassessed - I think a lot of people think it’s the odd £200 or so if you are lucky- this isn’t always the case-

OneShyQuail · 31/03/2026 23:04

RedRock41 · 31/03/2026 22:57

Never once said a owned outright home owner should have to sell their home. Point is to claim means tested benefits as a working renter you are allowed a maximum of £16k in savings, even then it’s tapered after £6k. For care homes, home owner equity up for grabs to a ridiculous extent.

In contrast, and you’re right, lots end up in difficult circumstances for a number of reasons, is it right that a home owner can spend decades on means tested benefits regardless of level of equity in their home without giving a charge to allow the tax payer to at least get something back when they sell?

Reality is likes of:

Young family A. Couple kids. Both work. Rent. Unable to save due to cost of living crisis so survive pay cheque to pay cheque, less than £500 in bank paying tax to support family B. Family B, £500k equity in outright owned home (bought from inheritance), savings of £5k and on full means tested benefits?

Which family is overall better off?

Show quote history

To clarify. You cant be on full means tested benefits and just not work. Unless disabilities/caring responsibilities.

How on earth a 500k house would be run and maintained on a means tested benefit income is beyond me. The council tax would be a fortune for a start.

Not sure where all this "working ppl paying tax are supporting people on benefits" comes from. The majority of people on UC work and pay tax and NI 🤷‍♀️

XenoBitch · 31/03/2026 23:07

CurlyhairedAssassin · 31/03/2026 22:30

Unpopular perhaps but in my view it is not at all right someone can keep capital in housing sometimes worth £1m or more. That can’t continue. Either downsize or put a charge on the property as quid pro quo. How can taking from a poor working household be right in current climate when said home owner is richer than most renters can ever dream to be? What about the inheritance for our kids?

No. Not if this is their only roof over their head. (Of course if someone owns a second property then absolutely you have a good argument, although if they were renting that out and expected them to sell it, then that makes the tenants homeless and what happens to them?).

For some people the situation that led them to needing to access benefits could be temporary. When you take into account moving costs and stamp duty it would be totally wrong to say that someone could not claim benefits if they owned their own house. People work damned hard to pay their mortgages off BECAUSE they weight up that it's worth it because that at least they have a roof over their head if everything goes tits up with their job, and plenty of home owners have a social conscience too - another advantage is that they DON'T have to rely on the state to pay their housing costs at least, if they do lose their job etc.

Come on, just HOW did we get to the stage where we are trying to argue that we should remove the roof over the head of home owners who have paid for it themselves, maybe never having claimed benefits in their lives, if they happen to go through a period of bad luck with ill health or redundancy? It's beyond me that someone should think it reasonable that someone in an already stressful situation should put their house up for sale. Do you even know what an arduous, long drawn-out, expensive process that is?

If they have a spare room they could get a lodger to bring in some income. If they are forced to downsize, where are all these smaller homes going to come from, for both the home owner and the lodger?

A home you own that you do not live in is counted as capital for UC purposes, so that is the case already.

But yep, it makes no sense to count the value of the property you actually live in. I have a friend who lives in a 2 bed flat that he paid off years ago, but he is unable to work due several ailments. What would be the sense in making him sell it, to then end up getting the housing element of UC down the line anyway?
Homeowners on UC do not get the housing element so they get less overall than someone who rents anyway (I also do not rent so do not get the housing element).
PP go on about equity release, but that should be for when you need repairs done to your property. A homeowner on UC is not immune to costly home maintenance and repairs. They can't just pull say £15k out their arse to fix a roof, because some PP think anyone on UC should have no savings at all (wait until they read about the Help to Save scheme).

What next? Making you sell possessions that it is deemed are luxuries before you can claim? That actually was the case many many years ago.

CostOfLoving · 31/03/2026 23:08

Katypp · 31/03/2026 22:51

Well sometimes. But not always.
My friend i spoke of upthread is living quite nicely on benefits supplemented by maintenence, on the equivilent of £75k a year, all tax free of course.
And although her income is higher than two nwm workers and she doesn't work, she will get any hardship payments that may be paid because she is 'vulnerable' because she is on uc.

Show quote history

Can you give any more detail as to the breakdown of that figure?
I can't understand how it can possibly be so high.

RedRock41 · 31/03/2026 23:18

@OneShyQuail if working people were taxed much less they wouldn’t need so much UC or other top ups. Not right that parents both working struggle so much just to try to make ends meet, rather than top up, just let them keep more of their own money.

Too many taxes: NI, PAYE, VAT, fuel duty, road tax, Council Tax, TV Licence etc. Take an average wage in a pie chart and therein shows where majority goes.

Unemployed people have one of most meagre benefits entitlements going. That’s not right either or the issue. That group deserves a bit more as no issue with genuine safety net where people fall on hard times.

So yes it’s those of working age who do use system (in some cases) like a hammock that are (at least) part the problem. Disability/CA in some cases are being claimed when folk working might have even greater health issues (just because people work doesn’t mean they too don’t have illnesses).

Deny that it doesn’t happen if you must, but I’ve seen it firsthand as have I am sure others have. +C’Tax reduction = hammock family don’t pay full CT whereas the working poor in most cases still do.

As someone said upstream the whole system needs looked at again, genuine safety net yes - those who are less well off paying for those overall much much better off eh no. As soon as someone is sitting on a ton of equity getting all the hardship payments going as deemed the ‘most vulnerable’ that’s not right. £500,000 equity or whatever it may be when in the hundreds of thousands by anyone’s standards is not destitute.

OneShyQuail · 31/03/2026 23:23

RedRock41 · 31/03/2026 23:18

@OneShyQuail if working people were taxed much less they wouldn’t need so much UC or other top ups. Not right that parents both working struggle so much just to try to make ends meet, rather than top up, just let them keep more of their own money.

Too many taxes: NI, PAYE, VAT, fuel duty, road tax, Council Tax, TV Licence etc. Take an average wage in a pie chart and therein shows where majority goes.

Unemployed people have one of most meagre benefits entitlements going. That’s not right either or the issue. That group deserves a bit more as no issue with genuine safety net where people fall on hard times.

So yes it’s those of working age who do use system (in some cases) like a hammock that are (at least) part the problem. Disability/CA in some cases are being claimed when folk working might have even greater health issues (just because people work doesn’t mean they too don’t have illnesses).

Deny that it doesn’t happen if you must, but I’ve seen it firsthand as have I am sure others have. +C’Tax reduction = hammock family don’t pay full CT whereas the working poor in most cases still do.

As someone said upstream the whole system needs looked at again, genuine safety net yes - those who are less well off paying for those overall much much better off eh no. As soon as someone is sitting on a ton of equity getting all the hardship payments going as deemed the ‘most vulnerable’ that’s not right. £500,000 equity or whatever it may be when in the hundreds of thousands by anyone’s standards is not destitute.

Edited

Not sure you meant to tag me?

I totally agree working people on lower incomes are taxed too much but the need for UC is also because wages are so low. People on UC that are working also pay tax and NI btw. You are not exempt from paying tax on UC.

I dont think the "middle earners" should near the brunt neither do I think ppl on UC are the enemies, I jumped in because I couldnt believe I was reading that those on benefits must be winning etc.

It is the highest earners and the ones skipping tax etc with their clever accountants etc (which happens more than Ms Smith committing benefit fraud btw) that should bear the brunt of this

Ted27 · 31/03/2026 23:31

I do have a spare room, I'm sure people would be queuing up to share a bathroom with some one with severe D and V from chemo.

Uptightmumma · 31/03/2026 23:34

youalright · 31/03/2026 13:10

Are you actually serious. This isn't struggling

Show quote history

The post isn’t about struggling it’s about working and not being able to have nice things! Treats etc without it being a struggle. If 2 people work full time then there should be cash to do nice things without having to penny pinch. It should not be costing £100 for a family to go on a day out. It should not be cost £135 to buy a football kit. It should not be costing me £50 a month so my 9 year old can play football in a team!

RedRock41 · 31/03/2026 23:40

OneShyQuail · 31/03/2026 23:23

Not sure you meant to tag me?

I totally agree working people on lower incomes are taxed too much but the need for UC is also because wages are so low. People on UC that are working also pay tax and NI btw. You are not exempt from paying tax on UC.

I dont think the "middle earners" should near the brunt neither do I think ppl on UC are the enemies, I jumped in because I couldnt believe I was reading that those on benefits must be winning etc.

It is the highest earners and the ones skipping tax etc with their clever accountants etc (which happens more than Ms Smith committing benefit fraud btw) that should bear the brunt of this

Show quote history

I’m not sure if I did either. Agree with most of that though but likes of £12.71 p/hr should be as it’s minimum wage imho fully tax free. Ridiculous system lowest paid, pay tax, to then get a small amount of UC to then pay tax on it? Why not just let them keep much more of their own money in the first place?

Many businesses also struggling as cost of hiring highest level ever. Not like 90’s or early 2000’s. 2008 crash changed everything.

No one on UC is the enemy, far from it, point was means tested benefits after x months (to allow for short term shocks) must treat savings and capital (home equity the same).

Middle earners absolutely squeezed and what is classed now as ‘high earner’ is anything but, and guess overall, other point is something has to give.

Not just higher earners but at some stage capital above a certain amount, i.e unearned wealth also needs properly taxed. Earners cannot be squeezed any more, 18 years really of low/no growth and austerity whatever the political classes call it is just enough.

Work for many no longer pays and do very much resent paying for those who are in a hammock as some but definitely not all are. Full review of system needed instead of tinkering round edges.

Morepositivemum · 31/03/2026 23:55

CurlyhairedAssassin

Be careful with any card administration charges, expiry date etc.
Those one4all cards are a rip off if you don't spend them fairly quickly.

yes, that’s true I wouldn’t get one for all vouchers, I just get shop dependant ones, eg Tesco/ Aldi/ Boots and our local hairdresser/ beautician who has been around years- am in Ireland and all vouchers by law here have a 5 year expiration date now by law

Frannieisnthappy · 01/04/2026 00:16

PinkKimono · 31/03/2026 09:55

The Tories designed and introduced the UC system.

Anyway, those on UC have their benefits reduced by £4.35 per month for every £250 they have above £6k in savings.

You are angry at the wrong people.

Show quote history

Absolutely this.

I would also like to add that those on UC are not immune to food costing more, higher utilities etc.

And a high proportion of those receiving UC also work and pay tax and do not have free prescriptions, dentists etc etc.

youalright · 01/04/2026 00:19

Uptightmumma · 31/03/2026 23:34

The post isn’t about struggling it’s about working and not being able to have nice things! Treats etc without it being a struggle. If 2 people work full time then there should be cash to do nice things without having to penny pinch. It should not be costing £100 for a family to go on a day out. It should not be cost £135 to buy a football kit. It should not be costing me £50 a month so my 9 year old can play football in a team!

Show quote history

Working full time doesn't automatically equal being able to buy everything you want when you want and it never has. Most people wouldn't just buy their kids the new England football kit for £135 unless it was a Christmas present. If you think this is normal spending its not surprising you are disappointed in what spare money you have. You can say no to your kids you know.

BurntBroccoli · 01/04/2026 01:37

CloudPop · 31/03/2026 08:45

I agree with you. I am only paid very slightly more than I was 15 years ago, and clearly the cost of absolutely everything is substantially higher than it was 15 years ago. Salaries have stagnated whilst the cost of everything has gone through the roof. There are a lot of very wealthy people who have benefited enormously from this and somehow we’ve ended up enabling them to do so.

Yes this is me - salary not much more than it was 15 years ago but all the bills and food have gone up massively.

It’s only this year that our pay at work will go up 4% - previously it was well below inflation while the CEO’s wage has risen 80% over those 15 years.

MidnightMeltdown · 01/04/2026 02:09

Boudy · 31/03/2026 22:33

@givemesteel many many people in receipt of UC also work full time.

This is not true. Only around a third of UC claimants are in work. Many of these will only be working a few hours a week (so that they don’t lose benefits). You see it on here all the time - people saying that they could increase their hours, but it not worth it due to loss of benefits. So basically they’d rather have extra days off and have other people work and pay for them.

WaryCrow · 01/04/2026 05:39

It’s obscene how much wealth is in this country and how much has been sucked into fewer hands.

The top 50 families hold more wealth than the poorest 50% of the population. The top 50. (Equality Trust figures).

The Times Rich List has 156 billionaires on it, where there were once, pre 1980s, 2. Most of those were born into it or born into the company that gave them wealth, and take a look at the mismatch between their list of richest and the list of the UKs biggest taxpayers.

Im off to work in an underpaid and undervalued job in the NHS today and wonder some more about dropping my hours or handing my notice in as we’re expected to do ever more with ever less. It’s not worth it to me to break my health at 50 to keep the baby boomers going at 90. Who will you get to do it next? The money doesn’t gain me anything due to the insane property prices even of the poorest crap thrown up in Victorian times. Those billionaires are the cause of it all.

https://www.thetimes.com/sunday-times-rich-list

https://highpaycentre.org/sunday-times-rich-list-2025-our-reflections/

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/evidence-base/billionaire-britain-2025/

The Sunday Times Rich List 2025

The Rich List 2025 is our definitive guide to the wealth of the UK’s richest people. Read profiles and interviews, and see all the facts and figures

https://www.thetimes.com/sunday-times-rich-list

dinbin · 01/04/2026 06:02

The thing is an ageing population is going to put pressure on the benefit spend since pensioner spending is the biggest cost. I would pause the triple lock but people won’t vote for it.

Coffeeandbooks88 · 01/04/2026 06:11

MidnightMeltdown · 01/04/2026 02:09

This is not true. Only around a third of UC claimants are in work. Many of these will only be working a few hours a week (so that they don’t lose benefits). You see it on here all the time - people saying that they could increase their hours, but it not worth it due to loss of benefits. So basically they’d rather have extra days off and have other people work and pay for them.

Show quote history

This is out of date. The amount they have to earn if in a single claim is about 19 hours and I guess double that for a couple. I can get away with one shift a week because my husband earns over the AET but I am looking after my youngest.

dinbin · 01/04/2026 06:11

Young family A. Couple kids. Both work. Rent. Unable to save due to cost of living crisis so survive pay cheque to pay cheque, less than £500 in bank paying tax to support family B. Family B, £500k equity in outright owned home (bought from inheritance), savings of £5k and on full means tested benefits?

I also think that care in the home should include house value (a charge in the home). It’s much more common than going into a care home but people get it regardless of housing wealth.

How on earth a 500k house would be run and maintained on a means tested benefit income is beyond me. The council tax would be a fortune for a start.

Why do you think that? CT isn’t based on current house prices….

dinbin · 01/04/2026 06:16

It is the highest earners and the ones skipping tax etc with their clever accountants etc (which happens more than Ms Smith committing benefit fraud btw) that should bear the brunt of this

Who are we talking about here with regards to higher earners? Because higher earners on PAYE are paying a lot of tax, very much in line with other European countries. It’s the low and middle earners who pay less but as I have said a large barrier to changing this is high housing costs.

TheBlueKoala · 01/04/2026 07:10

Maybe unpopular but I think PIP and DLA should be meanstested as well. You got millionaires receiving PIP/DLA they do not need. And don't get me started on anxiety eligibility- it should be vetted better and coherently. Those who need it should absolutely get it- those who don't shouldn't.

Differentforgirls · 01/04/2026 07:26

Lameelephant · 31/03/2026 14:00

It’s fine, I get it. It’s probably uncomfortable to admit to yourself. I’m afraid at some point though, people are in for a big shock when they have to start paying at least their own way and for their own children. It will either be the IMF after a loan or the next Government, but it’s an absolute certainty.

Show quote history

Why would it be uncomfortable for me?

Kirbert2 · 01/04/2026 07:34

TheBlueKoala · 01/04/2026 07:10

Maybe unpopular but I think PIP and DLA should be meanstested as well. You got millionaires receiving PIP/DLA they do not need. And don't get me started on anxiety eligibility- it should be vetted better and coherently. Those who need it should absolutely get it- those who don't shouldn't.

How many millionaires are going to the trouble of applying for PIP/DLA?

hattie43 · 01/04/2026 07:34

Lameelephant · 31/03/2026 13:27

What response were you going for in linking taxes with taking about ‘the genocide’? I assumed it was a parody of an unemployed left wing person

Show quote history

Has to be . No one else would be so stupid . Why should anyone billionaire or not express a view on everything. JKR did plenty in the fight for women’s rights.