Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To wonder on the future of generous welfare in the UK

1000 replies

happybug1234 · 11/05/2026 12:51

It seems increasingly obvious that many middle-income families are becoming frustrated at how squeezed they are financially, while at the same time seeing people on universal credit receive a growing range of subsidies and support — £1 attraction tickets on days out, a 6% rise in benefits this financial year, childcare costs reclaimable through Universal Credit, housing benefit, and so on. I see thread after thread on this on this site and also increasing momentum in the media on this issue (income cliff edges etc)

In my own extended family, 1 unemployed parent with the other on min wage, in social housing appear to have more holidays and more disposable income than we do, despite us both working full time with a household income of around £95k. Once childcare, mortgage, insurances, commuting and tax are taken into account, we 100% have a lower level of disposable income than they do as they do not have any of these work related costs and their rent is paid. They have recently gone on a 2 week holiday whilst the most we can ever afford is 1 week.

Quite a few teachers in my friendship circle are declining promotion opportunities or TLR because the extra pay often doesn’t feel worth the additional stress once tax, pension contributions and childcare costs are factored in. Instead, some are putting more effort into private tutoring, which is tax free cash in hand.

What is stopping the government from addressing this as people seek to be responding accordingly in their behaviour!

OP posts:
monday1983 · 11/05/2026 17:41

Skinnysaluki · 11/05/2026 17:28

Swap places and live in a HA home for a couple of months on UC.
Then come back and see if you’re still so envious and resentful

I would love to believe me as i wouldn't have to pay 4 k service charges for a place that i cant sell , that stopped me having children, that leaks on my head every time it rains. I wouldn't have to work 40 plus hours a week just to exist , i would rather exist working 16 hours and have a life

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 17:41

TigerRag · 11/05/2026 17:39

They're announced that under 22s won't be able to get LCWRA. Happy?

And older people claiming for the first time get even less now too.
That is just going to push up the claims for PIP, so people can pay their bills.

And none if it is going to see the taxpayer get more in their pay cheque. Just a smug sense that the people in the lowest rungs of society will struggle even more.

IsabellaVireauxLaurent · 11/05/2026 17:42

@happybug1234 have businesses that should pay better wages and the value of what the workers are truly worth, oh wait if that happens many industrys are not viable to make profits, then oh wait that then proves society needs basic wages to function and make profits, but oh they also need people to have kids to increase the workforces

Kirbert2 · 11/05/2026 17:42

oldFoolMe · 11/05/2026 17:31

Not true for a long time, its a 5 year lease at a time

I've been in mine only since the beginning of last year and was told it's mine as long as I want it. So that's not the case everywhere.

ToffeeCrabApple · 11/05/2026 17:44

By July 2025, 633,000 people were claiming PIP for anxiety & mood disorders.

Even assuming they all receive the minimum award, that is a billion pounds every year.

It might not seem like a lot per taxpayers but we are borrowing to fund it, every year we borrow more and more and then the government ends up spending a huge chunk of tax revenues on interest on borrowing.

bestcatlife · 11/05/2026 17:44

@Walkyriethere is already a benefit cap. Under 25’s (I think) can’t claim LCWRA and can claim PIP but only for a very short time.

TigerRag · 11/05/2026 17:45

ToffeeCrabApple · 11/05/2026 17:44

By July 2025, 633,000 people were claiming PIP for anxiety & mood disorders.

Even assuming they all receive the minimum award, that is a billion pounds every year.

It might not seem like a lot per taxpayers but we are borrowing to fund it, every year we borrow more and more and then the government ends up spending a huge chunk of tax revenues on interest on borrowing.

Are they just claiming for anxiety and depression or do they have other disabilities that qualify?

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 17:46

ToffeeCrabApple · 11/05/2026 17:44

By July 2025, 633,000 people were claiming PIP for anxiety & mood disorders.

Even assuming they all receive the minimum award, that is a billion pounds every year.

It might not seem like a lot per taxpayers but we are borrowing to fund it, every year we borrow more and more and then the government ends up spending a huge chunk of tax revenues on interest on borrowing.

Is that just solely for anxiety and mood disorders?
Because when you apply for PIP, you list everything you have, even if it not disabling you that much.
It makes sense that someone with a disability that would make them eligible for PIP would also have something like depression.

Bigcat25 · 11/05/2026 17:47

BillieWiper · 11/05/2026 14:55

The welfare that I'm on isn't remotely generous. It's barely enough to exist on. Being chronically disabled is really expensive but able people don't believe or want to see that.

Edited

This. My friend will be a lifelong career for their child and they certainly aren't having two week long vacations. They are buying used mattresses.

I'm not sure the circumstances of the people in op's post (do they share with a partner or parent, etc,) but they don't reflect everyone living on UC.

TheFairyCaravan · 11/05/2026 17:47

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 17:11

I don't know the ins and outs of @Wynter25 situation, but she may well be a single mum who is holding on to a part time job whist her youngest is still small.
She has the chance to up her hours when need be, and that is what the system lets her do. Or she might have a partner who is not on a great wage so they get top ups anyway.
The taxpayer will be funding her benefits, or the childcare. Does it matter to you which? I am sure Wynter25 prefers to spend that time she will never get back with her small child.

DDIL would love to spend the time she’s never going to get back with DGS. Instead she drops him at her mum’s on a Sunday evening and doesn’t see him again, properly until Wednesday morning when she gets him up. She’s a nurse, as is DS2, who does 12 hour shifts. She had no choice but to go back to work because no one is going to pay their mortgage but those two. They couldn’t sit and say “ooh, go back when he’s 3” because their bills still needed paying.

It’s a bloody joke that parents are foregoing time with their own children to pay for other parents to spend time with theirs. I fully support people who can’t work, but there’s far too many people taking the piss by choosing not to. The Govt need to get a grip of it.

OonaStubbs · 11/05/2026 17:48

Fluffybuns88 · 11/05/2026 17:34

It's well documented that a strong welfare system massively benefits the economy long term, it helps to provide better health, education and crime outcomes.
This increases productivity across nearly every sector and saves money in healthcare and education.

It's really not that hard to grasp, benefits are essential to the economy of a population in the long term, not just the bare minimum but a good standard of them, they creates jobs, keeps shops on the high street and allow opportunity for learning.

When there is constant discourse about welfare cuts you need to sit back and ask who is it benefiting in the short term and why are you being told this because the people who are making the policies are well aware of the positive data and economical benefits to providing support to the poorest of people.

So why is our economy so shit right now? How can it benefit the economy to have people better off not working than they would be working?

SerenaCat93 · 11/05/2026 17:48

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 17:27

Not my problem

Charming. This is why people resent the 16 hours a weekers.

I want more time with my two year old, I miss her when I'm at work. It's just great I'm paying for someone else to have more time with their kids who doesn't give a shit about me or mine.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 17:48

OonaStubbs · 11/05/2026 17:48

So why is our economy so shit right now? How can it benefit the economy to have people better off not working than they would be working?

In what jobs? There are 2.6 job seekers for every vacancy. There is not enough work out there for people who are fit and healthy and jobseeking.

Cocktailglass · 11/05/2026 17:49

Walkyrie · 11/05/2026 17:03

Of course it adds up. It’s costing a fortune. I don’t believe all these people are too disabled to work but can date, have children (which is massively taxing emotionally and physically), care for someone else while needing a carer themselves.

If you believe that, you were born yesterday.

True, I have known quite a few who have exaggerated disability, not as many now but back in the day...

A Dad/husband who received pip for back injury but had his own building crew and won a competition of who could hold onto a wall for the longest.

A woman who claimed to be a SP bit lived with her drug dealer BF and had 7 because she accidentally got pregnant again and again.

A couple who claimed PTSD after a burglary, which was actually a brother who got drunk and knocked things over and next day they were laughing in the pub.

A 17 year old girl who wouldn't get of bed for college or work who claimed her injuries from falling over in a nightclub were due to loose paving, deliberately took on a sue claim and won, days before cctv. Also her injury was so severe (she told us in private she exaggerated a lot) that she was unable to concentrate.

These are just a few I've experienced in RL.

Tiredalwaystired · 11/05/2026 17:49

To get the benefits bill down corporations need to be paying a decent living wage. The government is subsidising them by allowing them to offer low wages and then topping up. If you can’t pay fair wages then your business isn’t viable.

someoneelsesshoes · 11/05/2026 17:51

Tiredalwaystired · 11/05/2026 17:49

To get the benefits bill down corporations need to be paying a decent living wage. The government is subsidising them by allowing them to offer low wages and then topping up. If you can’t pay fair wages then your business isn’t viable.

But the system also discourages parents who work part time and receiving UC to up their hours. Losing their UC top ups can mean they’re worse off. And they may lose council tax reduction too.

cadburyegg · 11/05/2026 17:52

I got £150 from UC this month. I definitely do not have the same amount of disposable income as someone who takes home £95k. Clearly I am doing something wrong

Interesting that according to the op it is fine to dodge tax but not claim benefits.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 17:52

Tiredalwaystired · 11/05/2026 17:49

To get the benefits bill down corporations need to be paying a decent living wage. The government is subsidising them by allowing them to offer low wages and then topping up. If you can’t pay fair wages then your business isn’t viable.

DM has a cleaning company and pays £1 over NMW, and many of her staff still get top ups because of the hours they work.

I do not think it is right that someone on full time NMW should need top ups at all, but a lot of people needing top ups do so because they are not working enough hours... and that is not their fault either. There is just not enough work being offered. And if you are on a zero hour contract, you are essentially expected to be available at no notice for shifts or you don't get offered them anymore.

feellikeanalien · 11/05/2026 17:52

happybug1234 · 11/05/2026 15:23

But those top ups bring them up to the same standard of disposable income as middle class families. So what is the point of earning more money if you are going to be not better off in practice?

Do "middle class" families never claim benefits?

What about people who have to give up work to become full time carers? Do "middle class" people never have to do that?

Kirbert2 · 11/05/2026 17:52

Bigcat25 · 11/05/2026 17:47

This. My friend will be a lifelong career for their child and they certainly aren't having two week long vacations. They are buying used mattresses.

I'm not sure the circumstances of the people in op's post (do they share with a partner or parent, etc,) but they don't reflect everyone living on UC.

Edited

Yep.

I'm a carer to my disabled child and I most definitely can't afford 2 week long holidays.

cadburyegg · 11/05/2026 17:52

someoneelsesshoes · 11/05/2026 17:51

But the system also discourages parents who work part time and receiving UC to up their hours. Losing their UC top ups can mean they’re worse off. And they may lose council tax reduction too.

You’re always better off working more hours on UC

Skinnysaluki · 11/05/2026 17:53

monday1983 · 11/05/2026 17:41

I would love to believe me as i wouldn't have to pay 4 k service charges for a place that i cant sell , that stopped me having children, that leaks on my head every time it rains. I wouldn't have to work 40 plus hours a week just to exist , i would rather exist working 16 hours and have a life

There’s nothing stopping you

Fluffybuns88 · 11/05/2026 17:53

TigerRag · 11/05/2026 17:45

Are they just claiming for anxiety and depression or do they have other disabilities that qualify?

Any "mental health" claim is labelled as that regardless of comorbidities.

For example a person claiming for complex physical issues but just so happens to have anxiety or be diagnosed as neurodivergent will fall under the statistics being presented.

As would someone with the severest of mental impairments who needs round the clock care.

It's an absolutely useless parameter.

someoneelsesshoes · 11/05/2026 17:53

feellikeanalien · 11/05/2026 17:52

Do "middle class" families never claim benefits?

What about people who have to give up work to become full time carers? Do "middle class" people never have to do that?

You can’t get (most) benefits if you have over £16k in savings, and many ‘middle class’ people will do.

SinicalMe · 11/05/2026 17:54

QuestionableMouse · 11/05/2026 15:44

I get £800 a month UC. It's hardly generous.

But hey it's Monday so let's have another benefits bashing thread. 🙃🙃

I really hope you’re joking by saying £800 of free money is “hardly generous”. Confused That’s a real insult to that cleaner/checkout/factory/care home worker etc working hard on minimum wage, paying their taxes to give you your “paltry” £800. Angry

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread