Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
SerenaCat93 · 11/05/2026 20:45

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:43

Get their bills paid?! The only one i dont pay is rent but i do for everything else.

Oh that's alright then! You just get to live somewhere for free while.playojg with your children and I'll carry on working and missing mine to pay the mortgage and taxes for other mums to stay at home!

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 20:45

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:35

PP has a job, and it is hopefully in the same place she can up her hours.
What is so wrong with this?
The system allows it, and her employer does too.

It is that, or you pay childcare for her. I am sure it is better for her to spend time with her baby than to punt them into a nursery.

You’ve asked that question a few times now and everyone has said they’d rather fund childcare.

We work full time, no UC but only just over the limit so not well off by all means. I’d like to spend more time with my children, but they need supporting financially, they need paying for and this is my responsibility, and therefore I work full time.

Lazy sponges who can work and won’t are the reason why people who genuinely cannot work are not taken seriously. If you want to be a stay at home mum fantastic just fund it yourself. Leave the welfare for the people who actually need it.

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 20:45

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:43

So not a NMW xero hour job then.
They are worlds apart.

Is that the type of job that the poster has then? With three kids. WTF is someone doing having three kids on a NMW zero hour job?! I know, it’s because they expect some bugger else to pay.

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:45

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:35

PP has a job, and it is hopefully in the same place she can up her hours.
What is so wrong with this?
The system allows it, and her employer does too.

It is that, or you pay childcare for her. I am sure it is better for her to spend time with her baby than to punt them into a nursery.

The workers disagree. This is just another situation that we want to stop funding.

JenniferBooth · 11/05/2026 20:46

IDontHateRainbows · 11/05/2026 20:31

Plus if anything ever goes wrong or needs replacing, not your job!

nSome housing associations think it isnt theirs either

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:46

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 20:45

You’ve asked that question a few times now and everyone has said they’d rather fund childcare.

We work full time, no UC but only just over the limit so not well off by all means. I’d like to spend more time with my children, but they need supporting financially, they need paying for and this is my responsibility, and therefore I work full time.

Lazy sponges who can work and won’t are the reason why people who genuinely cannot work are not taken seriously. If you want to be a stay at home mum fantastic just fund it yourself. Leave the welfare for the people who actually need it.

How is a single mum with a baby a "lazy sponge"?
Who is going to employ her?

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:46

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:45

The workers disagree. This is just another situation that we want to stop funding.

She is a worker.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:47

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 20:45

Is that the type of job that the poster has then? With three kids. WTF is someone doing having three kids on a NMW zero hour job?! I know, it’s because they expect some bugger else to pay.

And here it is.... "no one on a low wage should have kids".

EdithBond · 11/05/2026 20:48

JenniferBooth · 11/05/2026 20:46

nSome housing associations think it isnt theirs either

Indeed.

People who’ve bought a home have no idea what it’s like to be a renter and need repairs. They think the landlord responds 😂

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:49

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:43

So not a NMW xero hour job then.
They are worlds apart.

Work hard at school get to uni. Work hard at uni get a job that pays more than NMW. It’s the standard plan for most people.

EweCee · 11/05/2026 20:49

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:16

It’s hard to find full detail of comparable policies but this is HSBC from 10 years ago. Scroll to the bottom. 60% of salary income protection and health insurance as standard. employeebenefits.co.uk/group-risk/hsbc-implements-new-all-employee-benefits-strategy/116978.article

10 years ago was a very different time. I worked for a big professional services firm and group income protection is not ‘standard’ at all - I’ve been through a number of acquisitions and mergers over the past decade and agree that pensions are shite, but disagree with you on other benefits being standard. GIP and medical insurance in my experience is only ever for senior grades, particularly GIP, and is also only paid for 3 years max anyway. And being approached by headhunters to move to other companies often highlights that any medical insurance is not underwritten for existing conditions either. Sounds like your package is amazing - and somewhat unusual in my experience!

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 20:50

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:46

How is a single mum with a baby a "lazy sponge"?
Who is going to employ her?

She does work so doesn’t need employing, but is working the bare minimum possible to claim maximum benefits as her children are too important (like the children of people who work full time are not). It’s shameful.

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:50

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:47

And here it is.... "no one on a low wage should have kids".

No, people should have the kids that they can afford to provide for.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:50

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:49

Work hard at school get to uni. Work hard at uni get a job that pays more than NMW. It’s the standard plan for most people.

OK, so people on NMW should have to struggle?
Some people are not capable of more.

Kirbert2 · 11/05/2026 20:50

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:49

Work hard at school get to uni. Work hard at uni get a job that pays more than NMW. It’s the standard plan for most people.

Someone has to do the NMW jobs.

parkezvous · 11/05/2026 20:51

Any benefit should be there to support. It should not be there to create a lifestyle. There is no incentive to work otherwise.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:51

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 20:50

She does work so doesn’t need employing, but is working the bare minimum possible to claim maximum benefits as her children are too important (like the children of people who work full time are not). It’s shameful.

People really like to put words in your mouth on here...

JenniferBooth · 11/05/2026 20:51

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:49

Work hard at school get to uni. Work hard at uni get a job that pays more than NMW. It’s the standard plan for most people.

So how much does your childminder/nursery workers earn And those supermarket/care home jobs still have to be done by someone

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:51

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 20:50

She does work so doesn’t need employing, but is working the bare minimum possible to claim maximum benefits as her children are too important (like the children of people who work full time are not). It’s shameful.

She is just using the system that allows it. Can you blame her?
And she did say that even if she worked more hours, she would still get the same in benefits anyway.

EdithBond · 11/05/2026 20:52

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:47

And here it is.... "no one on a low wage should have kids".

And therefore we need to pay hospital cleaners, house cleaners, childcare staff, care home staff etc £100k a year.

Because no one with kids can do it otherwise.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:52

parkezvous · 11/05/2026 20:51

Any benefit should be there to support. It should not be there to create a lifestyle. There is no incentive to work otherwise.

There are people on NMW that work full time and still get UC.

Kitte321 · 11/05/2026 20:52

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:29

Do the mums that work 40 hours have a partner?

PP is a single mum. She can claim benefits, or get funded childcare. What would you prefer to pay?

Surely, encouraging women back into the workforce (particularly if they are single parents) and utilising funded childcare is a better long bet. You are building (or maintaining) skills, limiting employment gaps and maximising future earning potential. Yes, the taxpayer is paying childcare support but this will be recovered in current and future tax receipts.
Im not sure there should be the choice to be a SAHP at the expense of the taxpayer.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:53

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:47

And here it is.... "no one on a low wage should have kids".

And its not a zero hour job!

cadburyegg · 11/05/2026 20:53

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:49

Work hard at school get to uni. Work hard at uni get a job that pays more than NMW. It’s the standard plan for most people.

I did all this, have a professional job and still claim a UC top up.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:53

Kitte321 · 11/05/2026 20:52

Surely, encouraging women back into the workforce (particularly if they are single parents) and utilising funded childcare is a better long bet. You are building (or maintaining) skills, limiting employment gaps and maximising future earning potential. Yes, the taxpayer is paying childcare support but this will be recovered in current and future tax receipts.
Im not sure there should be the choice to be a SAHP at the expense of the taxpayer.

The PP is working, and will up her hours when her youngest child is older.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.