Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:54

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:46

She is a worker.

16 hours! Dont make me laugh. Yeh, a real ‘worker’!

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 20:55

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:51

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.

Yes i blame her. Lots of us could play the system but chose to have some morals and actually work as much as possible for our money instead. It’s people like that who are taking the piss out of the system who make it difficult for the people who genuinely NEED it.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:55

SerenaCat93 · 11/05/2026 20:45

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!

Edited

My parents bought my house. I still have loads of other bills to pay

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 20:55

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:47

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

She has THREE kids. Not just one. I stopped at two (as a duel income household) because three was not affordable. Many of my colleagues and friends have stopped at one. Some of have even decided that they will have none because the cost of childcare is too expensive. But the previous poster working part time, claiming benefits decides she can have three and me and my responsible colleagues and friends will fund her. And you are defending her?!

TheFormidableMrsC · 11/05/2026 20:55

happybug1234 · 11/05/2026 13:15

Tho is it also. If I fall in hard times there is very little welfare for me as we have a mortgage and so wouldn’t be entitled to universal credit.

Well that’s not true for a start. I have a mortgage and I get UC.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:55

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:54

16 hours! Dont make me laugh. Yeh, a real ‘worker’!

What is your definition of a worker then? Is it based on hours?

I am sure being paid for your labour makes you a worker.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:55

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 20:55

Yes i blame her. Lots of us could play the system but chose to have some morals and actually work as much as possible for our money instead. It’s people like that who are taking the piss out of the system who make it difficult for the people who genuinely NEED it.

I dont play the system

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:57

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:50

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

No but they should plan the number of children that they can afford accordingly. They’ll get housing benefit and help with childcare bills, and being on NMW should get UC top ups. But if that makes them a bit skint having loads of kids is pretty irresponsible isn’t it? Most responsible citizens plan their family according to their finances.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:57

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:55

I dont play the system

You don't.
Ignore the dickswabs on here. MN is brutal about single mums, and people on benefits.

Kitte321 · 11/05/2026 20:57

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:53

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

But shouldn’t she be trying to find more hours? 16 hours work is clearly not going to provide enough income to cover family expenses.

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 20:57

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:53

And its not a zero hour job!

Never said it was. That is what xeno was implying. If you’ve got a job with prospects there should be no problem upping your hours NOW.

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:58

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:55

I dont play the system

You do. You don’t work full time when you could, and you take government money to plug the gap. In what way isn’t that playing the system?

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:58

Kitte321 · 11/05/2026 20:57

But shouldn’t she be trying to find more hours? 16 hours work is clearly not going to provide enough income to cover family expenses.

She is a single mum. She may not have family help with the child minding.
And she had said repeatedly, that then her kid is 3, she will do more hours.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:58

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:57

You don't.
Ignore the dickswabs on here. MN is brutal about single mums, and people on benefits.

They dont have a fucking clue. Yeah i can see that. Will let it go over my head! Theyre not worth it!

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:59

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:57

You don't.
Ignore the dickswabs on here. MN is brutal about single mums, and people on benefits.

Not true. Mumsnet is brutal about people that rely on the state for funding because they think working full time is for other people just not for them.

Whatalunatic · 11/05/2026 20:59

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 20:28

I work with mums that work 40 hours plus per week. I have no hatred for single mums, but I don’t have respect for those that expect others to pick up the bill whilst they have a little part time job.

lots of mums who share care with a husband or partner are able to work 40 hours plus a week due to a shared approach to picking up and dropping off at childcare/school. Try doing it on you own. And then trying doing it with one in nursery, another in a preschool in the opposite direction and another in school half a mile away from the preschool. All with different opening/closing times. And no car. So when you've dropped off - taking maybe an hour or more - you're then reliant on public transport to get you to work on time and then back before they all close. It's not easy and sometimes impossible to navigate.

It's not helpful to compare situations when you know nothing at all of the other person. And yes, I realise that not all marriages are equal, that many women struggle and effectively live single lives regardless of the person sleeping next to them. That's the point. It's tough out there for everyone but doing it on your own? Just try it for a few months and let us know how you get on.

And before you give me a ton of abuse along the lines of 'only people taking from teh system would say that', I am a single parent of 3, one of whom is disabled. I worked mainly full time whilst they were younger and once my eldest got to an age where he was able to be responsible, I also did 2 part time jobs around the full time and being a mum. I continue to work full time and seasonally because being on my own for over 15 years now without a penny from the ex, well, life is tough. And if I could do it again, I would try and balance things better because my children's welfare was also important. Not just the cold hard cash I would muster up every month. My priorities were not right.

JenniferBooth · 11/05/2026 20:59

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:57

No but they should plan the number of children that they can afford accordingly. They’ll get housing benefit and help with childcare bills, and being on NMW should get UC top ups. But if that makes them a bit skint having loads of kids is pretty irresponsible isn’t it? Most responsible citizens plan their family according to their finances.

nI didnt have any kids. Do i get a medal.

MsGreying · 11/05/2026 20:59

TheOliveWriter · 11/05/2026 19:04

We need to reduce the cost of renting to get benefit costs down. Many people fall into UC because of their housing costs, this then triggers other "advantages" for them. If rents were controlled at an affordable level people might not need benefits. The housing market would of course slump and we would ring our hands at the devaluing of our homes, but this might make purchasing more affordable at the bottom end. It's time we thought about buying our homes rather than bricks and mortar investments that we happen to live in. If we didn't have to move, negative equity wouldn't matter, and we could build in something to cushion people who needed to sell to move for work etc (hard hat on for the squealing landlords)

Ate we thinking about renting wrong?
Everyone expects a property of their own. Under 25s I think only get a shared room cost these days .. so hmo for them.

With constant demand pressure on housing.. perhaps we need to think dormitory living for those who need more support? Or have never worked.

(Deliberately goady)

The truth is we can't afford to keep paying masses of hb to house people. Sp why aren't they building more social housing? Because there's not enough land. We need farm land and green space around us.

littleorangefox · 11/05/2026 20:59

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 20:22

And there you have it, “entitled”. Says it all. Fingers crossed that the gravy train will end soon for people like you.

"Entitled" is the wording used by the government/DWP.

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 21:00

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:58

They dont have a fucking clue. Yeah i can see that. Will let it go over my head! Theyre not worth it!

Oh we do have a clue. We see you for exactly what you are and we’ve had enough.

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 21:00

Boohoo76 · 11/05/2026 20:57

Never said it was. That is what xeno was implying. If you’ve got a job with prospects there should be no problem upping your hours NOW.

No, I did not. Her job right now is raising a small child with no support. That is why she is on UC.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 21:00

Plugg · 11/05/2026 20:58

You do. You don’t work full time when you could, and you take government money to plug the gap. In what way isn’t that playing the system?

If i could up my hours i would but atm i cant. So im going to make the most of it while my kids are little

AlcoholicAntibiotic · 11/05/2026 21:00

XenoBitch · 11/05/2026 20:14

You fund her to stay at home, or you fund her childcare.
She is a single mum. Either way, you will be funding her. What is it to be?
Personally, I would rather a mum spent time with her baby.

The other parent should be funding it.

Taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for feckless fathers buggering off and not paying to support the children they helped create.

(Obviously if the father is dead that doesn’t apply, before anyone asks)

NoUsernameAvailableAgain · 11/05/2026 21:00

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 20:55

I dont play the system

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

I don’t think the system is designed to fund your lifestyle choice of working a tiny amount of hours as you don’t want to miss anything with your children.

cadburyegg · 11/05/2026 21:00

Issue is you have people like my ex who quit a perfectly reasonable job to try and become a film composer, is still chasing this fruitless dream 3 years later and is claiming help from UC. He gets a lot more than I do, as a single mum with 2 kids because I have a decent job and a mortgage and he earns 5k a year and rents.

Can we look at why the CMS doesn’t put their foot down with these men and tell them to get a proper job so they can support their kids financially?? Why when you have 2 kids at primary school who cannot earn their own money, is it acceptable for a man who has no childcare responsibilities during the week, not to work much? I wouldn’t mind dropping hours or responsibilities but I don’t want to earn less because I want my kids to have nice food to eat now and again and for me to be able to buy them school uniform without losing sleep at night.

Some people don’t particularly want to claim benefits but do so as a stop gap until they are able to earn more or if they literally have no choice. Others are quite happy to carry on and let the state fund them for as long as they fancy and don’t see the point in looking for work, they are quite happy to live a basic lifestyle and let it be funded by others. But you can’t penalise one group without the other being adversely affected.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.