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:
Viviennemary · 11/05/2026 16:39

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 15:28

So you want people on limited incomes to be excluded from these attractions because they can't afford them? Do you object to these companies offering concessions to pensioners because you aren't eligible?

This is such a ludicrous argument. Should I be excluded from buying designer clipothes and handbags because I can't afford them.

MyLimeGuide · 11/05/2026 16:39

Plugg · 11/05/2026 16:37

Those that don’t want to quit and live off benefits have pride and a willingness to give back to society. Those that choose to work 16 hours only are shameless, IMO.

They are definitely shameless. But more shameless is the government for allowing it to be an option in the 1st place!

nevernotmaybe · 11/05/2026 16:41

Plugg · 11/05/2026 15:14

No matter how they’re funded, those who pay in full will be in some way subsidising those who aren’t.

Only true if there is a shortfall of money cost from thay £1 ticket. Otherwise there's no connection, just green eyed whining about others instead of concentrating on their own life.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 16:43

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 11/05/2026 16:37

You implied it. You are happy to have other people go out to work to pay for you not to as your children are too important for that.

No i didnt. Think what you want.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 16:43

Plugg · 11/05/2026 16:37

Those that don’t want to quit and live off benefits have pride and a willingness to give back to society. Those that choose to work 16 hours only are shameless, IMO.

Hardly shameless. Once youngest is 3 ill be upping my hours.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 16:44

LiquoriceAllsorts2 · 11/05/2026 16:37

You implied it. You are happy to have other people go out to work to pay for you not to as your children are too important for that.

And i do work.

Meadowfinch · 11/05/2026 16:45

I only have one child because I knew I couldn't afford to have more and give them an acceptable standard of living. I did the responsible thing. I pay huge amounts of tax, the NHS is on its knees and yet they lift the 2 child benefit cap, and we're supposed to welcome that. When does it stop? We as a country cannot afford such a lack of personal responsibility.

LathkillDale · 11/05/2026 16:46

Monty36 · 11/05/2026 16:06

I thought because you said ‘ for which I paid ££££ unlike not 50p like some older buyers’ meant you were slagging off boomers.

You are right to point out that whilst people can pay a fortune for their homes it doesn’t mean the value stays as is or indeed rises. Negative equity was a real issue during one recession. Many people assume that their property will hold or increase in value. Often it does. But it is not guaranteed.

And social care costs are extortionate. I would love to see how they break down and justify their costs. Staff will be on NMW topped up probably by the taxpayer. Food will be cheap. I fail to see how they charge thousands for one person every week. You could stay at a very posh hotel if only they would have you.

You can look at the accounts of care homes, run by charities - they are publicly available online. You will see that they make no profit at all! See the Charity Commission’s website!

A very posh hotel doesn’t provide personal care - they won’t help you out of bed, shower you, help feed you, supervise you at night, give you meds, etc as applicable.

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 16:47

The universal credit work commitment is up to 30 hours when the youngest child reaches 3. You can't just choose to work for 16 hours without your work coach agreeing adjustments.

smooththecat · 11/05/2026 16:47

The answer to this kind of thread is always that our wages are too low rather than welfare being too high.

It’s the same with the pension argument and people bleating on about the triple lock. Mates, a triple lock on feck all is still feck all. We have around the lowest pensions in the supposedly richer world. Why is this never discussed when the issue comes up? Same with wages too low.

Seriously, what’s your answer if you want people poorer than they are? The poor house? We’re heading there anyway if we’re not careful, no need for policy to make it worse.

I’m sick of the race to the bottom mentality in this country.

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 16:48

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 16:47

The universal credit work commitment is up to 30 hours when the youngest child reaches 3. You can't just choose to work for 16 hours without your work coach agreeing adjustments.

I said i was upping my hours once youngest turns 3. As long as you earn so much you dont need to do 30. But ill probs do that anyway

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 11/05/2026 16:48

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 15:10

Surely those £1 tickets to attractions aren't funded by the government?

They are funded by the same people who pay to fund UC.

MidnightMeltdown · 11/05/2026 16:49

Whyarepeople · 11/05/2026 16:08

There are a few things I think when I see posts like this:

If you are on £95k and consider yourself hard up you are doing something wrong.

You don't seem to understand the benefit and advantage you have by being able to pay off a mortgage.

Jealousy is such a childish emotion that makes people small and resentful.

Someone's done a very very good job of redirecting people's attention away from the billionaires who are actually bleeding the world dry, towards families going for a day out. That's quite an achievement but the fact that you have fallen for it makes you a total idiot.

It’s not jealousy, it’s resentment.

People are entitled to be annoyed with those who constantly take from society and give nothing back. These people are stealing the money that should be going into public services that benefit everybody, not just them.

PeopleWatching17 · 11/05/2026 16:50

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 16:12

Im not. My kids are more important.

If everyone took that attitude, where would the money come from?
I am not having a go at benefits claimants, I’m on benefits myself. The difference is that, despite being a single mum, I worked for 47 years, before becoming ill at age 63. I am now unable to work due to several medical conditions. My mortgage was already paid off, so I don’t get any housing benefit, but I am entitled to PIP and UC.
I genuinely could not work now, through no fault of my own. To choose to claim benefits, when you have a choice, is pretty shit.

eatreadsleeprepeat · 11/05/2026 16:50

Rather than complaining about benefit claimants in general as if they are a different breed learn more about how the systems, benefit and tax work and identify the really unfair bits.
100k threshold is a complete cliff edge and is at root unfair because it is individual income not household. So two people each earning 90k are fine, one person on 101k and the other on 20k lose out.
UC as a wage top up is a scandal not because it is unfair to working people who don’t qualify but because it allows large corporations to pay crap wages, make increased profits and pay dividends to shareholders.
At the moment it is very hard for long term disabled to work, so are benefit dependent, surely the government could subsidise the employment of people in this position so that they could be given more flexible work.
Privatisation of utilities has led to the need to make profits not just plough any excess into maintaining the systems. Has led in turn to underinvestment and eye watering prices and price increases.
Life is more complicated than it was, 40 years ago many people paid rent, rates, utilities and food. Now we all need to be connected to everything, cash (great for budgeting) is actively discouraged. We all have subscriptions to pay.
The minimum accepted lifestyle is way better than it was. Who is going to determine what is luxury and therefore shouldn’t go to benefit dependent households.

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 16:50

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 16:48

I said i was upping my hours once youngest turns 3. As long as you earn so much you dont need to do 30. But ill probs do that anyway

Edited

Yes, I forgot to say that earnings are considered. I was replying to the posters talking about people choosing to work 16 hours.

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 16:52

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 11/05/2026 16:48

They are funded by the same people who pay to fund UC.

How, if they're private companies?

Meadowfinch · 11/05/2026 16:54

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 16:52

How, if they're private companies?

Because the full retail price is set artificially high, to subsidise the welfare tickets. The people paying full price are overcharged again.

IMustDoMoreExercise · 11/05/2026 16:56

Perrygreen · 11/05/2026 15:07

You can't invest if you're on universal credit even if you're in secure social housing. The limit is only 16k (never been increased for inflation in 13yrs).

There'd probably be fewer people on PIP if the NHS, mental health services, schools SEN was funded.

You can put as much as you want in to a pension.

ClairDeLaLune · 11/05/2026 16:56

So private tutoring is tax free cash in hand is it? I don’t think HMRC would agree with that. Your friends are committing tax fraud.

Stoptheworldiwanttogetoff · 11/05/2026 16:56

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 15:28

So you want people on limited incomes to be excluded from these attractions because they can't afford them? Do you object to these companies offering concessions to pensioners because you aren't eligible?

But the point is that people on limited incomes are excluded from these attractions. We are in a household with both parents working, one FT and one PT to work around childcare. We don’t qualify for UC as are just over the buffer amount for it. We can’t afford to go to attractions that might be £25 per ticket but aren’t eligible for the discounted tickets. Yet someone who has never worked a day in their life but pushed 4 kids out can go on a lovely day out for a fiver. It’s a piss take and it’s all the extra freebies, on top of their free money, that these scroungers get that is winding people up.

Plugg · 11/05/2026 16:58

Wynter25 · 11/05/2026 16:43

Hardly shameless. Once youngest is 3 ill be upping my hours.

Most working parents work full time. It’s totally shameless to take government money to skive proper work until your kid is 3. And yes, it’s disgusting that the government allows it.

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 11/05/2026 16:58

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 16:52

How, if they're private companies?

Just think for a moment.

Blahblahblahabla · 11/05/2026 16:59

MaturingCheeseball · 11/05/2026 15:21

Re the attractions tickets, it’s not the cost to the govt/organisations, it’s the perception of it. For a middle earner a family day out to The Tower of London + train + meals would be a serious ouch. In fact it’s a trip I could not justify doing; far, far too expensive.

£1 tickets to those on benefits sounds a nice thing to have, until you stop to think that it’s just another “perk” of not working which are all adding up to making schlepping to a job a mug’s game.

We really want to do London zoo. It’s going to be £200+ for us. A fifth of our monthly unfixed spend. Basically we can’t afford that.

If we had the £1 tickets that’s just over a hundred and would be doable.

ilovesooty · 11/05/2026 17:00

pushed four kids out
freebies
free money
scroungers

Just listen to yourself.

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