To think my universal credit feels generous.

[MoonBaby1]

I got to my early 40s without ever needing to claim but circumstances find me single and paying the lions share of child related outgoings.

I work full time on£31,000 and have found out this year thanks to applying that I get on average about £800 from UC. It has been an absolute life changer and will hopefully be able to afford a modest uk holiday actually during the summer holidays and pay the school back some debt im in for after school care.

So many benefits bashing threads so I just wanted to present another side that as a cash strapped mum of two who works full time, UC is making a positive difference to our life. I didn't even think id qualify!

OP clearly believes their UC is a sufficient amount that it opens up possibilities hitherto unavailable to her family, hence "generosity". This is assuming she is genuine and not just posting in bad faith for the purpose of provoking a bunfight.

Nowhere in that title or OP does she invite people to advise her on what she should be spending her extra income on, so no, doing so is not passing "opinion", it's passing judgement, especially so when it's done in a sneering, contemptuous, and begrudging tone, and accompanied by an accusation of "misappropriation".

I have met individuals who are truly struggling to survive. A caravan holiday is the least of their concerns.

It's great that the OP can use her benefits money to clear debt and arrange holidays.

That's wonderful; however, if you were 'worse off', being able to choose what to scale back on may not be an option.

The only people worse off than me are job seekers on their £94pw.

It's evident the OP has done exactly that.

I'm merely challenging their stance because it's not logical.

OP should never have had to get into debt; someone working full-time should not struggle to pay for school dinners or buy clothes for their children.

There is a literal trillionaire in existence, and you're all bickering about whether a working single mother should have enough left over after paying for basics for a few days camping.

It's absurd.

Musk being worth that much is just... nuts! A trillionaire?! No one needs that amount of money. No one needs billions either.
And here we are, arguing about the meagre scraps someone on UC gets that wants to have a little caravan holiday. It is depressing.

You're absolutely right.

Her stingy ex-partner should be contributing more money to his family.

Whatever he contributes is not counted for UC anyway.

You're absolutely right. He should be, but he's not.

Again, what do you propose OP do about that? She's already LTB what more can she do?

This is why the system is flawed, and the disparity amongst households is ludicrous.

That's the issue. Absent parents should be forced to contribute more.

Benefits shouldn't be the resolution.

I'm more interested in the disparity between the 1% of the UK who control 10% of the total wealth and the bottom 50% who control just 9% of the total UK wealth collectively.

Child maintenance is not counted as income because it is a payment meant for the upbringing of the child, and not the living costs of the parent.
The absent parent could stop it any time, and put the other parent into severe hardship... and UC are not fast on dealing with things like that.
Some ex partners are spiteful and can and do use finances to control/abuse their partner. Their ex relying on them still leaves them in a a very vulnerable position.
If you count money from an absent parent as income, then what is to stop the DWP considering any payment from family as income too?

The can't always.

I went to college with a lady who was the absent parent. She was a student who worked in a care home... her ex was a GP. She still had to pay him money towards their kids even though he earned several times what she did.

That's right. She should contribute.

She did, but it was such a small amount compared to what her ex earned, it felt like an insult taking it from her... and he would not let her see their kids either.

We have a benefits system, which is not proactive in dealing with such intricacies.

Increasing benefit payouts is not the solution.

So what is your solution?
Force the non-resident parent to pay more? What if they are the lower earner? Disabled? Dead?

Well, her priorities were clearly in the wrong places.

Both parents must contribute, or be forced to do so.

She was contributing.. but she was a student with a part time job on NMW. Paying towards kids her ex would not let her see.

Yet you are blaming her? Wow.

We've tried making cuts for the last 18 years; look at where it's gotten us. We are fighting over whether a working family should be able to afford a camping trip whilst the richest family in the UK is sitting on £38bn.

A trickle-down economy only works when those at the top let the money trickle down.

I’ve worked all my life since I was 13. Still found myself in the job centre when I was made redundant twice in 6 months
I claimed £26 for the time I was job seeking and that’s all I’ve ever had

I, for one, wouldn't have had two kids unless I was earning a certain figure, but that was my choice.

An absent parent, including an absent disabled parent, irrespective of their income, needs to contribute to raising the child they chose to have.

I'm not blaming her. I don't know the intricacies.

Why shouldn't she contribute to the kids she chose to have?