AIBU to be surprised someone on £34,000 receives Universal Credit?

[Balicious]

I was listening to BBC Radio 5 Live at work yesterday morning. They were discussing the Conservatives’ proposal to stop people spending benefits on alcohol, cigarettes, etc.—but that isn’t what my question is about.
One caller said she earns £34,000 a year as a trainee social worker and receives an additional £500 a month in Universal Credit. She didn’t mention having children, paying rent or having a disability—she simply said she struggles to live on £34,000 and needs Universal Credit to top up her wages.
What is going on? That’s more than I earn! Could I apply for a top-up too? Has anyone else heard of someone working full-time and earning well above minimum wage having their salary topped up by Universal Credit? I just couldn't get over what I was hearing!

Other societies are available, including ones where women can't go out without a male chaperone. Or you could go and be a day labourer in rural India. Or a tea picker in Sri Lanka.

Ok

@dustabsorber are you saying one person working f/t has never been enough to support a family? Thats odd

In 1975, the proportion of households with two adults working was 49%. Today it's 74% - a 51% increase. And yet house prices have risen by 2500% since 1975.

I don't think I will be blaming feminism, no.

I've mentioned this on here before. I have a friend who chooses to work part time, she does have a child and gets support and payments for Childs from ex. But she would rather work part time and get UC so she gets some time to herself.
I basically work full time because her relationship broke down and she like have 2 days a week off... how is this my problem? I would love a day off!

“Friend”? My arse

It's also easy to be reactionary from behind a keyboard.

34k isn’t a lot in terms of salary but so many jobs are in and around then even grads jobs that demand high quality graduates. So surely we need to rethink the UC boundaries and maybe make it strictly income based. Or not increase it depending on location

You are uneducated. I was working earning £1700 per month and still got around £800 UC, I earn £800 now and get £1200. I also earned £1,400 at some point and probably got around £1000. But this was housing, my element, 1 child and childcare 85% entitlement. It doesn’t stop at £916 a month you just get more deducted over your work allowance

More women working is one of a number of factors that have contributed to the increase in house prices, not the only one. 'Blaming feminism' is a joke (and one that has misfired).

They could pay better if they didn't sit on public sector pensions which private sector can't even dream about. We need to equalise pension provision and then salaries can grow as well.

And people have the cheek to say UC isn't a gravy train.

I know someone similar but why is your decision to work full or part time based on her circumstances?!

It’s a minor factor.

Did you really think she was just randomly getting UC for no reason? Of course it's because she has children (in this case) but it can also be rent, childcare, disability, carer or all of the above.

Yes because everyone demonises claimants but benefit money (housing element) is going straight into greedy landlords pockets !

You've made a fool of yourself by getting outraged without facts.

Don't assume the worst next time, check your facts.

Yep, my parents house cost 40k in the 80s & they sell for 1.8m now. Despite me working DH & I can’t afford it 🤔

AHHHHH!... Oh.

Few people seem to understand how UC works yet have strong opinions on it.

Happens with DLA, PIP etc too.

I'm fine with equalising up but what needs to happen is private sector should pay more into pensions.
Public sector = lower pay, better pension. If you cut the pension, the wages should rise.

It is. But it's a factor nonetheless.

Wages were different then though. 🤷‍♀️

Except wages have become quite comparable/competitive with private sector due to the poor growth in private sector wages over the past couple of decades. The old situation of public sector wages being considerably lower is now longer the case, especially at the "lower" end of the scale of jobs. Maybe not at the higher end.

What is stupid, is that the taxpayer is paying UC to lower paid public sector workers and also financing their gold plated future pensions. If PS wages were higher and pensions were lower, they'd not be getting UC (or getting much less). It's another area of public sector where there's no "overall" thinking across departments etc. It's all far too "silo-ed" where only one aspect is considered rather than the entire picture.