Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Friend would rather stay on Benefits

182 replies

Mavan1984 · 02/05/2024 23:03

Hi everyone

I have a friend who is in her early 40s. She has 5 kids, eldest being 17 and youngest being 4. No disabilities in the family.

Friends husband is on minimum wage and Works about 35 hours a week. Friend is SAHM and has never worked, they have always been topped up by CTC and WTC.

Friend has recently been transferred over to UC and said she is slightly worse off and she's been told that she needs to start looking for a job.

Friend told me she has no intention to get a job because she thinks she will be worse off- would this be the case? She also said she is very unlikely to get a job which will match her benefit payments.

I'm really annoyed with her attitude. She basically has no intention to work and would rather just claim. In her case what would the jobcentre do?

I love friend to bits but her laziness is really starting to get to me. Me and DH both work average salary jobs, we don't get any benefits apart from Child Benefit and there are times where I've really envied her life of leisure.

I'm not against anyone who works hard/has disabilities and claims but I really think it's unfair that people like her can choose to be a SAHM and expect to get money handed to her on a plate.

I'm not really sure why I am even posting this but I just needed to rant.

OP posts:
Thequeenofwishfulthinking · 03/05/2024 01:17

@QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse
Claimants are put in the light touch regime if they as a couple have earnings above the AET but below the CET.
The OPs ‘friend’ has no individual income but she in a household with earnings above the AET.
The light touch regime will most likely enable her to avoid work for the foreseeable if she chooses to do so as the mandatory requirements regarding work searches are minimal and thereafter are voluntary.

However I can’t see the amount of UC being anywhere near what they got from Tax Credits unless the family comes under the exemptions, there are disabilities or the other 4 children were born prior to April 2017.

She most likely will want to work part time in the future as the youngest will be at school or going this September. It’s likely she will need to make up the amount she has lost due to UCs two child rule.
.

Gingerkittykat · 03/05/2024 01:47

MortifiedStill · 02/05/2024 23:19

Number 6 will be along as soon as the eldest turns 18 and the benefits stop

That would be pointless since there is a 2 child cap for children born after April 2017 so she wouldn't get any benefits for a new baby.

Dollenganger333 · 03/05/2024 01:50

Deathbyfluffy · 02/05/2024 23:16

I agree - people shouldn’t be rewarded for bringing more children into an over-populated world.

If they can’t afford to support their family on one wage, she either needs to go back to work (and build a decent-paying career) or they should have had an amount of kids they can afford.

They aren't. The law changed on that - did you not notice? This is a deliberately goady thread which I doubt is even real.

Dollenganger333 · 03/05/2024 01:51

MortifiedStill · 02/05/2024 23:19

Number 6 will be along as soon as the eldest turns 18 and the benefits stop

You can't get benefits for more than 2 children any more.

Octavia64 · 03/05/2024 01:56

Don't know anything about wtc or Ctc

but anyone who has five kids is not lazy.

Deebee90 · 03/05/2024 02:11

Completely agree. I had a friend like that and I cut her off. She decided to play the mental health card claiming she was depressed and anxious. Hasn’t worked for over 6 years and gets more than I do in a month and has her flat paid for. This country is a complete joke for spongers.

INeedToClingToSomething · 03/05/2024 02:39

The number of these threads is really ramping up at the same time as the Tories are trying to launch a "vote-winning war" on the poor and disabled. Now I wonder why that is.

Now let's get a few facts straight. If she is required to work by UC, if she can't prove she's actively seeking work, she'll be sanctioned.

She also won't be worse off working. You are always better off working on UC.

More importantly, the problem in this country (and in the world) are the ultra rich. These are the people who during the pandemic, and Brexit and the cost of living crisis, have continued getting richer and richer while the rest of us are getting poorer and poorer. The problem is not benefit claimants, whether or not they are getting a few quid they aren't entitled to. The problem are the ultra wealthy. You know people like our own fucking prime minister. The exact same person who is finger pointing at the poor and disabled. These people want to keep their money and assets and power, and they'll do anything to maintain the status quo, including stopping to the low of shaming the poor and disabled. Don't be taken in by their lies and misdirection.

I am not sure whether it's this Tory campaign that is prompting all these misinformed benefit bashing threads or whether this is actively part of the Tory propaganda but I am going you ask MN to take a look as this is starring to look very suspicious!

RickyGervaislovesdogs · 03/05/2024 02:45

I can understand it would be frustrating OP, but your friend is one of thousands. It’s easier to stay at home than go out to work. Or end up working may be full time for an extra £20-50 quid.

It’s a drop in the ocean! At least your friend resides in the U.K. Ever heard of benefit tourism? That’s a fun one!

Neveralonewithaclone · 03/05/2024 02:52

I don't understand (the economics) of people working f/t yet not being a 'net contributor'. So two people work f/t and still qualify for topping up. Personally I think we should burn all money and work on collective farms.

User284732 · 03/05/2024 03:04

As a family of two full time working parents, I still think you are completely and utterly wrong in your attitude. One parent working full time should be enough to support a family, and historically it has been. Not a luxury lifestyle if you have 5 kids, but it should be enough for food/bills. I hate that people have been conditioned into thinking parents with young families are lazy if BOTH aren't working. Put your energy into demanding better pay and more affordable living costs instead.

Thevelvelletes · 03/05/2024 03:43

The benefit bashing threads are tedious.the majority of claimants are not fraudsters and having to explain what your doing to look for work and if you have some capital having to explain what you've spent money on isn't an easy alternative in reality it's easier to be employed.

WithACatLikeTread · 03/05/2024 05:49

Thequeenofwishfulthinking · 02/05/2024 23:13

She won’t have to look for work until her youngest child turns 5 so she can enjoy her ‘life of leisure’ for a few more months.
You can’t say categorically that there are no disabilities in the family.
Also as a mother of 5 children I very much doubt she has this life of leisure you refer to.
I would focus on yourself and your own family instead of your friend and her finances.

It is three. However if her partner earns more than, from this month, £1437 then they won't pester her very much to work as she will be in the light touch group.

WithACatLikeTread · 03/05/2024 05:51

Thequeenofwishfulthinking · 03/05/2024 00:05

@QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse they will have to work/or look for work for a minimum amount of hours per week.. Everyones situation differs so the amount of hours is determined by your responsibilities for caring for a child/ren and their ages and other circumstances such as health and caring commitments.
Your relatives will have personalised Claimant commitments with all this information detailed.
The amount of money earned during a month is deducted from any entitled UC monies due.A tapering system is used after a certain threshold is reached.

Not if they meet the couples AET.

THisbackwithavengeance · 03/05/2024 06:03

Of course you're right OP.

But you"ll get a bashing on MN as the general consensus on here is that there are no fraudulent benefit claimants and that people claiming benefits are somehow plucky and downtrodden who deserve every penny and should even get more money as staying at home is stressful and they might have hidden disabilities etc. ..

However, if you had come on and said that your friend was working a full time minimum wage job but struggling to pay the bills and didn't qualify for benefits hence had taken on some cash In hand cleaning at the weekends, then people would be accusing her of tax avoidance and personally responsible for money shortages in the NHS etc.

Tontostitis · 03/05/2024 06:07

Around 5% of benefit claimants feel like this and act like this it's just the way it is. Thers always a few piss takers it makes little difference to the cost or implementation of any benefits systems and can't be avoided. Square it with yourself by knowing she will struggle in her 50s and 60s with kids gone and massive reductions in benefits.

qwertyqwertyqwertyqwerty · 03/05/2024 06:22

THisbackwithavengeance · 03/05/2024 06:03

Of course you're right OP.

But you"ll get a bashing on MN as the general consensus on here is that there are no fraudulent benefit claimants and that people claiming benefits are somehow plucky and downtrodden who deserve every penny and should even get more money as staying at home is stressful and they might have hidden disabilities etc. ..

However, if you had come on and said that your friend was working a full time minimum wage job but struggling to pay the bills and didn't qualify for benefits hence had taken on some cash In hand cleaning at the weekends, then people would be accusing her of tax avoidance and personally responsible for money shortages in the NHS etc.

The facts are that fraudulent benefit claims are very low. No one denies they occasionally happen and should be pursued.

But the OP with her fictional story is not talking about fraud.

Tax fraud is criminal. Why would you support criminal behaviour?

Noicant · 03/05/2024 06:45

Babyroobs · 03/05/2024 00:11

She will likely get away with not working if her husband works full time. the couples AET remains ridiculously low despite just increasing. The whole system is a joke when it allows people to just not have to work for years on end. Meanwhile some of us who have worked for the past 40 years just carry on paying tax to support these people.

I just worked out thats 31 hours between 2 people a week on minimum wage. That’s ridiculous. It should be at least one full time job on NMW so whatever 40 hours a week on minimum wage would work out to be.

Jifmicroliquid · 03/05/2024 06:47

Genuinely disabled people should het higher benefits. Scroungers like this should get none. Im with you OP.

And those saying its a benefits bashing thread- why shouldn’t people like this be pulled up? Its people like this who make it more difficult for the people who really deserve benefits.

ShelfShark · 03/05/2024 06:51

Happyinarcon · 02/05/2024 23:11

She has 5 kids who need a mother, her family need her more than a random employer right now. In an ideal world her husband would be earning enough to support a family which used to be common fifty years back.

In an ideal world they would have only had as many children as they could afford to fund.

Itsnamechange · 03/05/2024 06:54

Goady Goady goady,
in reality she likely won’t be better off on benefits. When I was a new mum and my partner left me and I was totally daunted by the prospect of returning to work and placing my baby into nursery (suffering from ptsd from her almost dying at birth and we didn’t know yet if she’d have cerebral palsy), I did all the sums. You’re almost always better off working pt at least with a benefit top up.
That being said if she has multiple primary school age children, she’s likely looking at hundreds if not thousands in wrap around care, she’s been a SAHM for years and the thought of getting back into work may be absolutely terrifying. Her children will also probably benefit more from her being at home.

Blackcats7 · 03/05/2024 07:10

The daily benefit bashing thread. Change the record.

TheFunHasGone · 03/05/2024 07:16

People really fall for this bollocks

Thevelvelletes · 03/05/2024 07:17

I had to laugh at a photo in daily mail,it was an article about proposed disability benefit changes...a mobility scooter parked outside a bookies....staged not much.

Blondeshavemorefun · 03/05/2024 07:32

Out of curiosity what will be the diff in what the family get via tc and now being moved to uc

I read so many threads about those scared moving from tc to uc saying be worse off

Then others saying they are better off

Guessing both have rent elements - childcare - and a standard amount for single /couples

So why would payments be diff ?

ingenvillvetavardukoptdintroja · 03/05/2024 07:32

If it was that great a plan, we'd all be doing it right? I'm not jealous. Working gives me more financial options and a safety net. Once all the kids have turned 18, what's the plan? Must be really stressful. Plus government can randomly change the rules last minute.
Do you think Boris works hard for his fortune?