Both work and we claim UC but still can't afford to live.

[Mocha1]

We have 3 kids, 2 who aren't at school yet, my husband and I both work 30 hours a week for charities so not highly paid. We also have childcare for part of the week and then juggle the kids between us the rest of the time (We don't want to work more as we dont want the kids in fulltime childcare). We rent and down't own. We claim UC but we are still really struggling to make ends meet. We really try to live to a tight budget but I have no idea how to lower our expenses any more.

Am I missing something? Is this normal? does anyone have any tips for saving money/ making more income somehow? I feel a bit at a loss as we keep dipping into our savings for just day to day expenses and we're nearly at the end of those.

Our income at the moment (I'm on MAT leave) - £3980
Outgoings- £4250

Do these outgoings seem like a lot for a family of 5 living in the south west? I've been going over our budget and I have no idea how to save any more unless we literally never bought another birthday present or went to a soft play ever again.

Tired of reading these threads about grown adults working 30 hours a week and getting top ups and complaining about being broke is confusing…

Can’t one of you work full time if you don’t have enough money?

Hopefully the age will lower again soon. Especially now subsidised childcare is available from 9 months.

Alas, you don't get to choose who you deem worthy of supporting. As it is, your tax may well pay for services you use.

Scrolling it seems like others beat me to it… ridiculous..!

Not sure I agree with this. Leave it as it as it is.

There are many people struggling at the moment and asking for tips. And yes they will often be on UC. Should someone on UC not want to improve their budgeting?

Why? Some people who don't receive UC have no choice but to go back to work before their DC is 3. It doesn't feel fair to those people at all.

Are we not either paying the parent through UC or paying their childcare? Why not pay for the parent to be at home given what we know about the first 1000 days, say. Perhaps the idea is that the taxpayer won't have to pay later on if babies are looked after by a primary caregiver.

Maybe those people should have thought about that before having children........just continuing the judgemental tone of the thread.....😵‍💫

It is hard , but its also a lifestyle choice

As DH becomes less able to work I COULD up my hours but my mental heath would tale the battering . When DH can work , he earns bit. I plod to protect myself and keep the bills paid

Mother lives with us, she could go onto benefit - she's living with two cancers, and heart failure, which would open up the benefit system to us

But we dont. Not one of us are saints , but we dont work the system. And I pray and wish any GVT looks at the system ( that allows peer time workers to have three children ) and says - something is wrong, seriously wrong

Claiming support you're entitled to would not be working the system.

I don't agree with paying for (almost always) the mother to stay at home. Paying for childcare so a woman doesn't have to be trapped and financially vulnerable because childcare is expensive makes sense to me.

If someone wants to be a SAHM, that's fine but I don't think it should be funded by the tax payer and definitely not for 3 years.

So you could claim financial help but you don't want to through some misjudged pride?

This is true

why so they not have to look for work till 3

maternity leave stops at 9mths paid and yr off in total

and esp as helps with childcare from 9mths so why aren’t they forced to work from 9/12mths

Exactly.

I agree it should be a maximum of 12 months.

It is when the universal 15 hours kick in for England.

Hard to offer tips on how you could save money without a breakdown of where you spend your money.

Not at all

Should someone claim "support" when there is really no need for them to claim benefit

this tread is about 2 adults and 3 kids. The adults have chosen a lifestyle paid by your taxes

My circumstances are Ive been dealt a shit hand, hey we cant all be fit and healthy all out lives. DH is a builder, he earned good back in the day.

We both earned big money back in the day, now hes crippled , that money isnt coming in.

So no, no fianaical help - other then his sick money of ssp of 94 pound a week when he needs to claim - maybe 3 months a year.

We both work hard , and want to work. Neither of us sat here with a calculator and on a give to us website working out how little we could get away with whilst claiming

Its obvious to a blind man , this is where the OP is at

More's the pity. My tax pays for services that I use and others that I do not. That's the nature of tax.

Well done you!

You must be so proud that your mother stoicly refuses the benefits she's entitled to to make sure that there is plenty left for essentials like digital IDs and funding the Ukrainian army.

This thread is utterly bonkers.

People complaining about funding her ‘lifestyle choice’ should remember that it is her children and others in the same situation who will be funding our pensions in the future (or is that also considered a ‘lifestyle choice’?). The declining birth rate is very real issue and we need to look at the big picture here. Plus they both work in the charitable sector which is massively underpaid - someone needs to do it and if everyone moves into higher paying private sector jobs then it has a huge impact on our country. Charities underpin the function of our society (that’s not how it should be, but how it is). Get over yourselves.

@Itshappenedtome I hear this a lot about how the young will be funding our pensions. but many people are not net contributors, they take more from the state than they put in. Likely OP is exactly that getting UC and the costs to the state of NHS costs for 3 pregnancies, 3 state education etc. So will these 3 children end up funding our pensions or actually costing the state more.

Her children may choose not to work and be a drain on society for life. You can’t assume they wiii be productive. They haven’t got the best role models with both parents living on hand outs and only working minimum wage and part time. Work ethic can be taught and learnt.

Buying a house with a good mortgage plan would surely be cheaper than renting, especially if you move to a less pricey area?

Not a bad income at all, but as usual it's the extortionate rent prices which swallow up yoir money. Xx

Have you seen the cost of houses and the deposit needed? Honestly your comment makes you seem like you’ve been living under a rock or have no idea what’s been going on for the last few decades.

even if you get a 5% deposit and they allow you to have a 95% mortgage, for a 250k house is a 12500 deposit. Thats not unrealistic to save but it would take a long time for a low earner during which house prices will rise. 2 people would have to earn £60k between them (or 1 if single and as such a small % of the UK earn this, let’s go with 2) and that will get you a house that has 2 bedrooms maybe a very small 3rd bedroom. That mortgage each month is estimated at 1342 (I did a calculator)

So the kids will be squished together. Parents spend 50% of their wages on a mortgage and can’t afford if the boiler breaks.

Unless you go north where wages are less. The very cheapest option kind of works for some

it just simply isn’t that easy anyway. This from someone who’s had a house for so long the mortgage is basically done.