How can we manage financially as Universal Credit support reduces?

[elliejjtiny]

We have 5 dc aged between 19 and 11 all with disabilities. Dh was a manager up until youngest was born, then he became unwell and had to take a massive pay cut. I'm a Sahm and get carers allowance. We get UC. Dc1 in his first year at uni, dc2 about to start in September.

We are just about managing at the moment but barely. In September we are going to lose the child element of universal credit for dc2 and I'm worried how we are going to manage. When the dc were younger I thought I would be working by now but I'm only getting 4 hours sleep a night and my 11 year old needs constant supervision when not at school so I don't know how I could fit work in. Dh has to work away about 15 weekends a year (from friday morning until late Sunday night) which leaves me completely exhausted each time. We spend 9 weekends a year picking up/dropping off/visiting dc1 and I imagine spending the same amount of time with dc2. There is no childcare for children my dc age with SN and they have to be picked up and dropped off at school. The dc have appointments about once a week on average and dc4 stays in hospital about 1 night a year when I don't get any sleep at all.

Realistically I can't think of any employer who would employ me with the amount of time off I would need and on so little sleep. At the moment I spend the time dc are at school doing the housework, cooking the dinner and trying to catch up on a bit of sleep.

I'm trying to think of anywhere we could save money but I can't think of anything. Dc1 doesn't cost any less money while he is at uni.

We pay out more in welfare than we collect in income tax. This is not sustainable. Our bond yields are worse than when Liz Truss was in charge. This is not just about moralising this is about the very real consequences of borrowing to prop up massive state spending on running costs not capital projects without any payback (improved productivity for example). There comes a point when our debt is too expensive to finance and we will be well and truly fucked. But yeah keep moaning about amazon. Our system incentivised poor decision making on the part of our population.

This a natural response to conditions, why work and support the size of your family when someone else will work to support your family. Now obviously there are still enough people who will take some pride in being self sufficient and having a work ethic, or aren’t silly enough to think things can’t change and plan as best they can (and obviously even then it can still go to shit) but we have a growing portion of the population who don’t ask the simple question of what happens when more of us are taking out than putting in? We have 3 more years of this government and I’m expecting the shit to hit the fan at some point because we apparently have MP’s who don’t understand basic maths or where and how we finance the country.

One big reason to never plan your life around government handouts is that the government can also decide to take them away. It’s as simple as that, if you care about yourself and your family you try to make sure you make decisions that protect you and them from hardship insofar as you can. Never hand your life over to others.

I don’t think people are saying she’s entirely reliant, I think they are pointing out that her family was probably only ever sustainable with extensive welfare support. This is not a sensible way to plan your life and you are externalising the cost of your decisions to society.

The problem here is when you start trying to differentiate between those who are genuine and those who aren't. Support needs to be universal, not value-based. If we had a proactive welfare state, people wouldn't fall into poverty in the first place. Imagine high quality, universal childcare, available when people need it and at an affordable cost. Imagine support for carers so that they weren't permanently exhausted and struggling. Imagine adequate, good quality and affordable housing. Imagine real support and opportunity for disabled people, treating them as valuable humans and not burdens to be hidden away. Why are we happy to settle for so little, and to turn on each other when things inevitably go wrong?

Exactly not ideal is it. Poor kids.

Those saying - well the eldest wasn’t diagnosed when 3/4/5 came along, diagnosis or not the symptoms and challenges were still there. My son is waiting for diagnosis for Audhd, the diagnosis is irrelevant, we know he has it, we deal with it every day! So diagnosis or not, the OP and her husband knew what they had on their plate when they choose to carry on having more children.

Completely agree. I saw a clip on Instagram that I really wished I’d saved as I can’t seem to find it again. It was a Black British guy interviewing people about immigration sentiment in a northern city centre area. And somehow this woman in a wheelchair, who was probably addicted to some kind of substance popped up talking the usual anti-immigration stuff and saying she never got any help.

Two white Manchester lads in their late 20s or so appeared and began challenging her on some things and said they were open to immigration. And they also told her about some additional benefit she could apply for that she was unaware of. She instantly brightened, dropped the anti immigration speel, thanked them for the information and shook everyone’s hand before going on her way. It was a great turnaround lol Who knows maybe those two boys just lost a voter for reform!

It’s just bizarre that these people really think posh rich boy Farage who received 5 million from a donor is a man of the people who is on their side.

Schooling, healthcare, a safe society, opportunities for parents to work, the availability of part time work, childcare etc. Thats what society should contribute ideally, it’s better for society and for the individual.

Otherwise why is it ideal for the state to be feeding and clothing your children and not you? There is a line between what should be the state’s responsibility and the basics of being a parent, if you are unable to meet those basics I think UC contributing to 2 kids is fine, it is not cruel to ask people to limit the size of their family if they need help with the basics, it is cruel to keep having children you can’t adequately care for imo, it’s cruel to your own children.

Sorry but the radfords DO claim benefits. They all use the nhs, schools, roads etc at a minimum and also claim child benefit and tax credits. They don’t claim unemployment benefit as sue is a sahm and they are very very clever to ensure the pie company’s profits remain at 50k whilst dividends go up so child benefit isn’t impacted. They also make sure they are gifted experiences (holidays, days out, furniture etc) so their income isn’t affected.

Jesus yes these massive scrounging drains on society. I feel so so sorry for their children. It’s literally impossible to give a child the attention and love they deserve when you have that many. It’s pure selfish indulgence and points at MH issues and/or personality disorders.

Your last para is true, of course. However that doesn't mean the squeezed middle aren't / shouldn't be / can't be mightily pissed off at being the cash cows for millions of feckless (not all obviously) benefit claimants.

It's only fairly recently that we've started to see one or two children as the norm, something that's reflected on our falling birth rate. The last thing we need is to encourage fewer children to be born, not if we want any kind of functioning society in the years to come.

I agree with you on a lot but I am not sure I’d agree with you on this particular point@ForWittyTealOP I understand there’s a strain of an ageing population etc, but I really don’t think people who aren’t fit or well suited to have more than two kids or any kids at all should be having them for the sake of the “economy” or “society”.

There are already too many adults who spend their life recovering from a shitty childhood. And I’m not necessarily talking about those from poor backgrounds, this applies to wide range of people including kids who grew up in affluent families.

I used to work in education and I’d say maybe half of parents were brilliant irrespective of social class , the other half not so much to varying degrees and this is where the issues arise.

There’s a growing number of parents - especially mothers - now talking openly about how they regret having kids. It’s sad but perhaps a necessary conversation.

Men have been voting with their feet by walking out on their families for decades so it’s no surprise there, but mothers have always been assumed to not regret their choice. It has almost been taboo to speak about the regret up until now.

Having large families or even having kids at all is really not for everyone and that’s ok. Even in countries where there is better social support like scandi nations the birth rate is still declining from what I understand.

Your argument is entirely defunct, not least because you liken economies to household budgets, and you compare the Truss era to the present day when they are not similar. Also I do wish people would stop quoting the income tax thing as though it's a cogent argument. It's really not. You may as well say we spend more on schools than we receive in VAT - what does it mean in practice? That is a soundbite used by people who want to seem as though they know what they are talking about.

You say never hand your life over to others. Another soundbite which you use to sound meaningful but is very easily unpicked. You hand your life over to others every minute of the day. You hand it over to others s when you get into your car and rely on the expertise of car designers and planners to ensure you don't immediately crash and die. You hand it over to others every time you go to the doctor. You hand it over to others every time you eat something because you're depending on rules that don't allow food to be dangerously toxic. We are all interdependent, and to believe otherwise is frankly delusional.

Two children has been the norm for over 70 years so that’s not the issue. Multiple disabled children won’t lead to a functioning society either. I have also come across families with multiple children, all with severe SEN and none of which will be able to work or live independently in the future.

Imagine Denmark as that’s how it was when we lived there - also imagine 45% tax - across all income levels , that’s partly the problem in the UK - people want good services but don’t want to pay tax that enables that -the thing is though people look at the headline figures and our press too enable this shock horror reaction - if people look at the whole picture they would see that in Denmark they don’t pay NI, they don’t pay council tax, healthcare is free and good, childcare is cheap and good ( if a bit odd in terms of not dishing stuff out left right and centre) and there is masses of decent social housing ( many flats though of all sizes rather than houses ) can you imagine the reaction here of many older people,’ I don’t need childcare, I own my house, ‘ etc etc - Danes just accept it as normal to keep society functioning . There is also an expectation that couples and single parents work full time or as near as , even with young children - because the state has enabled it to be easier to do so - consequently they have far less people proportionality needing to claim, far less needed to support housing costs, and noticeably a far fitter and in my opinion more ordered population , I saw far fewer badly behaved kids or litter dropping etc . I think many here would appreciate it all , some would hate it -

I don't think anyone has said it's ideal, and by and large it's not the norm. But when children need to be fed and clothed and circumstances dictate that parents can't do it, or need some support, what is the alternative? I don't believe it should be left to charity so it needs to be done collectively by all of us who comprise the welfare state.

I'm sorry but I really can't go along with ableist attitudes like that.

I’ve never voted conservative in my life and I never thought I would. But I live in a Tory voting constituency where the only threat might be from Reform. So I’ll vote Tory as the lesser evil, even though I despise our current MP. It’s first past the post and it will be a two horse race here.

But it annoys me that Labour backtracked on the welfare reform. Rightly or wrongly, it pushed some people towards Reform.

Thank you, it's really interesting to hear different perspectives. I think you're right to say that the media in the UK has played a crucial role in persuading people to think and behave against their own interests, telling us that tax is undesirable and that being asked to contribute is unfair. That's easily explained by looking at those who own the press (and if course nuw social media with its algorithms and bits which have contributed greatly to the post-truth era). It goes back to what I was saying about reaching targeted groups of people through policy and education - I think this is the way to embed more progressive ideas and lessen the influence of the ideology of the powerful.

That's your opinion. Mine's different.

Do you mean LD as in an IQ under 70? If that's the case, I don't think it'll be much surprise to people that your DD1 will likely need lifelong support, especially when combined with ASD and ADHD. Hence why she had a Neurodevelopmental Paediatrician before she was 3.

Not really the point of the thread, and I agree with you that there are definitely nuances but I imagine that the other poster wasn't really referring to people like your DD.

Well they had to abandon their plans because they are nominally a Labour government and their backbenchers would have rebelled. The plans were draconian, they wouldn't have saved any money but would have pushed disabled people into poverty and dependence. Of course the parliamentary Labour party rejected that - it went against everything they stood and were elected for.

I totally understand a tactical Tory vote to keep out Reform. That makes sense. But voting Tory because you genuinely believe they could form the next government (and that they didn't put the UK into terminal decline with their horrific mismanagement last time)? Pretty much the definition of stupidity.

Or no, not you! That undeserving fraudster over there!

Amen. 👏

Many of us have children who are twins or who are born very close together so there was absolutely no way to know the children were going to be so severely disabled. Some of us our children had severe regressions in toddler years but appeared 'typical' for a few years.

How is it ableist to suggest that if your children are disabled, you shouldn't keep having more? As I've said previously I've come across a few families like this. There's clearly something genetic going on. They say they're not getting enough help, yet add more children?

I've got a relative who once said he'd love more children. But his wife can't carry babies full term which left DS2 disabled. They've been advised this could happen again and we're advised against having more