Do you have to warn 71000 to equal benefits for three kids?
Executive summary
Research from the Centre for Social Justice says a non-working household with three children receiving average Universal Credit, housing support and health benefits is projected to take home about £46,000 by 2026/27, and a three-child working family would need roughly £71,000 pre-tax to match that income (CSJ reporting summarized across media) [1] [2]. UK commentariat and outlets present this as evidence the post‑Budget abolition of the two‑child cap creates strong incentives for not working; alternative perspectives and details about assumptions are highlighted below [1] [3].
1. What the “£71,000” claim actually says and where it comes from
The headline figure originates from research published by the Centre for Social Justice and reported by several outlets: the CSJ calculates that, by 2026/27, a three‑child household where at least one adult is out of work and claiming the average rates of Universal Credit, housing support and health benefits (including PIP) will receive about £46,000 annually; to match that net position, a working family scenario in their modelling would need around £71,000 in pre‑tax earnings [1] [2].
2. Key assumptions that drive the result — why £71k is not a universal truth
The £71,000 number depends on a specific basket of assumptions: the CSJ model assumes particular working patterns (one full‑time and one part‑time parent in its “in‑work” comparator), average housing benefit and average health‑benefit receipt, and OBR‑projected costs to 2026/27 [1]. Changing any input — hours worked, local housing costs, disability status, or tax and benefit uprating — alters the comparison. The media reports repeat the CSJ headline without always setting out those detailed assumptions [1] [2].
3. Political context: policy change that made the comparison possible
The comparison follows the Budget decision to abolish the so‑called “two‑child cap” on child‑related benefits. Commentators note this cap, introduced in 2017, limited children eligible for certain UC/tax credit support to the first two; ending it affects the number of children a household can claim for and therefore raises projected out‑of‑work benefit totals for larger families — the direct policy change that underpins the CSJ’s recalculation [3].
4. Competing framings in the press and from think‑tanks
Right‑of‑centre outlets and the CSJ frame the £71k result as evidence of “perverse incentives” that make work financially unrewarding relative to benefits [2] [4]. Critics and progressive commentators warn against simplistic “work v shirk” narratives and point out that many families affected by the two‑child cap were already in work, that family circumstances change (illness, job loss), and that the lived costs of raising children and access barriers to decent employment mean headline comparisons can mislead [3].
5. What the numbers do not say — limits of the coverage
Available sources do not provide a full breakdown of the CSJ’s tax, National Insurance, childcare, or local housing cost adjustments line‑by‑line in the public summaries cited here; they also do not document how sensitive the £71k figure is to modest changes in hours, childcare costs or regional rent [1] [2]. Nor do these reports explore longitudinal effects (e.g., whether benefit receipt is temporary after redundancy) in depth [1].
6. Why different audiences reach different conclusions
Those focused on fiscal responsibility interpret the finding as proof Labour’s policy increases welfare spending and reduces the financial incentive to work [2] [4]. Those focused on poverty and child welfare emphasise that restoring support for third children corrects a policy that left 1.7 million children without entitlement previously and that headline income comparisons obscure non‑financial harms and the fact many affected families already work — a point emphasised by Guardian commentary [3].
7. Bottom line for readers assessing the claim
The £71,000 headline is a defensible restatement of CSJ modelling under clear assumptions: around £46,000 projected benefits for a three‑child jobless household and ~£71,000 pre‑tax earnings to match it in the CSJ’s scenario [1] [2]. That figure is not a universal rule; it rests on modelling choices and political context, and alternative framings — about poverty reduction, work‑incentives, and the composition of affected families — appear in the reporting [3].