‘It’s cost upon cost for working families – they get no help’
A charity in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's successor John Healey's Rotherham and Doncaster constituency says working families who earn just above the threshold for benefits are struggling with the cost of living and receiving little support. Staff at Activate Rawmarsh say these families miss out on schemes such as free school meals and subsidised holiday clubs, leaving them worse off despite being in work, and are calling on the government to provide more help ahead of the budget at the end of next month.
Project coordinator Leomi White says rising food prices, including nearly £7 for a box of cereal, are a constant concern, and that families "just above the threshold to claim" benefits get costs such as £6-a-day breakfast clubs but no financial support. Zoe Hatt, a 36-year-old single mother working part-time, says her earnings do not cover her bills and she is considering claiming Universal Credit, despite not qualifying for help such as free school meals. The BBC has approached the Department for Work and Pensions for comment.
- Working families above benefit thresholds struggle with rising living costs
- Rotherham charity says they miss out on free school meals, holiday support
- Families await government help in next month's budget
New here? Start with this
Working families in and around Rotherham and Doncaster who earn slightly too much to qualify for benefits are among those most exposed to rising living costs, according to a local charity, Activate Rawmarsh. The constituency is represented by John Healey, and the issue is being raised in the run-up to the government's autumn budget, expected at the end of October.
The core problem described is that support such as free school meals and subsidised holiday or breakfast clubs is means-tested, so families whose income sits just above the qualifying threshold can end up worse off than those receiving benefits, despite being in work. Staff and parents quoted say everyday costs, including food shopping, have risen sharply, while wages have not kept pace.
The story matters because it touches on a long-running debate about the "cliff edge" in the UK's benefits system, where a small rise in earnings can mean the sudden loss of financial support, and about whether the tax and benefits system adequately supports low-to-middle income working households.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for extending support argue that a welfare system built around hard eligibility cliffs punishes families for modest pay rises, since losing free school meals, subsidised childcare and holiday clubs can outweigh a small increase in earnings. They contend that the principle of making work pay is undermined when working parents end up worse off than those on benefits, and that targeted help such as tapered eligibility or wider thresholds would reduce hardship without discouraging employment. They see this as a matter of basic fairness: families doing the right thing by working should not face costs, like breakfast clubs or rising food prices, with no cushion at all.
The case against
Those cautious about expanding thresholds argue that any welfare system needs a cut-off point somewhere, and that moving the line simply shifts the same cliff-edge problem to a new group of earners while adding significant cost to public finances already under strain ahead of the budget. They emphasise that targeting support at the lowest earners ensures scarce resources reach those most in need, and that broader entitlement could weaken work incentives or require offsetting tax rises elsewhere. They would argue that addressing cost-of-living pressures is best done through measures like wage growth, childcare reform or price competition rather than expanding means-tested benefits indefinitely.