What has my partner got to do with it?

LizzieS_2

Somerset wrote: »

If the benefits system (State) says unmarried couples should support each other, and if *their* joint income is over ££ an individual, with zero or low income in that relationship, is not entitled to benefits. It's all about *joint*.

Why does the tax system (State) not replicate this. Tax-wise you are an individual. You can not pool your tax free allowance with your partner. And they abolished the married couple's allowance years ago. It'sall about *individual*.

OK lets take this to the extreme to prove why the system treats people as couples:

Man and woman both work, man earns 100K, woman 20K.

Along comes a baby. On your comments baby is an individual so tax credits are immediately paid at full rate and when old enough school meals would have to be free.

Woman gives up work to care for baby. Woman is an individual, so she can claim Income Support (husbands income not taken into account), half mortgage interest or rent, half council tax, free presciptions/dental/optical care etc.

Now think how many people in the country would suddenly qualify for all these new state benefits - considering the Government is trying to reduce the existing benefits bill, where do you think all this free cash will come from?

Angel89_2

The ''subletting to lodger'' is called being a resident landlord, which is totally legal and easy to do.

And the lodger can sleep wherever she choses to sleep in the property!
Shes entitled to sleep in the fridge if she wants and theres still nothing the government can do about that. lol

sp1987

Angel89 wrote: »

The ''subletting to lodger'' is called being a resident landlord, which is totally legal and easy to do.

And the lodger can sleep wherever she choses to sleep in the property!
Shes entitled to sleep in the fridge if she wants and theres still nothing the government can do about that. lol

Your flippancy and lack of coherance is quite obvious for all to see. It is remarkably difficult to become unpopular on a forum where nobody has many of the indicators available offline to make 'judgements' of individuals; body language, personal hygiene, looks, etc. It must be quite the full time job to sustain it.

Angel89_2

LizzieS wrote: »

OK lets take this to the extreme to prove why the system treats people as couples:

Man and woman both work, man earns 100K, woman 20K.

Along comes a baby. On your comments baby is an individual so tax credits are immediately paid at full rate and when old enough school meals would have to be free.

Woman gives up work to care for baby. Woman is an individual, so she can claim Income Support (husbands income not taken into account), half mortgage interest or rent, half council tax, free presciptions/dental/optical care etc.

Now think how many people in the country would suddenly qualify for all these new state benefits - considering the Government is trying to reduce the existing benefits bill, where do you think all this free cash will come from?

We need the entire system to completey collapse and go into a state of anarchy though...

(Im not joking)



Since at the moment everyone, even labour are saying that the system structure is a mess and a joke,
yet they aren't physically getting up off thier asses and changing it to not being like this....,
because the system can stull scrape by as the tax payers dont get a choice about paying more in taxes as its not voluntary,
and the government want hyper-inflation.

However its only when tne real anarchy starts that they will be FORCED into scrapping the entire system and rebuilding it from scratch!

*In a way that doesn't discriminate against single under 25s and couples,
AND,
that doesn't pay people ridiculously higher amounts just because they have had kids*


Hopefully they will end all this current nonsense of child benefits,
and make it so you get some extra benefit for when you have your 1st kid (Under 25s currently only get a maximum combined jsa&lha benefit of £560 per month, which they have to house themself, feed, pay all bills, and live exclusively off)

And so theres no logical reason why under 16s should get anywhere close to that, as they dont need their own house or have to pay their own bills.


So there will be a small benefit for when they have baby number 1...,

but after that they now know that they cant afford to support even the 1kid they have at the moment,
and so if they STILL go ahead and have more babies they shouldnt be able to get a single penny more in benefits!

As like everyone else in the world that mum has to live with the results of things she does in her life.



And they should be allowed to take maximum 2years out of employment after the birth, while still getting income support benefit...,

But after those 2years are up that should end and they should automatically be transferred onto JSA instead so they can go get a job.
Unless their husband/boyfriend can support them financially,
or if they can survive on their own in this situation they have got themselves into without asking for other peoples money in the form of benefits.

dizzybuff

If angel is such a dab hand at knowing all the shortcuts for screwing the system he should either or does

A. work for the benefits agency
B. Need the help of a nice doctor in a white coat carrying a jacket with tie backs and a big burly fella called bernard to secure him to the table
C. Screw benefits himself and wait for his own little appearance before a lovely man called sir judge who will send him for a little walk to be someones beetch and dread ever being in a shower with his soap on a rope.

By the way I didnt even bother reading the post above as well ... frankly I fell asleep after one line ...

Bethankim

Angel,

I rarely bother to rely to any of your nutty posts..but

As like everyone else in the world that mum has to live with the results of things she does in her life.

now please explain to me again how babies are made (expect for artificial means) because im sure when i made my baby i did it with his father...of course i could be wrong and actually i just found myself one day with a child...

Angel89_2

Bethankim wrote: »

Angel,

I rarely bother to rely to any of your nutty posts..but

As like everyone else in the world that mum has to live with the results of things she does in her life.

now please explain to me again how babies are made (expect for artificial means) because im sure when i made my baby i did it with his father...of course i could be wrong and actually i just found myself one day with a child...

Yep but if you and the father get you pregnant, and then decide to have the baby knowing you cannot afford it,
you should have to accept that you/father have to support yourselfs and cant expect taxpayers money for something which you have gotten yourself into.

System

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

No, but you don't have to live together either.

I can't afford to live on my own either, thats why i share with friends...

qwertyuiop12345

People might be interested to read my experience as I once had an interview to determine whether I was in a couple.

Several years ago I was unemployed for a period of a few weeks and put in an application for job seekers allowance as I did not want to have a hole in my national insurance contributions record.

I new nothing about benefits at the time as I had never previously claimed anything. I went to my local Jobcentre plus to apply and had to ask for help with the form as I didn't know whether or not I counted as living with someone. At the time I was staying in a one bedroom flat of a boyfriend as I had just moved to London to sort out my living arrangements etc. prior to starting my new job (which I already had arranged for a future starting date).

The relationship wasn't very serious, he was just doing me a favour by giving me somewhere to live whilst I found my own place. We certainly didn't think we were 'living together' but I wanted to make absolutely sure that I didn't get anything wrong in my application.

A very nice woman made an appointment to visit me at the flat, where she asked me various questions about whether we did things together such as shopping. She concluded that we were definitely not a couple by the DWP definition despite the fact that we had sexual relations. A few of the questions were a bit awkward, but I think she was more embarassed than I was and she kept apologising that they had to do this.

My conclusion is that if you are not sure whether you count as a financial couple, just ask them to do an interview. Tell them the full truth and then it is up to them to decide.

Vicky123

This has been answered lots of times already the OP herself admits to being in a relationship and living as HAW because she calls him her partner, not flat mate or friend but "partner"
Maybe not what anyone else calls a relationship but officially it is a relationship and the rules as such apply.