What has my partner got to do with it?

misty_blue_2

you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too
you have a partner, you live together as a couple (whether married or not it doesnt make any difference) but want to be treated and single people ? you cannot get tax credits because you have a partner
welcome to the real world this is the same for us all.

sleepless_saver

Zara33 wrote: »

I gave up because of this :rolleyes:

I've put Angel89 on my ignore list, thus avoiding the problem

alwaysonthego_2

sleepless_saver wrote: »

I've put Angel89 on my ignore list, thus avoiding the problem

I am tempted, but find his stupid ideas quite amusing!!:eek:

Pepzofio

alwaysonthego wrote: »

OMG you live with your partner so the government will look at both of your incomes. We did not make this policy up, the government did. You may find that they look at whether someone is having a sexual relationship and this is part of the criteria for establishing whether someone is a couple for benefit puroposes.

So you are calling me a gold digger because I am a stay at home mum and my husband brings in the income. Are you having a giraffe, this is what couples do support one another.

I also stand by my comment of you getting a back bone!!! It seems you are quite happy for the tax payers to support you, but not your boyfriend Get off your high horse!

To be fair, if OP is in a non-sexual relationship with her partner and just happens to live with him as a housemate for convenience, then it is not really any different to someone who house-shares claiming WTC.

I would not expect someone's housemates to subsidise them, nor would I expect a boyfriend to start supporting me financially before we'd started sleeping together. If they were living together as a couple then I think that's a whole different ball game, but as someone else said, OP could have been housesharing with her now-partner before she began dating him. Or she could have been faced with homelessness and agreed to move into his spare room as she had nowhere else to go.

I'm not sure why you're taking her 'gold diggers' comment personally either - I don't think it was addressed at you personally, as she wasn't even saying that all women who share finances with their higher earning partners are gold diggers, let alone that all stay at home mums were!

And I don't really blame her for getting a bit defensive - some of the earlier comments (before Angel89 hijacked the thread that is) were really quite personal & insulting about her relationship.

PasturesNew

I thought to get WTC you had to be living in self-contained accommodation, alone, over 25 and in low paid work. Just having low pay wouldn't make any difference, being over 25 on low pay wouldn't either... it's the "living alone" part I thought made the real difference because you're solely responsible for all bills, all overheads and all standing charges. Sharing a home with anybody at all means you're not paying ALL the insurance, ALL the TV licence, ALL the standing charges on water, gas, electric, phone line.

Which, if this is what the OP is enquiring about, makes the question redundant no matter who they live with. Friend or partner, you wouldn't get WTC unless you were:
- over 25
- working 30 or more hours/week
- on low pay
- living ALONE in self-contained accommodation

alwaysonthego_2

Pepzofio wrote: »

To be fair, if OP is in a non-sexual relationship with her partner and just happens to live with him as a housemate for convenience, then it is not really any different to someone who house-shares claiming WTC.

I would not expect someone's housemates to subsidise them, nor would I expect a boyfriend to start supporting me financially before we'd started sleeping together. If they were living together as a couple then I think that's a whole different ball game, but as someone else said, OP could have been housesharing with her now-partner before she began dating him. Or she could have been faced with homelessness and agreed to move into his spare room as she had nowhere else to go.

I'm not sure why you're taking her 'gold diggers' comment personally either - I don't think it was addressed at you personally, as she wasn't even saying that all women who share finances with their higher earning partners are gold diggers, let alone that all stay at home mums were!

And I don't really blame her for getting a bit defensive - some of the earlier comments (before Angel89 hijacked the thread that is) were really quite personal & insulting about her relationship.

Come off it, I know some couples that don't have sex anymore, can they claim they are single and housemates.

The op classed her her 'housemate' as her partner, we only have her word that they are not in a sexual relationship and she has said maybe they are not, not for definite. She will be classed as a couple for benefit purposes, whether she is getting it or not really does not matter.

I did not take her comment personally but she did say she was not a gold digger like other women.

The op is part of a couple!!

Francesanne

Astrowife wrote: »

From what I can work out, I'm not entitled to any working tax credit because I have a partner...but I don't even know how much he earns and don't get any financial support from him! Is this right? We don't have any joint assets or anything (I don't have any assets, lol), he owns the house and I pay him a flat rate for rent and my share of bills - this is the same as I would pay if I rented a room in a shared house or shared a flat with a friend.

Is he your partner or your landlord?

Pepzofio

PasturesNew wrote: »

I thought to get WTC you had to be living in self-contained accommodation, alone, over 25 and in low paid work. Just having low pay wouldn't make any difference, being over 25 on low pay wouldn't either... it's the "living alone" part I thought made the real difference because you're solely responsible for all bills, all overheads and all standing charges. Sharing a home with anybody at all means you're not paying ALL the insurance, ALL the TV licence, ALL the standing charges on water, gas, electric, phone line.

I've never heard this before. AFAIK the same living together as a couple rules apply to TCs as do to other welfare benefits.

And just because you're sharing bills etc doesn't necessarily mean you're saving money - someone sharing a 2 bed flat in central London could easily have higher outgoings that someone living alone in a studio flat somewhere cheaper in the country.

AsknAnswer

We are not married and do not have children, why should he support me?

Why shouldn't he support you? It is a normal part of a relationship, particularly when a couple live together to offer each other support, in each and every way. It never fails to amaze me people in a partnership who are happy to accept support in every other area, emotional, practical, physical, who will often share the burden of the obstacles of every day life, but when it comes down to financial support they feel the state should support them, not the person who professes to love them.

I don't think the question should be why should he support you but rather, why do you feel the state should support you?

KimYeovil

"Actually that would be 207x52 divided by 12 as there are 5 weeks in some mths"

(207 x (52 + (1/7))) if you want to be pedantic. (52 x 7 = 364)