What has my partner got to do with it?

Zara33

I bet the police are glad they got a catch like you angel89 :rolleyes:

Zara33

Astrowife you have the wrong forum :rolleyes: you don't actually require benefit advice you just want to discuss a situation but don't worry chick I suspect this thread will be locked PDQ

ceridwen

Astrowife

The thing is that this Society is still divided (pretty equally as far as I can see) between those who think "relationship = financial commitment and support" and those who think "relationship is relationship full stop and why should money come into it? - I have mine and he has his".

PasturesNew has made the very logical point that its cheaper to live in a shared household (of any description - not just "partners or married") on the one hand - and, of course, whatever relationship situation one is in is none of the State's business on the other hand.

Difficult....difficult. The thing is you are in the middle of a "very tangled ball of wool" - whereby the State/privatised bits thereof charge single people more for Council Tax and bills on the one hand (so being part of a couple - of whatever description - in fact even just two people who are platonic friends) comes much cheaper than living on one's own - so, on the other hand, the State hands over less benefit income/WTC if that is due/would be due on the other hand.

It IS a problem - and would actually take a heck of a lot of doing to "unpick" that "ball of wool" and say "Right - everyone now gets their income in their own right - whatever source it comes from" on the one hand AND "Everyone pays the same amount for Council Tax and bills regardless of whether they are single or no" on the other hand.

Personally - I hope the day will come when:
- people get their income/all their income on an "individual" basis - totally regardless of whatever their "marital status" is on the hand
AND AND AND
- people dont get charged extra Council Tax and bills for being single on the other hand.

The system - as it stands at present - is one heck of a mess.

I know personally that I am totally fed-up to the back teeth of having had years and years of being charged too much for my Council Tax and bills because I have always been single on the one hand - and, on the other hand, I am going to remain single to ensure that I always get ALL income due to me on the other hand and am never made to support/subsidise someone else. (Dont even get me started on the fact that childless people are made to pay towards State help for those with children - or we will all be here until the cows come home - the injustice of that rankles very badly indeed). If the State intends to "hit" me in one way - then I intend for it to "help" me in the other way - to try and make good the effect of the "hits" as far as possible.

The whole system - benefits/the way Council Tax and bills are charged needs totally demolishing and worked out again from scratch on a "per person" basis - but I'm not going to hold my breath that this will ever happen:rolleyes:

Right now - under the current set-up - one just has to think "swings and roundabouts" I guess..."win some/lose some"....

Somerset

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*.

kelloggs36

alwaysonthego wrote: »

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!!

A sexual relationship does NOT form part of the criteria for deciding whether a person is living together as husband and wife for benefit purposes - they are not allowed to ask such questions, but other factors already described do form the criteria; whether you socialise together, whether you eat together, whether you cook for eachother etc.

kelloggs36

Astrowife wrote: »

I can't resist responding again, I should be a grown-up and not take the bait but that's boring.

I DO NOT EXPECT THE STATE TO SUPPORT ME. Have you read a single thing I posted? I work, full time, but happen to earn a fairly low wage. I saw someone on TV last night who earned more than I do but gets working tax credit - I was just interested to see if I might be eligible, and then asked a RHETORICAL question about why my boyfriend should be "held against me" as it were since we are financially independent from each other. But you aren't financially independent from eachother though, that is the key point. You may have separate bank accounts, but if you live together in a relationship you are not classed in law as being financially independent of eachother and any benefit claim will be assessed as a couple except JSA contributions based as that is based on your national insurance contributions and is fixed regardless of anything else, including savings.

Many years ago I had to claim unemployment benefit and will never claim anything again unless I absolutely have to, the thought of filling in the forms is enough to put me right off.

I think it would be naive to join finances before we are married or have children together - I have been in a relationship with joint finances before and though it was an amicable split, untangling the finances was tiresome and prolonged. Surely it is sensible to stay independent until a major commitment is made? Many married people keep their finances separate, but they aren't financially independent from eachother - they split costs eg one may pay for food and the other petrol.

If a civil partnership were an option we might be more inclined to share finances, and if we had a child together of course my bf would support me. Proving that you are indeed a couple and will be assessed as such.

To the stay-at-home mother who decided I was calling her a gold-digger, why so testy? Nowhere did I disparage mothers or wives (or husbands or fathers for that matter) for being financially supported by their other halves.

Oh, and it'd be really interesting to know how many of the people getting their knickers in a twist claim child benefit despite having healthy household incomes...

Child benefit is a universal benefit so there should be no shame in claiming that. If the Government wish to change the rules then they will do so.

Soubrette

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*.

Because heads they win, tails you lose

There are many examples of the government assessing people in different ways by different departments depending on how the government's income can be increased.

Sou

alwaysonthego_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

A sexual relationship does NOT form part of the criteria for deciding whether a person is living together as husband and wife for benefit purposes - they are not allowed to ask such questions, but other factors already described do form the criteria; whether you socialise together, whether you eat together, whether you cook for eachother etc.

Sexual relations do form part of the criteria for deciding whether someone is a couple for benefits purposes. Although you rightly say they are not allowed to ask if a couple is having a sexual relationship, it does form a small part of the criteria.

11045 All factors of their relationship have to be considered. The significance of each factor
can only be determined in the context of all of the factors with none being decisive.
There is more to the determination than the cold, observable facts. The
characteristics of the relationship of husband and wife may include1

• mutual love

• faithfulness

• public acknowledgement

• sexual relations

• shared surname

• children

• endurance

• stability

• interdependence

• devotion.

DMs should consider

1. the sexual relationship of the two people1

2. the relationship of the two people concerning money2

3. the general relationship of the two people3.

Sexual relationship

11049 A sexual relationship is an important part of a marriage and therefore of LTAHAW
and thus of LTACP. But evidence of a sexual relationship does not, on its own,
mean that two people should be thought of as LTAHAW or LTACP. Similarly two

people may be LTAHAW1 or LTACP without having a sexual relationship1.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ch11-23254.pdf

AsknAnswer

I read what you wrote, OP. You wrote this:

Originally Posted by AstrowifeWe are not married and do not have children, why should he support me?

And provided a response to that comment accordingly. That is why I quoted you.

Incidently:

I think it would be naive to join finances before we are married or have children together - I have been in a relationship with joint finances before and though it was an amicable split, untangling the finances was tiresome and prolonged. Surely it is sensible to stay independent until a major commitment is made?

So it is naive to share finances, prior to marriage? If it not then naive to share other aspects of "married life" before marriage? Living together,, sharing the household duties, going shopping together, splitting the bills, and (possibly) having sex etc. Why is the financial side the only issue?

In answer to your original question, you can claim tax credits as a single person if you live in the same house as someone. But only if that someone is not your partner, or is an ex partner and the seperation is intended to be permanent. In other words, you can live in the same house, but not within the same household.

System

AsknAnswer wrote: »

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?

When does it become their responsibility? 3 months? 6 months? A year? 2 Years? 5 years etc? I think its unfair that if you start a relationship with someone you share a house with (amongst others) that they would be expected to support you. IMO as long as you have separate finances, pay for everything seperately, don't eat /shop together etc then why should you be counted?

AHAW should only really be implied if the couple are living like a married couple, i.e they (and only they) live in a house together, have one bedroom between the two and eat,shop,cook etc together.

I would hate for anyone else to have to be financially responsible for me. I have problems with money.As it is they'd have a hard enough time with the emotional support that i need constantly. I'm a burden enough as it is without adding financial woes on top.