Cannot afford to live together

SmallL

As echoed by others 36K is alot to have as a joint income compared to many people! (my own parents earn roughly 10k less and lead a very comfortable life!)

picnmix

Shakes head and walks away from thread.

j.e.j.

inch_high wrote: »

I want my girlfriend and son to move in with me.

The trouble is, as a single parent in a 2 bedroom flat, she gets the following benefits:
Tax credits £6340
Housing Benefit £2500
Child Benefit £1060
Her rent is £500 a month so with the housing benefit its pretty much £300 a month.

At the moment I have a lodger who gives me £350 a month. I cant really afford to have less than that. So for my OH to match that it would cost her £50 a month more than she is paying now - which isnt much, granted.
But a a couple, we would only get £1600 in benefits (£1060 child benefit and £540 in tax credits). So she loses £5800 in tax credits!
We are both on around £17 - £18k a year.

Am I missing something here? How can she be so much better off as a single parent? I know obviously it's there to help single parents etc, but it's not like I can provide £5800 each year from under the floorboards!
Am I missing something?

Yes, it does seem odd.. but are there other factors, like do you live in a bigger house/flat, for example. Benefits like HB are means-tested, so would only provide the minimum amount the government says she needs to live on. If she were to move in with you you are right in that your incomes will be pooled together and where the government was providing previously, you would have to take up some of that yourself out of your own income. Hope this is making sense!

However, nobody should be better off on benefits, so it might be worth double-checking your figures on the 'entitled to' website?

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Maybe she doesn't want to give up her financial and literal independence, so the money is just a smokescreen for;


'But I don't want to'

euronorris

I think the real problem here is that the OP either a) cannot really afford the place he lives/has a mortgage for (hence the lodger) or b) has debts that take up a fair portion of his monthly income (hence the lodger), or both.

If those factors weren't at play, then they would both be better off, financially, by moving in together. Regardless of the drop in benefits.

So, I don't think it's the system that has created this situation. Rather, it is the OP's pre-existing financial situation that has.

So, if my assumptions/understanding is correct, would it not be possible to sell up, use any profit to clear debts (assuming there is equity), and move into the girlfriends place? Or into a new rented place together? If selling isn't an option (due to negative equity maybe), is renting it out an option instead (if it would generate enough income to cover the mortgage payments?

The gf would still lose some benefits, but it might be a more financially viable option for them.

rpc

inch_high wrote: »

it's not like I can provide £5800 each year from under the floorboards!
Am I missing something?

Surely you are able to produce 17k (less tax, NI, pension) that she doesn't already get. That should be more than £5800!

flutterby_lil

Providing the child with a family home, you and his/her mum living together, showing morals and financial commitment to each other is worth its weight in gold!

I know that I would rather wake up every day with my OH and lose money that I got as a single parent than get the extra money and wake up alone.

Money is not everything. My family mean more to me than money.

Amanda65

It seems that the OP can't get his head round that fact that although their income will be lower, so will their outgoings. In addition he gets to share his home with his GF and her son rather than a lodger. Whilst he obviously has no obligation to support a child that isn't biologically his, I assume that he knew that his GF came as a package and that hopefully if they are at the stage in their relationship to consider moving in together then there is a moral obligation (and to be fair he may love the little boy to pieces as well).

It's the age old dilemma really of never being able to afford to have children which we've all been through - and some of us had to do it without working or child tax credits, fancy that !!!

DylanO

rpc wrote: »

Surely you are able to produce 17k (less tax, NI, pension) that she doesn't already get. That should be more than £5800!

Will all his bills disappear? It's highly likely that his bills already account for much of that £17,000, and don't forget, in real terms he will be losing £350 income each month from his lodger.

He might also be being sensible and not allowing his girlfriend to become part owner of his house by default.

They will effectively be about £15,000 down each year by living together. I don't think their bills will fall by as much, and may actually go up given what she will lose by no longer being a single parent. It's not unreasonable for him to be asking these questions.

DylanO

Amanda65 wrote: »

It seems that the OP can't get his head round that fact that although their income will be lower, so will their outgoings. In addition he gets to share his home with his GF and her son rather than a lodger. Whilst he obviously has no obligation to support a child that isn't biologically his, I assume that he knew that his GF came as a package and that hopefully if they are at the stage in their relationship to consider moving in together then there is a moral obligation (and to be fair he may love the little boy to pieces as well).

It's the age old dilemma really of never being able to afford to have children which we've all been through - and some of us had to do it without working or child tax credits, fancy that !!!

Their income will be lowered by an amount which dwarves the amount their outgoings will be lowered.

He will lose £350 each month
She will lose around £800 each month

Considering that she works, it's not a stretch to assume that the majority of the cash benefits she receives will go towards childcare - she will lose those benefits and as she's not gaining a house husband, she'll still have that large cost.

He will, rightly, want to protect his asset and so she will not be able to contribute to the mortgage, just pay rent, rent which is less than he would get with his lodger, and his bills won't go down because instead of their being two people in the house, there will be three.

It's not as clear cut as you seem to think.