Losing 1400 when partner moves in

elvis86

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

What you are facing I have to face some living together time and I don't give a !!!! about benefits bashers who seem to think I/we are not entitled to love lives.
They can go !!!! themselves for all I care.

Apparently steaming drunk at 2 in the afternoon on a Tuesday? Possibly not the best person to convince anyone to sympathise with those on benefits...:cool:

As well as being barely coherent, your posts are also complete rubbish. Nobody has questioned the OP's right to a relationship, only her "right" to continue to rake in 1400 a month in benefits when her partner moves in with her.

Do you seriously think that a household where one partner earns £27,000 and the other chooses to work part-time, deserves £1400 a month of taxpayers' money in benefits?

Is your mind really so warped by the time you've spent on benefits and by the entrenched "entitlement" culture of some who choose to exist on handouts?

It's the equivalent of awarding this couple an additional full time £20,000+ salary in benefits. What services would you be happy to forfeit so that we can hand out £1400 a month to couples like this?

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

What has that got to do with the correlation of the UK having the highest number of single parents and the most generous welfare system for single mothers?

I thought the correlation was between the number of single parents and the number of "real men"?

If you think the French system is so good, then move there under the EEA freedom of worker treaty rights. I think you might get a shock on how much taxes you will have to pay especially towards their health system. Or you can just keep on moaning about stepfathers having to pay for their stepchildren in the UK.

They don't pay for them, because they choose to live apart. Remember your link? Perhaps you are in favour of policies which lead to so many single parents if you like the UK system?

Does your OH know how you feel about her children?

I'm not a step-parent. If you hadn't realised, I'm not talking about me.

Carry on anyway, I'm sure we can solve the massive problem of vast numbers children growing up in workless households simply by sitting on moral judgement on them all. That's bound to work.

Idiophreak

rachela552 wrote: »

Just ignore these rude, ignorant and frankly thick trolls. Her partner already exists, he and his £27k are not just materializing out of thin air so she is not £13k better off because as a couple their combined income goes down massively.

As do their outgoings...

shedboy94

rachela552 wrote: »

Just ignore these rude, ignorant and frankly thick trolls. Her partner already exists, he and his £27k are not just materializing out of thin air so she is not £13k better off because as a couple their combined income goes down massively. I agree tax credits are not a great system but don't shoot someone down for trying to be a good mother and work and contribute to society, some of us feel that it is important for our children to have our time and as mothers don't want to work full time out of the home and that is our right.
And before I get slated too. My partner works full time I work part time and we claim no state benefits

So you've never claimed Child Benefit then? And presumably you've either chosen never to have claimed any Tax Credits, or you earn too much to claim them, and therefore are earning enough to be able to afford to not work FT?

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

Carry on anyway, I'm sure we can solve the massive problem of vast numbers children growing up in workless households simply by sitting on moral judgement on them all. That's bound to work.

That's where Universal Credit will come in. Some parents used the welfare payments Tax Credits as a stepping stone to help towards supporting themsleves without the need for welfare; others were happy to sit back and continue to claim welfare payments like these. The latter of these types is going to receive this "moral judgement" whether they like it or not and be forced into doing more to support themselves.

It's better to be an expert on supporting your family from your own wages, than it is to be an expert on how welfare payments work and moaning about wanting more welfare/tax breaks.

Idiophreak

anguk wrote: »

The state isn't keeping them apart, they're choosing to stay apart because they don't want to have a partnership where they share all income. The OP wants to keep her benefits and the OP's partner wants to keep his wages when really what they should be doing is putting all money into one pot and living like a couple instead of two separate financial people.

I don't really think they *should* be doing anything.

As you said, it's a choice. They can choose to be apart, pay out a bunch more in double rent etc and get some benefits...or they can choose to live together, get less benefits and lower their outgoings. If they choose not to commit to each other, it's only right that they should continue to get the benefits.

I don't think it's the government's place to tell people when they *should* live with their OH...

anguk

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

What you are facing I have to face some living together time and I don't give a !!!! about benefits bashers who seem to think I/we are not entitled to love lives.
They can go !!!! themselves for all I care.

I'm certainly not a benefits basher, because our entire household income is made up of benefits! My OH is ill and disabled and can't work, I'm his full-time carer so can't work, we live on benefits. We also get benefits for our daughter but she leaves full-time education this summer so our money will drop, we know it'll drop and it's right that it'll drop so we'll just cut our cloth accordingly.

Do I think the benefit system is fair? No I don't, I think there are massive mistakes and stupid rules which cost the state a fortune while at the same time deprive those who really need help the most. I'm particularly angry at the way the sick and disabled are being targeted by the government now, I'm sure they think if you're not going to die painfully within the next 6 months you should be out digging roads or something.

That said I am extremely thankful that we live in a country that has a welfare state, flaws and all. And I am extremely grateful for the money that we receive from the state, it may not be brilliant but we have a roof over our heads and we won't starve. My OH worked until he was unable to, he had two jobs so that I could stay at home and raise the kids, in those days we didn't have tax credits but there was the married man's tax allowance (but I don't think that was as much as tax credits?).

My son works and the amount he pays in tax and NI would probably cover the amount we get in benefits and once my daughter finishes university she'll hopefully have a job and will pay her taxes, so we haven't bred a pair of work dodgers.

Sadly I do think we have a benefit culture in this country and I do think some people have a sense of entitlement and feel very aggrieved if their benefits are cut even though they no longer really need them. The welfare state was originally set up to help those who really needed it, I think it's drifted away from that now.

anguk

Idiophreak wrote: »

I don't really think they *should* be doing anything.

As you said, it's a choice. They can choose to be apart, pay out a bunch more in double rent etc and get some benefits...or they can choose to live together, get less benefits and lower their outgoings. If they choose not to commit to each other, it's only right that they should continue to get the benefits.

I don't think it's the government's place to tell people when they *should* live with their OH...

But I don't think they do? As you say the OP has a choice, they can live apart and she can keep her benefits or they can live together and they loose the benefits and pool their wages. It's their choice, not the governments.

I think with the OP it's not a case of not having enough to live on because they will, it's a case of her not having the same personal income as she has now. But her income is going to drop massively anyway in the next few years once her children have left full-time education.

borkid

@anguk at last a valid reason for benefits. You're in a similar position to my daughter, claiming benefits due to a disability. She would love to work, did try a 20hr per month job but she relapsed and became so ill she became near confined to bed. It took her over 18 months to regain her previous level of health. Does she complain... no just gets on with things as best she can.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That's where Universal Credit will come in. Some parents used the welfare payments Tax Credits as a stepping stone to help towards supporting themsleves without the need for welfare; others were happy to sit back and continue to claim welfare payments like these. The latter of these types is going to receive this "moral judgement" whether they like it or not and be forced into doing more to support themselves.

I doubt UC will make much difference. Single parents entitled to IS will still be entitled to UC unconditionally. The disregard may help - more will probably work low hours rather than go for the magic 16.

But there will still be the exact same disincentive for a single parent on benefits to move a partner on a good wage in.

It's better to be an expert on supporting your family from your own wages, than it is to be an expert on how welfare payments work and moaning about wanting more welfare/tax breaks.

But the "real men" of the past got tax breaks for supporting a family. Can you see a correlation?