Losing 1400 when partner moves in

mynameistallulah

apoorlykitten wrote: »

my income will reduce dramatically ( yes it is subsidised via tax credit and hb ) and i have every right to feel guilty that i cant go 50/50. i want to ! its not achievable for me to extend my hours, nor do i want to.

Your income will not reduce at all, your benefit entitlement will decrease. Income is your earnings from employment, which by your own admission you do not wish to work to increase.

Cornish_piskie

I have been in a similar position OP, I didn't feel that my partner (at the time) should have to 'pay' for my children so we sat down and looked at a spreadsheet that I had created with all the outgoings. Although I didn't want or feel he should pay towards the kids (my pride, I guess) he blew me away by stating that he wanted to be a family and that meant paying towards the kids needs as well as his own.

The big difference in my scenario is that my children's father pays maintenance - as he should - so I had my wages, maintenance and child benefit to put in the pot.

Do you know, although I had less of my 'own' money (I say 'own', it was CTC + WTC) it felt DAMNED good to not have to claim them!:D

You absolutely need to chase up your children's father for maintenance - this will mean a call to the CSA but is that any harder than a call to the tax credit line?

I don't think anyone thinks you are a bad person, I think your wording could have been a little better in your opening post as it probably sounded a bit of a bleat and you have done yourself no favours with your !!!!!!s and telling people to go !!!! themselves - it comes across as a very bad attitude. If you are going to post on an open forum you must be prepared to get a mixture of opinions - some you won't like but you would do better to take it with good grace.

Mikazaru

apoorlykitten wrote: »

I feel for my new partner who has to go from living alone, to living with me and my 3 kids and supporting all 4 of us. my income will reduce dramatically ( yes it is subsidised via tax credit and hb ) and i have every right to feel guilty that i cant go 50/50. i want to ! its not achievable for me to extend my hours, nor do i want to.

Surely you could go 50/50 or closer to it if you upped your hours, you may not want to work more hours but that's beside the point when you have children to support.
With regards to approaching the money issue, just suggest working through the SOA on here so he can get idea of the bills at your house and the discuss the contributions from there.

elvis86

apoorlykitten wrote: »

its not achievable for me to extend my hours, nor do i want to.

What I take exception to, is you feeling that you have this choice, and the current benefits system for affording it to you.

I'd love to work part-time, but I can't afford to. Why should you be allowed to make that choice and have taxpayers' money make up the difference?

apoorlykitten wrote: »

EVERY SINGLE MOTHER OUT THERE DESERVES A MEDAL ON BENEFIT OR NOT.

I admire the single mums I know who strive and work hard to support their kids in the absence of their father, but I'm hard-pushed to feel any empathy towards those who use their kids as an excuse to sit on their backsides, or work the bare minimum of hours so as to rake in tax credits etc.

Besides, it's not rocket science to get a man to leave you.;)

Mara69

apoorlykitten wrote: »

EVERY SINGLE MOTHER OUT THERE DESERVES A MEDAL ON BENEFIT OR NOT

Of course they don't. Will you please stop spouting nonsense?

clearingout

raven83 wrote: »

Whilst i do understand what the OP is trying to say, at the end of the day when two peopke choose to live together they choose (IMO) to share finances, and that includes raising someone elses kids. I would personally feel some what upset if say i was in a situation like this and the boyfriend said he wasnt willing to support my kids, as far as i am concerned single mums come as a package, when a man take on a lady that has children he is taking on the WHOLE thing not just the relationship with the lady. Its about being with someone for love and if that means they have children then so be it. Relationships these days are based alot on money, its just so clinical and a sad representation of the times we live in.

Sorry for the rant

I think that's kind of a simplistic way of looking at it. I have three young children and a self employed ex husband who is unlikely to ever pay what he should towards then, and who will only pay when he's threatened with losing his home or going to prison. I make a point of being honest about this very early on when dating anyone new since I know being with me long term means having to give some serious financial support to my children as well. Most men I meet are men who are also divorced and who are supporting their own children also. It's a huge commitment - the last guy I dated had 3 children of his own and I don't think anyone could blame him for taking a step back and thinking seriously about what it would mean to him long term to be with me: in short, supporting 6 children! that's terrifying!

I come as a package with my children, I agree, and I wouldn't have it any other way but practicalities need to be considered from the outset - probably more so than the romance. Sad, perhaps, for the romantics amongst us but it's also realistic and financial survival for all of us is important and is clearly part of dealing with the practicalities of separation and divorce.

freezspirit

If your children are of college age then can't they get a weekend job or for a couple of hours per day job to help out. Alot of colleges have student grants/loans to pay for transport.

When I went to college my parents stopped paying for my clothes, shoes etc I had to fund it myself. And give them some money for housekeeping.

apoorlykitten

waiting for judgemental @teenage mother comments

Dunroamin

Sparklebabey wrote: »

Are you actually drunk?

She usually is!

MacMickster

I've just read this thread and can't believe that it has run to 8 pages for what is obviously a wind-up by the OP (who is probably a 15 year old, off school ill and very bored).

Real people don't actually think like the OP - do they?