Losing 1400 when partner moves in

samwich1979

apoorlykitten wrote: »

i envite you all to come visit me in my family business, to meet me my mum my sisters to see what we have achieved so that all of us can work and provide for our familys. come meet me, my kids and meet my partner who also works in a small family business. Then make a choice if you think im a terrible person ?
im saddened to be honest that you all think im doing something wrong ?
im not !
i want to have a stable family life for my children and i think it is a shame that their father doesnt help towards bringing them up. bare in mind he does have access to the kids. But has never paid a penny since leaving.
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.
All i wanted to know was , did anyone else experience this, how did they deal with it.
what i will say is im gutted that there are so many narrow minded people out there who think im bad. im not entirely sure what ive done wrong, other than be offended by the poisoned tounges of others.

i stand by my thoughts that is youre entitled then claim it !
EVERY SINGLE MOTHER OUT THERE DESERVES A MEDAL ON BENEFIT OR NOT.
i didnt choose to be a single parent, who would ?

Now unless you can give me good advise, like how to broach the subject of 'pooling' my money and my partners. What is fair for me to ask of him etc.

Please dont come on here and be rude. this isnt the place.

I just read this whole thread and cannot believe the attitude from you OP never mind calling others what for.
We are saying what we think, sometimes from personal experience and we are all allowed to do this whether you like it or not.

Whats more important a relationship with someone who you have loved for 4 years or money?
He knows what he is getting into by moving in with you, he knows your finances so what is the problem? Open your mouth and talk to him about it instead of expecting people here to say what YOU want to hear.

When you live with someone what is theres is also yours and you cant expect to have a 'this is my money' situation, it doesn't work like that, surely you should of experienced this before with your children's father?? Are you really that naive?

My husband has been out of work for over a year now and i have paid for EVERYTHING for us and our 1 year old son as he cannot claim benefits due to my £25000 a year wage.
Do i care about this? NO, he is MY HUSBAND, i married him to SHARE everything with him and will do this until the end of time.

He doesn't have 'his own money' i buy what he needs, he doesn't like it but hey thats the way it is.

The way i see it is you are very lucky, if you lose you benefits so what? you will no longer need them.

Whether you like it or not you both have to realise if you want to live together you have to share, even if you dont earn equal wages.

What would you feel if roles were reversed??

As for single mothers getting medals for bringing up kids :rotfl:
Parenting is hard on EVERYONE single or married.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That "real man" comment of mine seems to have hit a raw nerve with you.

No, I was just taking the p out of the judgemental, sanctimonious bull that makes up 90% of this thread. Apologies if came across as aimed at you personally, others were far worse.

I'm not the least bit interested in anyone's views on who is a saint or a sinner, or who stories about saintly step-fathers etc. I'm more interested in sitting in judgement on the systemand discussing the effect it has on incentives and outcomes.

Fact is, as we both pointed out earlier, the UK has more children living in workless households than any other EU country. If you compare our tax and benefits system with other countries, the difference is quite staggering and anyone who doesn't think this has an effect on peoples' behaviour is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The two main differences are that benefits to out of work single parents are more generous here, and couples with children (particularly with a single earner) on a decent wage are taxed far more heavily here, even accounting for tax credits and child ben.

These combine to make the financial effect of a man on a decent wage moving in with a single parent on benefits quite devastating.

Personally I think the solution to this is to bring some consistency to the system. If we're going to assess people as a family for benefits, then why do we assess people as individuals for tax? Look at the entire family to determine the benefits they need, and look at the entire family to determine how much tax they can afford to pay.

Whether you like it or not, money does influence peoples' choices, far more so than judgemental claptrap from strangers on an internet forum. Obviously money isn't the only issue, but it is a significant one.

It was intended as one of those "if the cap fits, then wear it" type statements.

Well, I'd probably be a "real man" in your eyes, as I feel the same way about my kids as your step-dad. Most of the time anyway

Come to think of it - the couple across the road are looking for lodgers, they live in a 4-bed house with no kids. Some day I must work out how much better off we'd be if I faked a split from my wife and rented a room in their house.

Oh I can't resist - for my wife about £9000 more in tax credits alone. 25% off the council tax. SMI (probably), maybe £2500. Free prescriptions/dentist. Maybe £12000.

Could offer him £100pw inc all bills, more than reasonable, and together my "family" will be about £7000pa better off. I'd pay child support of course but that would stay within the "family". I could always pop across the road for dinner with the kids.

You've got me thinking now. But the question is, am I a "real man" or not?

zagfles

Dunroamin wrote: »

But, surely, the major difference between that system and the current one is that increased tax allowances only benefited people who actually worked and paid tax?

We used not to encourage people with a family to support to only work part time and let the state do the rest.

Indeed, but that's a different issue. Here we're talking about a potential step-father who is working full time and earning a decent amount - so he'd be able to make full use of a £19,500 tax allowance like the "real men" of the past got to support their family (sorry to labour that phrase ).

Idiophreak

samwich1979 wrote: »

My husband has been out of work for over a year now and i have paid for EVERYTHING for us and our 1 year old son as he cannot claim benefits due to my £25000 a year wage.

Are you sure about that? I'm no expert, but would be surprised if you're entitled to *nothing* on a single £25k wage...Have you checked entitledto or similar?

apoorlykitten

Shall state that i would much rather be living with my partner than alone. i would gladly give up my 'benefit' that you all pay for.
How many times do i have to say that im saddened that we would be better off financially if we stayed apart.
I wanted to have advice from people who have had similar experiences and how they dealt with it.
i have every right to be worried about the future. I also have every right to feel guilty that my partner will be footing a huge amount of the bills.
If he was my kids dad then i can understand people getting all stressed about my apparent ' kushty' living.
He doesnt have children hes always lived independantly and he will go from paying for himself to paying for my 3 kids and supporting us all.
Its a huge responsibility and i admire him greatly for wanting to do it !
What i dont get is that you lot make your own minds up about my life ?
im not choosing money over love altho i can see why many people do. im also not rolling in money ( even less so when my partner moves in ) that was put there just for you all to 'quote'.
currently he has his money and as you lot think i have yours ! (not all of you )
what we have works but we want to live together. im sure all my worrys are perfectly normal for anyone in my situation.

im sorry you all blame me for how the system works. but then again thats your problem and not mine.

i hope ive really hit a nerve with all you 'benefit' haters. and i hope there never comes a time when you might need them. cos watch how youre all burned at the stake ! you sad sad sad people

zagfles

Idiophreak wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I'm no expert, but would be surprised if you're entitled to *nothing* on a single £25k wage...Have you checked entitledto or similar?

On £25k (assuming that's last year's income too, and working 30+ hours) a small entitlement to CTC of about £5pw. Nothing if working under 30 hours.

HB/LHA is a possibility, unlikely but worth checking if renting.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

I'm more interested in sitting in judgement on the systemand discussing the effect it has on incentives and outcomes.

Single parents (lets not be sexist) are being given too much in welfare payments if they choose not to work or only do the minimum hours to maximise their welfare payments. Sane people know that. The same goes for able bodied parents (couples) who only do the minimum to maximise their welfare payments.

If you reward bad behaviour, then that bad behaviour will continue.

Single parents should have their benefits reduced and no child welfare payments should be paid in cash to the parents'; they should be paid in vouchers with stipulations. That way the children stand a better chance of getting their welfare money and life will not be so rewarding for those who use their children as meal tickets.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

like the "real men" of the past got to support their family (sorry to labour that phrase ).

The "real man" phase was used to talk about those men who didn't moan about not getting extra cash from the state for stepchildren as "they weren't their children". As pointed out, any man can be a sperm donor, but being a father is a different matter entirely.

Men that moan about wanting extra state money for stepchildren, should come with a health warning; so that women can avoid them.

Sixer

Dunroamin wrote: »

But, surely, the major difference between that system and the current one is that increased tax allowances only benefited people who actually worked and paid tax?

We used not to encourage people with a family to support to only work part time and let the state do the rest.

It is worth analysing *why* the sea change, though (instead of listening to the usual swivel-eyed conspiracy theories about New Labour deliberately spending billions on tax credits in order to create a voting base).

We used to have generous family tax allowances and less generous low income family welfare payments.

We now have no family tax allowances and generous low income family welfare payments.

Fiscally-speaking, the money isn't *that* different for either.

This change in focus came about because New Labour had an assault on child poverty. Tax allowances are expensive because they go to everyone, even those who are wealthy. By reversing the proportions between welfare and tax allowances, they were able to put cash into their child poverty program. Whether you think they were right to do it or not, this is what they did and this why they did it.

In an exactly analogous way, the current coalition wish to have an assault on the working poor (ie ameliorate this particular aspect of poverty - low paid workers, rather than the previous govts focus on children). So they are upping the personal tax allowance. However, this is expensive, as it goes to everyone, so they are simultaneously bringing down the 40% threshold, pushing 1-2 million more people into higher rate taxpayer status. Whether you think they are right to do it or not, this is what they're doing and this is why they're doing it.

I agree with Zagfles. The ideology needs to come OUT of this debate. We need to focus on a desired outcome and the best way to deliver it, even if sometimes some aspects of the best way to deliver it sticks in our craw.

DreamerV

OP, I don't think people are being rude, just being honest. It's obviously not what you want to hear, and in the same position as you I wouldn't want to lose all that money which made me "independent". The thing is, as others have said, it's not real independence. It's easier for it to feel like independence as you can't see and don't know the person/people giving you the benefits to live on, whereas with your OH, you know who is supporting you.

When you move in together, you will be better off if you pool your finances, and he will obviously be worse off (but not as much as you may think, as he will make some savings, as others have mentioned). I am wondering if any of your concerns about losing benefits, is actually worry whether your OH will want to stay with you, or whether he will resent you, etc. because he is spending more money on you.

Also, it seems you are looking at it from the point of view that the state is penalising you for getting together, but looking at it from a different perspective, isn't it just giving more to single parents with children because they tend to need it more? I.e. as a single mother, you couldn't have lived truly independently on your income, but as a couple you can afford to look after yourselves. Therefore as a single mother you got more benfits, and as a couple you will get less as you (both of you together) need less.

And, you choose not to work more as you feel you are doing the right thing by looking after your sisters children for free. However, by doing this they are saving money, and you are worse off. This is a choice you have made. You are lucky you are not even worse off for it, as the government has stepped in to effectively pay for their childcare costs by subsidising you. Maybe you could ask them for a small contribution at least, £100 a month or something (which is peanuts for childcare). Or otherwise look for a few hours work. Perhaps you could look into getting registered as a childcare provider, and that way you can look after your sisters children for free, while looking after other people's children for pay?

And why is it necessary to give your teenage children pocket money? I don't get it. Do they not get fed and clothed by you (and the benefits), do they not already have shelter? If they want extra, surely they would just work for it? I know I liked having a job in my teens even though it was infrequent. I made friends through it, and my confidence grew.