Losing 1400 when partner moves in

Dontknowanymore

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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

But you ARE going to be better off financially when you live together! You just wont have £1400 a month handed directly to you.
And I'm on benefits myself so I aint a hater.

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

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).

It was Tony Blair; the leader of New Labour; who called Tax Credits "a vote winner" when he decided to use Brown's Tax Credits welfare payments instead of his Labour Minister of Welfare Reform, Frank Field's welfare reform ideas for stamping out child poverty. Frank Field wanted to make sure it was the children who got the help, like tackling the grassroots such as projects that ensured the children arrived at school washed and having been given a breakfast.

Interesting that Frank Field (Labour MP) has helped the present government with the welfare reforms.

skintandscared_2

I'm still not sure what the OP thinks is "wrong" with a benefits system that pays money to single parents when they need it, then stops it when circumstances change and the family unit (however that is then made up) can afford their own bills. There is barely enough money in the "pot" to pay those who need it, let alone subsidising those who no longer do.

Apologies if I've missed it, but I've read the whole thread and can't see where the OP explains why she can't work full time? I saw the bit about not "wanting" to, but how many of us full-time workers skip off to work every morning? None of us "want" to, but we can't afford not to.

I do see that the OP is only claiming what she is entitled to, but I think the system should be changed. An able-bodied mother of teenage children is capable of full-time work, whether she likes it or not. Benefits should not be there to subsidise part-time work and free babysitting.

DreamerV

Forgot to mention, I also must have missed the reason why you don't get child maintenance from the children's father/s? Have you chased that up? Are you going to? Are there reasons why you won't? Can you come to an agreement without the CSA? Perhaps he or they would be happy to pay the money directly to the children now they are teenagers? Or perhaps he could have the kids for a few weeks each year (2 or 3 weeks in summer, a week at Easter, week at Christmas) - that would around 10% of they year and should save you considerably.

MissMoneypenny

skintandscared wrote: »

I do see that the OP is only claiming what she is entitled to, but I think the system should be changed. An able-bodied mother of teenage children is capable of full-time work, whether she likes it or not. Benefits should not be there to subsidise part-time work and free babysitting.

It seems the welfare reforms are changing this and in the OPs case, a single mother with teenagers will be expected to work 35 hours per week (or rather, earn 35 hours at national minimum wage). If they don't do this, then it seems they will be required to regularly show they are searching for work (as job seekers have to). The fine details of this (Universal Credit) should be out by the end of the year.

heathcote123

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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

You're doing a great job of getting people on-side.

I think in this case the system actually works quite sensibly i.e. someone else rather than the taxpayer will need to pick up the tab for you & your kids food and housing.

skintandscared_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It seems the welfare reforms are changing this and in the OPs case, a single mother with teenagers will be expected to work 35 hours per week (or rather, earn 35 hours at national minimum wage). If they don't do this, then it seems they will be required to regularly show they are searching for work (as job seekers have to). The fine details of this (Universal Credit) should be out by the end of the year.

Thanks, that's good to know. A definite step in the right direction. Benefits (ironic that the first two thesaurus options for replacing this word are "advantage" and "profit") should be there as a last resort for those who absolutely need them and should NOT be a lifestyle choice!

debrag

apoorlykitten wrote: »

i lose 1400 a month not 14k ! anyway i came here for advise not to be slammed or made to look bad. i thought this would be place i was offered support and or help. not to be spoken to like i have been.

i have 3 teeneage children plus 2 cats. they all need lunches everyday. my eldest needs money to go to college on the bus, i do not get help for that. i also have to clothe and give them pocket money. it all adds up believe me. i do not live beyond my means and i save every penny when i can.

im simply stating that the benfit system is severly flawed. its sad to think i will be better off not living with my partner. we both work for family run businesses and we both work bloody hard!
also i won tbe gainin g27k, my partner earns that money he won tbe giving it straight to me will he.

oh well i hoped for help and all i got was .........well.........

what you lose will be made up by what your partner brings in or are you actually expecting him to pay nothing toward the food and household bills and for him to contribute but for you to claim the same HB + CT etc?

The systems is not flawed to the extend you think.

apoorlykitten

no did you not read my posts. i simply stated that i felt guilty. i also never once said i wanted to continue claiming and have him here . just that we would be better off if we didnt live together.

i seem to be miss understood over and over again. shame really.
ill admit ive probaly taken a few things the wrong way but no one else will admit theyre in the wrong too. oh well.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

Precisely! So if you massively reward "couples" who choose to live apart, then they will carry on living apart. As the UK stats on lone parent households prove.