Losing 1400 when partner moves in

clearingout

zagfles wrote: »

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.

are there reliable stats on 'couples' who live apart? how many single parent prosecutions have there been in the last couple of years?

I ask because I struggle to believe, as a lone parent, that anyone in a half decent, committed relationship would want to live apart for the sake of their benefit claim. I accept it will happen - but I'm not convinced it happens in the numbers (hundreds? thousands?) that seem to be suggested here.

The OP had an unfortunate tone but raised a legitimate concern of many lone parents who have managed on low incomes with the support of tax credits - what happens when one becomes two? It is difficult broaching money in relationships. It is difficult to expect a man to support children that aren't his. I don't buy the 'he's not a real man if he won't do it' argument in the simplistic way it is presented here as 'if he loves you, he'll accept you come as a package'. Money problems cause problems in all relationships, feeling hard done by because your new partner has children you now need to support must be a source of stress for many relationships, regardless of whether maintenance is paid or not, having to ask a new partner for money specifically for your children is another difficult thing to have to do - doesn't matter how committed or close or united you are - it's hard, it feels all wrong, it feels disjointed and a little 'wrong'. It is natural to be concerned that it's all OK on paper but when it becomes a reality, worrying what is may mean for the relationship. Perhaps posting on the marriage and relationships board would have given a different response?

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

Frank Field is one of the few politicians who talks sense about welfare. IDS is another although he's highly constrained in his current job. I think if they were both given free reign to work together free from external political considerations they'd come up with a welfare system which actually works.

But the nature of politics and democracy means that changes need to appear popular amongst those who really don't have a clue, or have the inclination to examine them in any detail. Which is why simple easy to understand (if not easy to implement) policies are the most popular, despite often being unfair.

The benefits cap and the child ben changes are good examples. Your typical Sun reader will spend 10 seconds reading a headline saying "benefits capped at £26,000" or "child benefit stopped for higher rate taxpayers", and think "Good" before moving onto the far more interesting article on page 3.

SandraScarlett

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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.

Everyone who has read this thread understands exactly what you have implied, and the current financial situation that you are in. At the moment you have sufficient money so you are able to care for your nieces and nephews, free of charge, and, as you indicated, are able to spend large amounts of time with your children, which is what you prefer to do, rather than work full time.

You have said your partner would like to move in with you, and I assume this would be welcomed by both yourself and your children, at which point, you would them become a family. The fact that your partner is not the biological father of the children, is neither here nor there.

When my son married a single mother, he adopted her child, and she is treated by the entire family as if she were the natural daughter of my son. The reason other posters are becoming irritated, is because you've said that "it isn't fair" that once your boyfriend moves in, you will be £1,400 a month worse off.

It doesn't matter how many times posters are trying to explain that you'll be better off, because of your boyfriend's contribution, to the family pot, you are taking that as criticism. It isn't - they're pointing out facts! The £1400 per month that you receive is not provided by some mysterious benefactor, but by everybody else through their taxes.

My DH and I used to be ships that passed in the night when our children were young, because I worked, he worked, my parents and his worked, and we had to all juggle our hours so that the children would be cared for after school. I would have loved to have stayed home with them, but our finances dictated it wasn't to be.

The situation you find yourself in is no different to when I married in the 1960s. The majority of women didn't work, so it was expected that the care-free bachelor who'd had his pay packet to spend on himself, after he'd paid his Mum for his keep,would have to cover the rent/mortgage and all overheads for the 2 of you. Your boyfriend will have a ready-made family, but they're old enough to get part-time jobs for pocket money - aren't they?

I wish you well for the future.

xx

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

Your typical Sun reader will spend 10 seconds reading a headline saying "benefits capped at £26,000" or "child benefit stopped for higher rate taxpayers", and think "Good" before moving onto the far more interesting article on page 3.

If those readers are part of the "entitled to" class, they would think 'that's not fair, I'm entitled to (insert the welfare payments they claim)".

Most workers seem to think the 26K cap is set too high.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If those readers are part of the "entitled to" class, they would think 'that's not fair, I'm entitled to (insert the welfare payments they claim)".

Most workers seem to think the 26K cap is set too high.

Given that the vast majority of benefit claimants don't get that much, they'd probably agree.

Opinion polls show both the cap and the child ben changes are massively popular. Because they are simple to understand, and appear to be tackling perceived excesses in the benefits system.

UC provides a much better and fairer benefits shake up. But that's far too complicated for your typical Sun reader to understand and so have an opinion on.

NoBS_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If those readers are part of the "entitled to" class, they would think 'that's not fair, I'm entitled to (insert the welfare payments they claim)".

Most workers seem to think the 26K cap is set too high.

Both of you have hit on a very precise point there.

People see what they want to see. it is a fact. This is why the tax credit h/l is being overrun by people suddenly working 24 hours after their WTC was stopped - they didn't know. Because they didn't bother to see if the changes affected them mostly.

Back on topic. OP if you work two days at a salon, then surely finding more work would be ok. If it's reception work, there are jobs in call centres crying out for good people with those skills. If it's hairdressing, well mobile hairdressing would definitely bring in hours and more importantly money.

I have two boys, work 2 jobs totalling over 40 hours and suffer from serious kidney and spinal diseases which require over 30 pills a day. If I can do it you can, you just need to change the way you think and start thinking more independently as you claim you are and continue to want to be.

The posts are right about a stable family home with two parents though. I would trade every penny I earned for my man. He's one of the good ones - works, cleans, irons, hoovers, takes the boys to the park every weekend and does school runs too. People always tell me how lucky I am but I tell them, yes maybe but I would never have married him in the first place and planned a future with him if he had not been willing to go completely 50/50 with me. If your man doesn't want that because he's not the children's biological father then go it alone.

DreamerV

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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.

I don't think you have read the replies, as they are saying that you would be better off living together. I take it obviously you mean financially (as I assume you love each other and your lives will be richer in that respect for moving in together). You, individually, would be better off living together. Your OH would not be financially better off, but neither would anyone else taking on the responsibilities of a family. The system works. You take on a family, you take on financial responsibilities for a family.

I understand you feel guilty about it. I would if someone moved in and did the same for me. Just trust he loves you that much that he would (and no doubt, if you doubted it, you would wait before allowing him to move in anyhow).

And your statement about others admitting they are in the wrong, to be honest, you have been extremely rude when people politely took the time to give advice. And then you talked about them being burned at the stake. That was rather nasty and uncalled for. Dozens of people have given advice on here, and some of them have been more curt than others, but that is usual on a forum. I didn't see any of them wishing you'd be burnt on a stake. I think you owe more of an apology.

apoorlykitten

clearingout wrote: »

are there reliable stats on 'couples' who live apart? how many single parent prosecutions have there been in the last couple of years?

I ask because I struggle to believe, as a lone parent, that anyone in a half decent, committed relationship would want to live apart for the sake of their benefit claim. I accept it will happen - but I'm not convinced it happens in the numbers (hundreds? thousands?) that seem to be suggested here.

The OP had an unfortunate tone but raised a legitimate concern of many lone parents who have managed on low incomes with the support of tax credits - what happens when one becomes two? It is difficult broaching money in relationships. It is difficult to expect a man to support children that aren't his. I don't buy the 'he's not a real man if he won't do it' argument in the simplistic way it is presented here as 'if he loves you, he'll accept you come as a package'. Money problems cause problems in all relationships, feeling hard done by because your new partner has children you now need to support must be a source of stress for many relationships, regardless of whether maintenance is paid or not, having to ask a new partner for money specifically for your children is another difficult thing to have to do - doesn't matter how committed or close or united you are - it's hard, it feels all wrong, it feels disjointed and a little 'wrong'. It is natural to be concerned that it's all OK on paper but when it becomes a reality, worrying what is may mean for the relationship. Perhaps posting on the marriage and relationships board would have given a different response?

YOUVE hit the nail on the head there. i probaly should have explained it to you then you should have written it for me. Thanks

janninew

The best solution in my eyes (and what I would do) is get a full time job OP and stop being a free babysitter for your family. I accept you probably won't earn as much as your partner, but if you are both out there working full time (and with teenagers there is no reason why you can't) your relationship will be much more equal. I work full time, so does my husband, yet he earns more than double what I do, this doesn't matter, I'm doing my share the same as him.

I understand you might feel a little 'odd' asking him for money, I would to if I didn't work much and saw him going out everyday working hard to support the children. There is no reason why you can't do your fair bit and get a full time job and start contributing more to the joint pot.

apoorlykitten

its is certainly something to consider. I do feel bad that i would leave my sisters in the lurch. they have 3 yr olds who are not at school yet. i would also really hate to have to leave the family business. my mum started it so we could all work and have flexible working time etc. something that does work for all of us.

but ulitmately i do want to bring more into the house when my partner moves in, so i will look for work to fit in with what i do or to replace it altogether. i wont choose to stay in the position im in just because i can keep the extra money i am getting subsidised via benefit. I want to live with my partner.

I was nieve i suppose in thinking things wouldnt change much ? oh well.