Losing 1400 when partner moves in

janninew

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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.

I understand you want to help your family, but you need to put your own children and partner first. Surely your family don't want your relationship to suffer so they can have free childcare?

You wouldn't be leaving her in the lurch, you can warn her and give her some time to sort out other arrangements. If she is on a low income there is tax credits to help with the costs and free child care places for 3 and 4 years old is also available. If she isn't on a low income, surely she can pay you something for looking after her children?

I really do think your relationship will be much more equal if your both working and contributing. I do think some resentment could build up on your partners side if you continue as you are at the moment.

Good luck.

apoorlykitten

Those that needed it still would. I would have too. Im sure there are plenty of people who wouldnt because then everyone would know theyre recieveing benefit. And im sure that the people who are extreme haters of anyone who gets benefit of any kind ( they hate because they earn too much to claim ) would love to spit at people who claim in the street as they would be able to tell who was.

I actually think its a good idea tho.

elvis86

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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.

Let me have a go at summarising your "dilema":

Single mum wants to be on an equal footing financially with her partner when he moves in, but can only be bothered to work a couple of hours a week so expects the state to (continue to) top up her income to the tune of £1400 a month.

Sound about right?

apoorlykitten wrote: »

my mum started it so we could all work and have flexible working time etc. something that does work for all of us.

Yes, I can imagine that t!tting around doing hair and makeup with your sisters for a couple of hours a week whilst raking in the equivalent of a £20,000+ salary in benefits is a pretty agreeable setup.

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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

Thick, damned cheeky and brainwashed by years on benefits, more like..

Did you seriously think that the state would continue to give you £1400 a month of taxpayers' money when your household had an income of in excess of £30,000?! More to the point, did you think that they should continue to do this? (You probably do, you're "entitled", after all..:cool:).

elvis86

apoorlykitten wrote: »

Those that needed it still would. I would have too. Im sure there are plenty of people who wouldnt because then everyone would know theyre recieveing benefit. And im sure that the people who are extreme haters of anyone who gets benefit of any kind ( they hate because they earn too much to claim ) would love to spit at people who claim in the street as they would be able to tell who was.

They "hate" because the current system seemingly affords people like you the opportunity to choose not to work/to work the bare minimum and yet still end up better off than many people do after working a full-time week.

They "hate" because all that you've done to qualify for this easy ride is get pregnant a few of times and split up from your kids' father. It's not rocket science.

And then, when after years of your lifestyle and family being funded by the state (ie taxpayers), you have the chance to set a good example to your kids and to raise them in a household where hard work puts food on the table rather than handouts (thanks to a new man, mind, rather than due to any motivation or hard work on your part); you complain that will lose your benefits.

Unbelievable.

tescobabe69

elvis86 wrote: »

Let me have a go at summarising your "dilema":

Single mum wants to be on an equal footing financially with her partner when he moves in, but can only be bothered to work a couple of hours a week so expects the state to (continue to) top up her income to the tune of £1400 a month.

Sound about right?

I think you are incorrect, I guess when he finds out the cost, he aint going to be moving in, the gravy train will roll on for another decade, the cosy relationship will continue as long as he wants it to, and then it all goes Pete Tong.

And its a photography studio.

Anubis_2

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.

Don't you realise that (almost) EVERYONE is financially better off apart, not just you! I would be financially better off apart, and so would my husband, as I am sure many on here would be - but finances are only a very small part of a relationship.

Don't you also realise in today's diverse economy, there is no such thing as security and practically everyone worries regarding future stability, but you make the best of what you have while you have it.

Providing you all have food in your belly and a roof over your head, the rest can be worked out. That's what couples do.....

skintandscared_2

Anubis wrote: »

Don't you realise that EVERYONE is financially better off apart, not just you! I would be financially better off apart, and so would my husband, as I am sure many on here would be - but finances are only a very small part of a relationship.

Don't you also realise in today's diverse economy, there is no such thing as security and practically everyone worries regarding future stability, but you make the best of what you have while you have it.

Providing you all have food in your belly and a roof over your head, the rest can be worked out. That's what couples do.....

Well said!! I could stay in the same flat and be FAR better off financially if I lived on my own and didn't subsidise my partner and his son!

elvis86

Anubis wrote: »

Don't you realise that EVERYONE is financially better off apart, not just you! I would be financially better off apart, and so would my husband, as I am sure many on here would be - but finances are only a very small part of a relationship.

Don't you also realise in today's diverse economy, there is no such thing as security and practically everyone worries regarding future stability, but you make the best of what you have while you have it.

I'm not sure I can completely agree with you, unless you're specifically referring to a single parent? I'm certainly better off sharing a mortgage/bills with my OH than I would be paying them alone.

But regardless, what you have to realise is that people like the OP aren't used to their lifestyle choices having consequences. They choose to work part-time instead of full-time, and their income is topped up in benefits. They decide to have another child, and they get more in benefits and qualify for a bigger council house.

They're not used to life as most of us know it, where for example, another child means compromises; potentially less space in the house/siblings sharing bedrooms and the same money to share between more people. The concept of taking responsibility for yourself and your family is alien to them.

elvis86

elvis86 wrote: »

I'm not sure I can completely agree with you, unless you're specifically referring to a single parent? I'm certainly better off sharing a mortgage/bills with my OH than I would be paying them alone.

But regardless, what you have to realise is that people like the OP aren't used to their lifestyle choices having consequences. They choose to work part-time instead of full-time, and their income is topped up in benefits. They decide to have another child, and they get more in benefits and qualify for a bigger council house.

They're not used to life as most of us know it, where for example, another child means compromises; potentially less space in the house/siblings sharing bedrooms and the same money to share between more people. The concept of taking responsibility for yourself and your family is alien to them.

*waits for some moron to seriously suggest that the additional child benefit "is a benefit too", and that it covers the entire costs associated with the additional child*:cool:

SandraScarlett

apoorlykitten wrote: »

Those that needed it still would. I would have too. Im sure there are plenty of people who wouldnt because then everyone would know theyre recieveing benefit. And im sure that the people who are extreme haters of anyone who gets benefit of any kind ( they hate because they earn too much to claim ) would love to spit at people who claim in the street as they would be able to tell who was.

I actually think its a good idea tho.

I'm "on benefits", my husband is "on benefits", we both get the State Retirement Pension, and my husband gets DLA as well. Nobody hates us for receiving these benefits, AFAIK, and you are so rude, for assuming that there are any people who are extreme haters of those receiving benefits, and would like to spit on them!!!

You are obviously confusing the way you think about the poor saps who have been contributing to your free-as-a-bird lifestyle, with the way they feel.

I'm so fed up with having to explain that nobody begrudges benefits for those that genuinely need them. What they begrudge is someone posting the sorts of things you have. They also begrudge reading about what people feel they're entitled to, and belittling those who work, or have worked, long hours in order to support their families.

xx