Losing 1400 when partner moves in

fogartyblue.

apoorlykitten wrote: »

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.

cough!! splutter!!!

You didn't think that things would change much??

Your partner will be bringing into the relationship a lot more, in financial terms than you will be losing. Isn't that a good thing?

And you thought that you would be able to keep what you have been receiving as a single person + what he would bring in!!!

This country!! I moved in with my girlfriend (my wife and has been for the past 32 years) and she had two teenagers.

I had money to burn whilst on my own, yet after moving in I became responsible for three adults overnight. The car had to go. The expensive holidays had to go along with the clothes and entertaining.

My salary went into a new joint account that she managed. I received pocket money every day (just what she could afford that was in her purse). I ended up rolling my own cigs and brewing my own beer.

None of that mattered - I loved her and knew that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her no matter what it cost me financially.

FBaby

I find it astonishing that you have been with someone for 4 years, intend to move in together, but haven't even brooch the subject of finances... that's is a big massive error to start with, benefits or not. Once you do (assuming the time will come), there will be two possibilities:
- your partner is happy to work 9 to 5 or more, paying most of the bills, finding himself much worse financially that he used to be, dealing with teenagers who disrupt his life and most likely won't consider him as their dad, whilst you do a few hours at a salon with the family and then look after their kids so THEY are better off at the end of the month. If he is happy with that situation, then there is nothing to worry about, what you used to get from benefits, you will get from him.
- he is not happy with the situation above and expect you to contribute a higher proportion. You will have to accept, just like he will have to do by moving with you, to make compromises, give up your pleasant family setting and do what most do to support their family, work to earn to pay the bills.

kingfisherblue

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've never come across anyone, either online or in real life, who hates me because I am on benefits - or not that I am aware of . Most people, including taxpayers, understand that there are some cases when a person has no choice but to claim benefits. After my (now ex) husband decided to leave and start a new family elsewhere, I became a single parent. I am unable to work because my son is disabled and has complex needs. I have to claim benefits because there is no other option for me at the moment.

I doubt if anyone hates me or the fact that I claim benefit because of my circumstances. Most people realise that there are genuine cases in which the benefit claimant has to rely on the safety net of the welfare state.

anguk

zagfles wrote: »

The married couples'/additional personal allowance varied but was usually about 50% of the personal allowance. Also prior to about 1981 there were child allowances of around 30% of the personal allowance per child.

So a man supporting a wife and 3 kids would get well over double the allowance he got when he was single. In today's money terms, an allowance of about £19500. A "real man's" allowance!

People on average/above average incomes were much better off with allowances than they are now with tax credits. On low incomes tax credits are much better.

See http://www.taxhistory.co.uk/Income Tax Allowances.htm

Thanks for that. It explains why we weren't all that much better off, OH was on a low wage and it was after 1981 so no extra allowances per child.

I do remember there was Family Income Supplement? back then for people on really low wages, but it wasn't very much.

anguk

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.

Could you maybe find some bar work for a couple of nights a week? That way you'd still be able to work in the family business and look after your sister's children?

zagfles

anguk wrote: »

Thanks for that. It explains why we weren't all that much better off, OH was on a low wage and it was after 1981 so no extra allowances per child.

I do remember there was Family Income Supplement? back then for people on really low wages, but it wasn't very much.

Yes there was FIS in the 70's and 80's, that was replaced with Family Credit sometime in the late 80's/early 90's IIRC, then WFTC and then the current tax credits.

Basically there's been a trend towards more payable benefits for families but less tax allowances, as explained by Sixer. This has benefitted families on low incomes but penalised those on an average income.

The same hasn't happened for single people, tax allowances have increased (personal allowance is going up), tax rates have reduced, but benefits have stayed pretty flat. This has meant single people on an average wage do well but those on a low incomes/out of work struggle. There are no "adult poverty" targets.

So basically the benefits system is hugely biased towards families and against single people, but the tax system is the opposite, it's hugely biased towards single people and against families.

This means on low incomes, families do very well out of the system but single people don't. But on average incomes the opposite, single people do well out of the system but families don't.

So when you try to put a family on a low income together with a single person on an average income (ie the OPs case), you turn 2 people who were benefitting hugely from the system into a family who is getting screwed by it.

skintandscared_2

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.

As a taxpayer of 28 years and someone who has never claimed a penny of any kind of benefit in my life I can assure you I do NOT "hate" people who receive benefits! The welfare system is an essential part of a civilised society and is there to protect the vulnerable. I am happy to pay taxes to help support those people. I do not, however, want to help support lazy, workshy, greedy individuals who want to have their cake, eat it and make a trifle out of the leftovers.

You chose to have children. Get off your lazy backside and get a full time job to support them yourself. You have become too used to this over-subsidised lifestyle. You shouldn't even have the free time or option to be an unpaid babysitter. It's me that's paying for it!! The system reforms can't come quick enough if it weeds out leeches like you.

anguk

zagfles wrote: »

So basically the benefits system is hugely biased towards families and against single people, but the tax system is the opposite, it's hugely biased towards single people and against families.

This means on low incomes, families do very well out of the system but single people don't. But on average incomes the opposite, single people do well out of the system but families don't.

So when you try to put a family on a low income together with a single person on an average income (ie the OPs case), you turn 2 people who were benefitting hugely from the system into a family who is getting screwed by it.

Thanks again for explaining, it does seem very unfair. I don't understand why as a married person with kids you're taxed as a single person but when it comes to benefits it's based on your whole household? Wouldn't it be better to tax based on your circumstances? So, for example, a single person's tax, a married persons, someone with kids etc?

That way people who did work got some tax breaks and wouldn't need to rely on benefits and also it would encourage those who could work to do more hours instead of just doing the basic 16/24 hours that you need to do to get tax credits? The benefit system could then just be there for the people who it was originally meant to help.

Hmm71

SandraScarlett wrote: »

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!!!
xx

Er....why is apoorlykitten rude for assuming that there are extreme haters of benefit claimants? Have you read some of the posts on this forum? Looking at them you can't blame the OP for thinking that way.

skintandscared_2

Hmm71 wrote: »

Er....why is apoorlykitten rude for assuming that there are extreme haters of benefit claimants? Have you read some of the posts on this forum?

The posts are not directed at ALL benefit claimants. That's the point most on here are trying to make.