Losing 1400 when partner moves in

zagfles

anguk wrote: »

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.

Yes, exactly what I've arguing for. It would also save the govt money, as it would shift incentives to work away from second earners and towards first earners, resulting in a fairer spread of jobs and less paid out in benefits.

In countries like France there are a lot of single earner households, here we have mainly a mix of dual-earner households and no-earner households, with far less single earner households.

Which is the main reason why the working-age benefits bill in the UK is so much higher than it is in most countries. It's not (just) the level of the benefits themselves.

Hmm71

skintandscared wrote: »

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

There are still more than enough nasty, mean-spirited little posts on this forum to make apoorlykitten think the way she does. I'm always amazed at the amount of benefit-bashing that goes on here.

elvis86

skintandscared wrote: »

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

Exactly. I don't begrudge everyone at all. But I do begrudge people like the OP, who chooses to work part-time for £100 a week pocket money, and is subsequently handed £200 more in benefits than I earn by working 37 hours a week in a dull (but fairly well paid - significantly higher than minimum wage) job.

I don't particularly love my job, but I can't make this choice to work just a few hours a week. Why should the OP get the choice just because she managed to give birth a few times 13+ years ago, to kids who no longer need her at home to look after them?

I'm afraid I don't agree that being a single parent to 3 teenagers entitles the OP to choose to work as a hairdresser for a couple of hours a week and take home circa £1800 in wages (£400) and benefits (£1400).

I'm not !!!!!! hot on tax, but on £38k my OH only came out with £2000 a month (admittedly after student loan and pension deductions), so I guess you'd have to earn at least £25k to be taking home £1800 a month?

Anyone who tries to justify the state handing out that kind of money to someone who chooses to work part-time as a hairdresser is an idiot. It's disgusting.

anguk

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, exactly what I've arguing for. It would also save the govt money, as it would shift incentives to work away from second earners and towards first earners, resulting in a fairer spread of jobs and less paid out in benefits.

In countries like France there are a lot of single earner households, here we have mainly a mix of dual-earner households and no-earner households, with far less single earner households.

Which is the main reason why the working-age benefits bill in the UK is so much higher than it is in most countries. It's not (just) the level of the benefits themselves.

It would also have a knock-on effect on other things like house prices. 30-40 years ago house prices were much lower and it was possible to get a mortgage with one wage. Once dual-earner households became the norm house prices went up and now it's very difficult to be able to afford to buy with just one wage coming in.

skintandscared_2

Hmm71 wrote: »

There are still more than enough nasty, mean-spirited little posts on this forum to make apoorlykitten think the way she does. I'm always amazed at the amount of benefit-bashing that goes on here.

Have you actually READ her posts??! She actually says that she COULD work full time, but she doesn't want to. Instead she mourns the loss of the free money that will dry up if her partner of 4 years moves in. I'm frankly "always amazed" that there are people who think that is acceptable! Is it really mean-spirited to be angry with those who purposefully milk the system, when benefits for those who really need them are being cut left, right and centre?!

tescobabe69

elvis86 wrote: »

Exactly. I don't begrudge everyone at all. But I do begrudge people like the OP, who chooses to work part-time for £100 a week pocket money, and is subsequently handed £200 more in benefits than I earn by working 37 hours a week in a dull (but fairly well paid - significantly higher than minimum wage) job.

I don't particularly love my job, but I can't make this choice to work just a few hours a week. Why should the OP get the choice just because she managed to give birth a few times 13+ years ago, to kids who no longer need her at home to look after them?

I'm afraid I don't agree that being a single parent to 3 teenagers entitles the OP to choose to work as a hairdresser for a couple of hours a week and take home circa £1800 in wages (£400) and benefits (£1400).

I'm not !!!!!! hot on tax, but on £38k my OH only came out with £2000 a month (admittedly after student loan and pension deductions), so I guess you'd have to earn at least £25k to be taking home £1800 a month?

Anyone who tries to justify the state handing out that kind of money to someone who chooses to work part-time as a hairdresser is an idiot. It's disgusting.

Nail, head.
She knows the system inside out.

sharp910sh

Simple get a job. You can work? are you sick? can you read and write? all you have to do is start finding work. why should you get benefits and money from your partner. If you want to live together you will have to make comprises, cut the sky tv and and all that junk. Tell your family to F off, why should you help them out resulting in you not being able to work. if my sister told me to look after her kids resulting in me working 10 hours a week. i would say no. simple. benefits are for people who cant work or find work not for people to relax. if this man loves you he will provide for you and your kids. simple. no write a cv and start searching, jesus christ!

SandraScarlett

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? Looking at them you can't blame the OP for thinking that way.

Yes, I have read all of the posts regarding apoorlykitten's situation, and many of the others on this forum, and there is one thread running through this. Whenever anyone dares to give a suggestion, like working more hours, they are called benefit haters, and, in the OP's case, it is assumed we all wish to spit on her in the street.

I consider that a very rude answer, especially when it appears that the OP considers it unfair that she'll lose £1400 in benefits, not all her benefits, but £1400 worth. How do you expect others to feel when they can only dream of having a £1400 plus take home wage per month!

APK thinks it unfair that her boyfriend will have to pay for everything, implying that the taxpayer should! As I've said, so many times, and so have many others, nobody begrudges benefits for those that need them, but that isn't what OP wants to hear.

I'll sign off as I'm going to London now, with a friend, using our Freedom Passes, and having yet another 2 for 1 lunch. Us pensioners know how to live!

xx

NoBS_2

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Yes, I have read all of the posts regarding apoorlykitten's situation, and many of the others on this forum, and there is one thread running through this. Whenever anyone dares to give a suggestion, like working more hours, they are called benefit haters, and, in the OP's case, it is assumed we all wish to spit on her in the street.

I consider that a very rude answer, especially when it appears that the OP considers it unfair that she'll lose £1400 in benefits, not all her benefits, but £1400 worth. How do you expect others to feel when they can only dream of having a £1400 plus take home wage per month!

APK thinks it unfair that her boyfriend will have to pay for everything, implying that the taxpayer should! As I've said, so many times, and so have many others, nobody begrudges benefits for those that need them, but that isn't what OP wants to hear.

I'll sign off as I'm going to London now, with a friend, using our Freedom Passes, and having yet another 2 for 1 lunch. Us pensioners know how to live!

xx

Lord it up and have a great time!

Mumto3cheekymonkeys

apoorlykitten wrote: »

hi
im currently living alone with my 3 children. i work part time and am in reciept of ctc wtc housing and council tax benefit. i also recieve cb.
ive been with my partner for 4 years and he is going to move in with me on the 1st june.
we sat down and did the tax credit online calculator and to my horror i will lose a significant amount of my income. i earn 5200 a year and my partner 27000. dont get me wrong i know combined that is a good amount of money.
my concern is that i will struggle to contribute, i have been independent soley for 7 years and have worked hard bringing up my boys.
my partner isnt their father ( the father doesnt pay towards the children, never has and is unlikely to ever )

basically im worried as to what will happen ? i know i will loose my wtc hb and ctb, my child beneit is unaffected and the ctc goes down by 100 a week. my partner says he will pay the rent and council tax and we will work out the rest as and when. i will have a weekly income of approx 200. my shopping bill alone is 120 even when im being careful. my gas and electric cost around 35 a week. i just dont know what to do.

ive been so excited that we are moving forward inour relationship only for me to feel like we would be better off living apart.
anyway and help or advise would be great.

I would suggest looking at your bills and where you could make budgeting cuts. there are 5 ppl in my household (2 adult 3 boys aged 4,3 and 1) and we only spend £70 in a weekly shop. We used to spend a fortune on shopping until we decided to save and realised we were buying and wasting far too much. My gas and electric only costs 20 quid a week also so I feel you are not being very careful with your finances.