Losing 1400 when partner moves in

zagfles

Idiophreak wrote: »

I think that's the issue, though. If he didn't have these "other financial commitments", he'd either be able to afford to move in just on his wage, or if his wage was low enough, the couple would be entitled to more benefits to make up the difference.

If he's got other debts, children etc that are a drain on his finances, I'm afraid that's not the government's fault. Benefits shouldn't be used to subsidise people's lifestyle choices.

!!!!!!, benefits are being used to fund their lifestyle choice, because they choose to live apart!

That's what you and people like you just don't get, and that's why we have so many single parents, and children in workless households, in this country. Get as judgemental or Mills&Boon about it as you like about it, it won't work. Giving step-parents something back for taking on the financial support of other peoples' kids, eg tax allowances, does seem to.

Sixer

zagfles wrote: »

Guess which works?

Oh, if only...

... if only posters around here didn't thrust their views down everyone's throats while refusing to support policies that would actually work instead of satisfying some judgemental urge or other

... if only practical policies with positive outcomes were ever even put in place by our politicians!

Dunroamin

zagfles wrote: »

The French don't seem to have the same problem, as they have tax allowances which a step-parent can use if they suddenly become responsible for their new partner's kids. So the income loss isn't as great.

And we have joint claims for tax credits, which amounts to much the same thing.

(Although, actually, the French don't have tax allowances as we know them.)

Mara69

apoorlykitten wrote: »

Iive never had to do this before ive always bought up my self and my kids.

With significant help from the tax payer. You like to think you are independent but that is an illusion. Without CTC, WTC, CTB, CB and HB you'd all be up the creek.

midnight_express

Independence is when you support yourself, not when other people pay for your choice of lifestyle.

zagfles

Dunroamin wrote: »

And we have joint claims for tax credits, which amounts to much the same thing.

(Although, actually, the French don't have tax allowances as we know them.)

Rubbish - it doesn't amount to the same thing at all. There is nothing extra in tax credits anyone can claim if a partner earning over £18k moves in with a single parent. Tax credits are cut, and there is no reduction in income tax or NI payable at all.

In France in the same situation a man moving in with his partner with 3 kids would get his tax allowance quadrupled, plus his tax bands, to reflect he is now supporting 5 people. Meaning a very large cut in tax as some compensation for taking on the financial support of a family.

Idiophreak

zagfles wrote: »

!!!!!!, benefits are being used to fund their lifestyle choice, because they choose to live apart!

Sorry, I'm confused...I took your previous post to mean that they would *choose* to live together, but can't afford to?

So you're now saying that, actually, they *could* afford to live together, but they'd rather have the money?

BurnleyBob

One point relating to this bun fight of a thread: Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are both state benefits. So too the State Pension along with a huge list of other benefits which don't have the word Benefit in their titles.

midnight_express

BurnleyBob wrote: »

One point relating to this bun fight of a thread: Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are both state benefits. So too the State Pension along with a huge list of other benefits which don't have the word Benefit in their titles.

How true. This takes me back to many years ago when I worked for the DHSS. Many was the time when a claimant would phone and be asked what benefit they were claiming and would swear blind they weren't claiming a benefit! Other people claimed benefits they were just getting a little help. Though of course morally there is a big difference between contributory and non-contributory benefits.

Dunroamin

zagfles wrote: »

In France in the same situation a man moving in with his partner with 3 kids would get his tax allowance quadrupled, plus his tax bands, to reflect he is now supporting 5 people. Meaning a very large cut in tax as some compensation for taking on the financial support of a family.

As I said, there are no personal tax allowances in France, and the equivalent would certainly not be quadrupled for 2 adults and 3 children.

"The taxable income to be assessed is the total income of the household. To avoid the higher rates of tax where there is a high income, but more than one household member, the family is divided into a number of parts familiales.

The total income is divided by the number of parts. The income tax scale rates are then applied to this lower figure, and having computed the income tax due, it is multiplied back up by the number of parts.

The income of a married or PACS couple (the French version of civil partnership, but open to both same and opposite sex couples) would be divided into two parts, with an additional half part for each of the first and second children, and a whole part for the third and each subsequent child. There is a maximum benefit that a household can receive from this system."

However, benefit support for lone parents is considerably less in France so perhaps we should take a leaf out of that country's policy.