Losing 1400 when partner moves in

zagfles

Idiophreak wrote: »

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?

Only if they sold the Plasma TV and stopped going down the bingo.

But why should they when benefits are paying for their lifestyle choice?

anguk

This is why, in my opinion, tax credits haven't worked. In principle they're a great idea, help for those who need it and there's no doubt they have helped a lot of people who would be struggling without them.

But they've also allowed people to become reliant on them, they only need to work part-time because tax credits will top the money up. Employers have only been taking workers on a part-time basis because they know that the state will top up the wages.

Now some of the rules are changing, you only have to look on this board to see how many people are now panicking because they're over the threshold or they have to work more hours.

OP, you say your kids are teenagers, in a few years time they'll have finished full-time education and all your tax credits will stop, your housing and council tax benefit will be cut. Will you be able to manage on just your part-time wage then? Surely you would be much better off with both you and your partner's wage?

anguk

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.

Very true, I've seen many a thread where posters are slating those claiming disability benefits or JSA when they themselves were getting much more money from the state in Tax Credits. But they wouldn't accept that they were also receiving state benefits. :huh:

elvis86

On the whole OP, it's not just the system that stinks, your attitude does too.

As a single parent of teenagers you have no excuse for not working full time (in a job that pays a wage). It's shocking that you can seemingly take home more by working for a few hours a week than another poster and her husband can by working full time! When a system defies simple logic like that, I've no idea why someone doesn't do something to address it?!

As for the b******s about how you've "single-handedly supported your kids"; I doubt that your £100 a week part-time wages would've gone very far without the numerous top-ups you've received courtesy of the taxpayer.:cool: For whatever reason, you ended up a single mum with 3 kids (who couldn't be bothered to work full time) and the state stepped in and took care of you.

As others have said, even if you choose not to surrender your easy ride and benefits now by moving your boyfriend in, you're going to have to face it in a few years when your kids are adults.

apoorlykitten wrote: »

i work for a family business and so does my mum and both my sisters. were 18 months into it and have only just started taking a wage in the last 8 months. i was working previously and helping here 2 days with out pay. if i could work more hours and get payed for it i would. on the days im currently not working i am looking after my sisters children so they can work. we help each other out.
im considering leaving if i could get more hours at another job. but i also enjoy spending time with my kids after school and weekends and i can currently help both my sisters with childcare. i dont charge them. if i worked more hours somewher else both my sisters would need to pay for childcare.

I also find it shocking that a single mother who for whatever reason, is solely responsible for her 3 children, can afford to take risks on a business venture as described above, and to work for nothing, confident that taxpayers will foot the bill. Most people I know wouldn't be able to take that kind of risk on a business venture. It's appalling!

Are the rest of your family reliant on benefits to fund their lifestyles whilst they indulge themselves in this "family business" rather than getting a real job that pays money?

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

@OP Follow what Auntie Wouldbe's advice.
YOU NEED TO KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT THE BENEFITS SYSTEM AS POSSIBLE.
IT IS UNJUST UNFAIR COMPLEX. I am subscribing to completely independent Benefits and Work an action mistakenly scorned on here because of the £20 sub fee to keep it independent of DWP, Big Business etc.
Move benefits needing !!! to Urban 75 Forums who at least care about people like us and learn from less than good/bad experience here.
Get Welfare Adviser help (my next step).
I believe they punish people for coming together something to look forward to when I meet mr right/serious by loss of income.
If figures here come from Daily mail they are WRONG. Daily Mail is used to fuel benefits bashing.
These threads are for advice but people treat it as an opportunity to bash the claimants. These are only boards here that don't work otherwise MSE nice place.
Beware of Benefits BAshing contingent.
Would high rolling tax evaders have questions interferered with such contempt or would we roll out the idea for tax evasion without a qaulm in the world?
Lurk on forums to get taste of replies but only from a place of independent strength to survive.
MSE can be brilliant as well.
Hope it helps that is Auntie Wouldbe's strategy.

Caz3121

anguk wrote: »

OP, you say your kids are teenagers, in a few years time they'll have finished full-time education and all your tax credits will stop, your housing and council tax benefit will be cut. Will you be able to manage on just your part-time wage then? Surely you would be much better off with both you and your partner's wage?

It is a very valid point. For every post that talks about benefits lost when moving in together there are also posts around...my youngest child has left full time education and my little part time job will not cover my bills.
You say you have been 'independent' for a number of years but your actual financial input has probably been around 25% of your income with the government/taxpayers supporting your family. Why is that ok but not your partner?
I don't the tax credits system has not done anyone any favours. People that previously chose not to work found that the magic 16 hours made them much better off with working tax credits etc and many saw no reason to work any more than this amount as they would 'lose benefits so it would not be worth it' Then come the children coming of age they are then forced to stand on their own 2 feet for the first time and it comes as a huge shock.
Only you can make the decision if you see that money from the government is more important than your relationship. Do you think he will hang around until your benefits cease and then step in to support you?

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

!!!!!!, 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.

They choose to live apart so they can get more money from the welfare state.

Not that we needed a study to tell us that, but here it is:-

Britain has the highest proportion of single mothers in the European Union and, surprise, surpise, one of the highest rates of benefits for single mothers
http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/archives/2006/09/britain_has_the.php

zagfles wrote: »

Giving step-parents something back for taking on the financial support of other peoples' kids, eg tax allowances, does seem to

What has happened to men these days? It's a very sad state of affairs when (some) men expect to get extra money given to them, because they have stepchildren. Don't you see a single monther and her children as one package?

My step father said he was proud to get 3 new daughters when he married my mother. Shortly after marrying my mother, he paid for my older sister's wedding! But that was back in the days when men were real men.

zagfles

Dunroamin wrote: »

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.

Err, what you've posted below says exactly that.

"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.

And there is 0% band (ie an allowance). Dividing the income into parts is exactly equivalent to having extra allowances and wider tax bands.

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."

So that's 2 "parts" for the couple, half a part for the first two children, and a whole part for the third. That makes 4 according to my calculations, so the allowance (ie the 0% band) is quadrulped (by being to use it 4 times - once against each part), like I said.

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

I'd agree with that.

Idiophreak

zagfles wrote: »

Only if they sold the Plasma TV and stopped going down the bingo.

But why should they when benefits are paying for their lifestyle choice?

Why would they choose to live together? They're paying double the rent, double the council tax, more than they need to in bills, the guy's living in a house share and they *don't live together*. There are plenty of motivators for them to live together.

They clearly don't care that much about living together, so they're not really a "couple".

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Don't let a mean minded punishing state that threatens to deprive you of income interfere with well thought out romantic decisions.
People on benefits are entitled to love lives don't let ANYONE else or ANYTHING else tell you otherwise.
The poor get micromanaged by the State in an effort to punish them for the wrongdoings and poverty making actions of multinational corporations whose neocon and neoliberal actions make us poor not being on benefits cos it's our own only option.