Working Tax Credit & living with a partner i pay board money to

DevilsAdvocate1

BillJones wrote: »

Well, to be fair, there are a faiir few men out there who've entangled their finances with a partner, then found that they are expected to keep supporting them when the relationship breaks down, so it's not a completely irrational thing to do. A couple can enjoy each other's company, like the idea of sharing a house, but have no wish to go the whole way and say "what's yours is mine".

If things end up going throough the courts, judges have a habit of attempting to keep women in the style "to which they have become accustomed" meaning that men can find themselves quite heavily punished for having looked after a partner well.

My other half would never entertain the idea of us paying in in the same proportions to those i which we earn; she wants everything to be paid equally, despite me taking home a few times what she does. If that works for her, and for me, then there is no "selfish" about it.

As long as you don't end up like my parents. My mum had no income left at all after paying 50% of the bills. I remember her once begging my dad for 60p so she could go to a get together at a local community centre (WI type thing). My dad gave it to her eventually, but it was enough to make me think that they way they did things was not fair.

Plus, dad liked to go to America on holiday and for many years begrudged the fact that my mum just could not afford it. Things are different between them now and though their money is still separate they reworked things so mum had disposable income too.

Personally, I would not want to be in a relationship where one of us had far less disposable income than the other. It just wouldn't feel right. There have been times when we've earnt the same and other times when one of the other of us has earnt more. It probably evens itself out in the end.

sniggings

BillJones wrote: »

Well, to be fair, there are a faiir few men out there who've entangled their finances with a partner, then found that they are expected to keep supporting them when the relationship breaks down, so it's not a completely irrational thing to do. A couple can enjoy each other's company, like the idea of sharing a house, but have no wish to go the whole way and say "what's yours is mine".

If things end up going throough the courts, judges have a habit of attempting to keep women in the style "to which they have become accustomed" meaning that men can find themselves quite heavily punished for having looked after a partner well.

My other half would never entertain the idea of us paying in in the same proportions to those i which we earn; she wants everything to be paid equally, despite me taking home a few times what she does. If that works for her, and for me, then there is no "selfish" about it.

they are not married. No judge can order a partner to support the other if they were never married.

I agree tho, no reason why this guy should be slagged off for not wanting to support the OP, we do not know the situation.

sulkisu

BillJones wrote: »

Well, to be fair, there are a faiir few men out there who've entangled their finances with a partner, then found that they are expected to keep supporting them when the relationship breaks down, so it's not a completely irrational thing to do. A couple can enjoy each other's company, like the idea of sharing a house, but have no wish to go the whole way and say "what's yours is mine".

If things end up going throough the courts, judges have a habit of attempting to keep women in the style "to which they have become accustomed" meaning that men can find themselves quite heavily punished for having looked after a partner well.

My other half would never entertain the idea of us paying in in the same proportions to those i which we earn; she wants everything to be paid equally, despite me taking home a few times what she does. If that works for her, and for me, then there is no "selfish" about it.

Fair enough, there's a big difference between entangling your finances and have a financial arrangement which you both agree is fair and right for you. You and your partner are happy with your arrangement - if she had to resort to a fraudulent benefits claim to help to support herself, I suspect that one or both of you might feel differently - however in this case, OP clearly is not happy with the arrangement. It sounds as if she is paying for the sins of his ex, which isn't right.
My partner and I have separate accounts and for the most part keep our finances separate. We both pay our way and like you, we have an arrangement that suits us. However I earn more than twice as much as he does and there is no way that would I expect him to fraudulently claim benefits or struggle to support himself, while I sat back and watched.
If they were just dating, my view would be different. But the fact that they have committed to living together, makes all the difference as far as I'm concerned. It won't necessarily be an equal split, but a household where one half of a couple struggles financially in this way just seems wrong.

silvercar

I don't understand how this works. You both agree on a meal out and one can afford a nice meal in a decent restaurant and the other a 99p happy meal?

sniggings

silvercar wrote: »

I don't understand how this works. You both agree on a meal out and one can afford a nice meal in a decent restaurant and the other a 99p happy meal?

were Happy Meals ever 99p :rotfl:

SkyeKnight

sniggings wrote: »

I agree tho, no reason why this guy should be slagged off for not wanting to support the OP, we do not know the situation.

But, she has taken a cut in income to move in with him (loss of Tax Credits - they are tapered by his income at a rate of up to 41% of pre-tax income). Shouldn't he also take a bit of a hit too - maybe pay a bigger share of the bills?

sniggings

SkyeKnight wrote: »

But, she has taken a cut in income to move in with him (loss of Tax Credits - they are tapered by his income at a rate of up to 41% of pre-tax income). Shouldn't he also take a bit of a hit too - maybe pay a bigger share of the bills?

maybe, maybe not, we do not know what he told her before she moved in, how long they have been together....we basically know nothing about this guy apart from the fact that the OP wants to claim benefits and she says he is the one that is preventing this.

marybelle01

I am maybe becoming unnecessarily suspicious of newbies on this board over the last few days, and being totally unfair.... but this thread bears some striking resemblances to certain other newbie threads over the last few days. An apparently innocent question about how to break benefit rules, and a user id that is "food orientated".... I hope I am wrong but a lot of good people have wasted many hours on a troll in the last few days.

NYM

sniggings wrote: »

maybe, maybe not, we do not know what he told her before she moved in, how long they have been together....we basically know nothing about this guy apart from the fact that the OP wants to claim benefits and she says he is the one that is preventing this.

Until we have his side of the story, we accept the OP is seeking advice based on her interpretation of her situation since none of us are privy to all of their personal details.

tomtom256

He must be some catch to treat you this way.

Are you a troll perhaps?

Either stay with him and miss out on tax credits or move out and claim them.

Basically do you want the sex or the money, as it would appear you can't have both.