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

sniggings

NYM wrote: »

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.

exactly, that why I said comments about the guy were uncalled for without knowing the facts, all the OP has said is they have separate finances.

Poppie68

marybelle01 wrote: »

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.

:think: I have tried and tried but have had no luck in placing a "Smange" in any food group!
The closet i've come is "The Mange"_pale_

Not taking the mickey MB01 it just made me :rotfl:

BigAunty

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.

.

Valid point, though I believe this is more the case with married couples or where the one that doesn't own the property has paid more than just keep, paid towards the mortgage and house repairs, and therefore can demonstrate a financial interest in the property, for example.

However, if her last partner pays very little towards his biological child, and her current partner pays zero towards his step child and she is seeking benefits presumably because of low income, then where does that leave her? No support from ex, no support from current partner - rock and hard place....

BillJones wrote: »

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.

Again valid point, but the OP isn't happy with the arrangement - her partner resists having any joint finances or contributing towards even so much as a pair of shoes for his step-daughter, the OP is seemingly picking up all the costs of their dependent (THEIR) dependent. Yours is consensual, you say it works for you, but this isn't the case for the OP.

To be honest, he sounds stingy and to not fund the slightest thing for their child is repellent. They should be enjoying a blended family. Instead the kid is treated by him as an expense, one to be avoided.

Poppie68

blondebubbles wrote: »

I didn't understand that either. Closest definition I got was "the hot chick always wasted at the party'

I wonder how many guys have been slapped after using that endearment :rotfl:

BigAunty

marybelle01 wrote: »

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.

Yes, I have my suspicions, too, the mispelled text speak and crude way of trolling by posting chavvy threads has been replaced with a more sophisticated approach, a bit more convincing. I fear you are right.

Then again, at least we aren't saddoes that spend their time trying to waste other people's time.

marybelle01

Poppie68 wrote: »

:think: I have tried and tried but have had no luck in placing a "Smange" in any food group!
The closet i've come is "The Mange"_pale_

Not taking the mickey MB01 it just made me :rotfl:

"Food orientated" not "food group" (although I wasn't aware "chocolate egg" was a food group either - despite my friend assuring me it is!). I agree with BigAunty - it's the same hallmarks just a bit more sophisticated. I am a fluent speaker of French - so the "mange" jumped out at me - from the French "manger", to eat. But not attributing that much intelligence to our troll, and having had a misspent youth - "blancmange" is a hopelessly fattening, tooth rotting dessert and "strawberry" is one of the most popular flavours it comes in. Smange.


I also like crosswords, but prefer more challenging clues ...

FBaby

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.

So you would see nothing wrong with having much more disposable income at the end of the month than your partner? Then what, you enjoy all of yours, she enjoys the little or none of hers? Or does it become a control issue, you give her money for her enjoyment when you want it/agree to it etc...

I do agree that in the end, it comes down to whatever arrangement suits both person, however, the OP clearly is getting a raw deal, losing her benefits and finding herself worse off, whilst he will most likely be better off by paying less rent/bill. She is clearly not satisfied with it, however, instead of considering that it should be a matter to take with him, she thinks that the tax payers should still be responsible for supporting her.

Tiffany_Aching

marybelle01 wrote: »

"Food orientated" not "food group" (although I wasn't aware "chocolate egg" was a food group either - despite my friend assuring me it is!). I agree with BigAunty - it's the same hallmarks just a bit more sophisticated. I am a fluent speaker of French - so the "mange" jumped out at me - from the French "manger", to eat. But not attributing that much intelligence to our troll, and having had a misspent youth - "blancmange" is a hopelessly fattening, tooth rotting dessert and "strawberry" is one of the most popular flavours it comes in. Smange.


I also like crosswords, but prefer more challenging clues ...

:T

That was like watching a mini episode of Columbo! I have no idea if you are right or wrong in calling 'Troll!!!', but the above post was brilliant!

You must be fantastic at cryptic crossword clues!

BillJones

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

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.

Fortunately we are both on good money, so both have plenty left to live off after we've covered the mortgage, holidays, bills etc.

FBaby

BillJones wrote: »

Fortunately we are both on good money, so both have plenty left to live off after we've covered the mortgage, holidays, bills etc.

That's very well for you but the OP has made it clear it is nor the case for her as he earns very good money and she doesn't. Wouldn't you want to pay more in if your partner earnt half your income with more needed outgoings?