If my partner moves in ? I'm Confused

AngelOfTheNorth

True. People always think it's nights per week, but it isn't. The key is to stay financially independent from each other and be able to document that. If you don't want to be seen as a couple, it's always a good idea to keep separate bases- so you should both be on the electoral roll at your separate addresses, have any bank stuff delivered there, not have bills in your name at the other one's home etc.

lovinituk

cd36uk wrote: »

Shame really as we didn't even know each other most of that tax year, yet it counts !!

But he's still earning this year, perhaps more than last year. They don't know how much he will have earned for the whole of this tax year yet but they can get an indication from last year which is a confirmed figure.

GirlFromMars_2

rogerblack wrote: »

There is no simple rule.
Staying over x nights a week.
Having a child together.
Being married.
Being seen by your friends as a couple.
Cooking meals together.
Sharing bills.
Having 2 toothbrushes.

None of these - alone - determines if you're seen as a couple. ('living together as husband and wife')
(being married is different for tax credits).

I suspect in a number of instances the DWP would consider a couple to be living together as if married, well before the couple would believe they were anywhere close to that level of commitment. Still at least it only affects the underclass on benefits, and the rest of the world aren't forced into commitment too early in a relationship!

I really do wonder why politicians, who are so keen on everyone being coupled up, disincentivise it so heavily through the benefits system. In particular via the 365 day WRAG rule.

In the instance of the long term single sick, it is a huge worry to have to relinquish all monetary independence to a new untested relationship. It's not like we feel peachy about ourselves or our prospects in the first place, so putting all that trust in an individual is a huge ask.

Yes, I know, in some idealised version of the world plenty of people think a partner should be only too delighted to take responsibility for caring and being financially responsible for the person they love. But this really isn't an ideal world, and I can't help but thinking that's crazy scary in a new relationship.

rogerblack

GirlFromMars wrote: »

In the instance of the long term single sick, it is a huge worry to have to relinquish all monetary independence to a new untested relationship. It's not like we feel peachy about ourselves or our prospects in the first place, so putting all that trust in an individual is a huge ask.

Especially ridiculous for those who are disabled under 16 with a lifelong condition to a point where they're entitled to the support group.
In the past - they would have been treated as if they had contributions.

In every relationship in their life, they will be a financial drain.

GirlFromMars_2

rogerblack wrote: »

Especially ridiculous for those who are disabled under 16 with a lifelong condition to a point where they're entitled to the support group.
In the past - they would have been treated as if they had contributions.

In every relationship in their life, they will be a financial drain.

Goodness, I'd not even considered that revolting consequence. How this is acceptable to the political classes is completely beyond me.

I see absolutely no problem with the idea that a partner should be responsible for supporting someone through a hopefully short term issue like unemployment. But people with a long term health problem that prevents them from working should be supported by the government. And the government shouldn't weasel out of it just because someone finds some happiness, and maybe some help with the day to day aspects of living.

Thanks! Cannot believe how truly depressing the current political climate is.