MSE News: Future widowed parents face being 'pushed onto the breadline'

Options
A new Government payment scheme for widowed parents could end up pushing parents "onto the breadline"...
Read the full story:
'Future widowed parents face being 'pushed onto the breadline' by bereavement payout changes'
OfficialStamp.gif
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
«1

Comments

  • MacMickster
    MacMickster Posts: 3,630 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    The family used in the article are a terrible example. Good jobs, fixed outgoings and so clearly the ability to take out life insurance to provide for the widow(er) in the event that one of them died.

    I certainly think that if the old system potentially committed the taxpayer to 21 years of bereavement payments then a change was long overdue. Why should a widowed mother be supported by the taxpayer to a greater extent than a single mother for so long?
    "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
  • VT82
    VT82 Posts: 1,079 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Adding a 'real life example' does not change the facts of the article that was published earlier in the week, nor the very valid responses it received in the MSE forum.
  • Amara
    Amara Posts: 2,172 Forumite
    Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Why is necessary to change policy, that cohabiting couples can claim too? What's wrong with the fact, that only married /widowed people can claim? People made their decision to not marry, they know , what legal implication are. They choose not take protection, which marriage brings, they should be consequent. Many posters on this forum said: "If you want to protect your assets, don't get married". But change policy, so they can claim too? It's like choosing something, when it suit them.
    Always have life insurance, married or not.
  • FBaby
    FBaby Posts: 18,367 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    I don't get it. These families are entitled to claim the same benefits than single parents, which is considered enough to avoid poverty, so taking the emotional aspect aside, why are these parents in any worse financial situation than when one parent walks away and stops working so pays no maintenance?

    That's not taking into consideration that people have the option to take life insurance before to avoid this situation in the first place.
  • [Deleted User]
    Options
    Not everyone is able to take out life insurance. But if they've worked they've paid their contributions to get a pension or provide their spouse with one. Why should that be taken away.
  • theartfullodger
    Options
    _shel wrote: »
    ...........But if they've worked they've paid their contributions to get a pension or provide their spouse with one. Why should that be taken away.
    Shouldn;t be "taken away" but, what I object to with old people & benefits is that they are not being cut, indeed State Pension keeps going up (thank you you lovely tax-payers...), whilst the vulnerable, the disabled, the young, the poor, the sick have their benefits slashed.

    Best regards to all: Artful: Pensioner: On six benefits...
    - State Pension
    - Winter Fuel allowance
    - £10 xmas bonus
    - Free 'bus pass
    - Free eye tests
    - Free prescriptions...

    - as are all similar pensioners: Lets share the pain of cut-backs! (Starting with rich tax-cheats!)
  • nicmalauren
    Options
    Personally, I'm not sure that a bereavement allowance should exist at all. Yes, the loss of a spouse is upsetting and I'm not unsympathetic, but why should the taxpayer foot the bill? As someone else above pointed out, a single parent situation can arise from circumstances other than death - so in terms of the children (and the expected benefit) why should one situation be worth more than another?
    Why should Mrs A who has two children and a dead husband, receive more money than Miss B who has two children and a deadbeat ex-partner?
    Also someone above mentioned pension - In the case of any existing pension, shouldn't that be treated like an asset and then passed onto the remaining spouse?
    "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
  • midnight_express
    Options
    _shel wrote: »
    Not everyone is able to take out life insurance. But if they've worked they've paid their contributions to get a pension or provide their spouse with one. Why should that be taken away.

    Married people don't pay any more in tax than single people so why should they get more in benefits. Millionaires get widows benefits, it is a farce.
  • WillGoodfellow
    Options
    FBaby wrote: »
    why are these parents in any worse financial situation than when one parent walks away and stops working so pays no maintenance?

    It is very rare that a non-resident parent is not liable to pay maintenance, even JSA claimants are liable.
  • Bogalot
    Bogalot Posts: 1,102 Forumite
    Options
    It is very rare that a non-resident parent is not liable to pay maintenance, even JSA claimants are liable.

    £5 a week is far less than that offered to widowed parents.

    Plus being liable for child maintenance and actually paying it are two very different things.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.9K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.3K Life & Family
  • 248.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards