What does 'Partner' mean in terms of DWP? Martin uses this term in his guide to UC - can he clarify?

kaMelo

Muttleythefrog said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Muttleythefrog said:

This could all be avoided if we eradicated the ridiculously outdated concept of marriage and did away with joint claims.

I imagine there would ne uproar from some quarters if joint claims were ceased.
Many couples have one working partner and one non-working partner.  If that non-working partner could claim UC on the basis of no income, yet the working partner bringing a large income into the household, the tabloid press would be very quick to draw attention to benefits claimants driving Ferraris.

That happens now.. they just live apart or claim to live apart... hence my suggestion the state defining couples depending on scenario is a recipe for fraud, error, manipulation and imposes restriction or definitions on people's private lives and how they conduct them. The current system is a disincentive to families living together when on means tested benefits... while for example the immigration system offers up disincentive for abused foreign partners to leave their abuser. The state pensions system (another benefit) has shifted in the right direction to treating people as individuals.

The state pension has always treated people as individuals, there has never been a 'joint' pension.
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your other points I believe it will actually have the opposite effect to what you think in rewarding wealthier households far more than the poorest households.

As for incentives/disincentives,  the state imposes no restrictions on how people wish to live their lives, they are free to do as they please within the law. 

Muttleythefrog

kaMelo said:

Muttleythefrog said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Muttleythefrog said:

This could all be avoided if we eradicated the ridiculously outdated concept of marriage and did away with joint claims.

I imagine there would ne uproar from some quarters if joint claims were ceased.
Many couples have one working partner and one non-working partner.  If that non-working partner could claim UC on the basis of no income, yet the working partner bringing a large income into the household, the tabloid press would be very quick to draw attention to benefits claimants driving Ferraris.

That happens now.. they just live apart or claim to live apart... hence my suggestion the state defining couples depending on scenario is a recipe for fraud, error, manipulation and imposes restriction or definitions on people's private lives and how they conduct them. The current system is a disincentive to families living together when on means tested benefits... while for example the immigration system offers up disincentive for abused foreign partners to leave their abuser. The state pensions system (another benefit) has shifted in the right direction to treating people as individuals.

The state pension has always treated people as individuals, there has never been a 'joint' pension.
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your other points I believe it will actually have the opposite effect to what you think in rewarding wealthier households far more than the poorest households.

As for incentives/disincentives,  the state imposes no restrictions on how people wish to live their lives, they are free to do as they please within the law. 

Yes (perhaps I badly worded) but it has shifted to considering individuals as equals.. moving away from ideas of gender roles and one member of a marriage's pension influencing the other's i,e, married women gaining entitlement based on percentage of partner's entitlement.

On your last point... it does via the law (this is how a state does restrict how people live if not by social conventions)... it dictates what constitutes legal relationships (we've shifted forward on legalisation and recognition of same sex unions in recent times as example).. and it can go on to look at behaviours and details of relationships to determine what they are as happens with immigration applications (although they are getting better - they now seem to lack the resources to go through chat logs of people arousing each other remotely) and determining residence for benefits. It also can incentivise particular behaviours such as through taxation or inheritance laws (and you don't have to look hard on MSE to find people getting relationship arrangement advice based on some financial consideration as example) so the question of what people are free to do is mired in political policy as well as social issues. The very same government department that tries to prevent forced marriages has immigration rules that are forcing marriages in order for relationships to be considered suitable for family visas.

We've got very narrow views of adult relationships and because we try to define them it is always going to be messy and it takes very little imagination of likely common scenarios to see someone could spend the day making phone calls to different government departments or professionals describing different people in their life as their 'partner'... even in a society where monogamy is a prevailing concept.  

I have no great objection if simplifying systems and concepts means some of the wealthier benefit from support and major changes would always have winners and losers... in the end policing and dictating concepts like relationships comes at a cost including human resources and the tax payer should get value for money.... you'd have to look at any particular changes to start evaluating any cost/benefits. Any system is going to have apparent unfairness and currently you can live in a billion pound home sitting with a bank of cars in the courtyard and still get income related benefits...if you have a partner you live separately from in similar circumstances they can too..  if I were eliminating the concept of couples and marriage in society I'd obviously be looking at other changes but I'd be reluctant to go down routes that involved greater scrutiny of people's private arrangements.

ElwoodBlues

I seem to recall that UC defines a couple as having to live in the same house, but for tax credits the living together bit wasn't essential to be considered a couple/joint claim (living apart together)? The UC way perhaps simplified the decision, but almost seems to incentivise couples to have multiple households.

HillStreetBlues

ElwoodBlues said:

I seem to recall that UC defines a couple as having to live in the same house, but for tax credits the living together bit wasn't essential to be considered a couple/joint claim (living apart together)? The UC way perhaps simplified the decision, but almost seems to incentivise couples to have multiple households.

It's not same house (home), it's same household. A household and home are different, there is no legal meaning of "household" What would be looked at is the kind of ties they have.

stu12345_2

I asked the dole many years ago when does having a partner affect any dole claims.
as I had a steady  girlfriend that stayed over with me 3 times a week. the dole said sleepovers 3 times a week is the max they allowed.
any more and it's considered living with me.

anyway she didn't contribute financially to my home eg water, gas or electric bills., or  had any of her finances , data, linked to my home address , eg her driving licence, her employer, her bank account, her doctor.
she just spent her hours after her shift until she was due for her next shift with me, and that involved staying the night 3 times a week.

it made sense as she lived a bit of trip, about 25 miles away. no point going home every night.

and I did the same at her home for the other 3 nights