Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think we have to stop punishing parents for splitting up.

237 replies

JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:12

In a post earlier, I was talking about the law that says CM can be reduced if a man moves in with a new partner who has children as it's assumed that he will financially provide for those children.

This assumes that his ex will then net herself a new man to pay for their kids which is not only presumptuous, it's dangerous for her and the kids.

Of course this works regardless of gender, it's a RP vs NRP issue.

Well just now, I was looking up something to do with another trending thread and what I found out is that because the RP gets the CB, the NRP can't name their kids as dependents in the welfare system at all. Even if they had 50/50 custody. So that means that if, for whatever reason, I split from my husband and it was best I left the kids with him in the family home, I couldn't get any benefit top ups that would take into account that I need a place to house my kids, too.

So I literally couldn't have 50/50 custody. It would be near impossible for me to find a place close enough to do so due to the COL and that everything we have and know is in one of the most expensive parts of country.

It would not be all that different for their dad. He earns more money than me, but if he had to have a whole other home and supply the kids while they are there, he would maybe fall below the threshold and be eligible for benefits as a RP. But if he couldn't get them because only one of us can count the kids as our dependents, then he would potentially not be able to see them as much as he could, not be as involved in their lives as he could, and would end up paying more CM the less he sees them overnight. So a vicious circle.

What does this mean? Well it means that people like me will be more likely to stay in a toxic relationship which harms the kids. It means that mothers are more likely to have to shoulder the weight of raising the children even where the father wants to be as involved. It means parents have to consider fighting for that status in court just to be recognised as someone with dependents. Its because they've centred this whole thing around who gets a measly 20 quid a week. CB should be totally separate to who needs extra room for their kids.

OP posts:
Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:52

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:47

You're providing children with homes. No adult would be entitled to two homes. It would be the parents of dependents so their parents have the means to parent them.

Show quote history

So you can’t give any examples. I’m providing my children with a home, because I made sure I could provide the basics before I had them, thats what responsible parents do. If a parent wants their child to have two homes, they then need to increase their income via a better paying job, a second job etc. I

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:51

lateatwork · 01/02/2025 09:49

Work more hours. Move. Take responsibility for your own children.
Can't believe how absolutely entitled you sound.

Working and moving would mean you cannot be there to actually have your children which ultimately puts more burden on the RP (usually the mother) to sacrifice their own working life and social life etc to actually parent the kids.

The fact a lot of dads have to move to a place that they can never do the school run burdens mothers.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:50

lateatwork · 01/02/2025 09:47

So you think it should be rewarded?

Or deficit in disposable income when split over 2 households should be topped up by the state?

Nuts.

Show quote history

I think that people should have certain entitlements. Whether they have split up or their parents have split up shouldn't mess with said entitlements.

I think one of those entitlements should be that dependents are considered when assessing the financial situation of parents so both parents are counted as people who need to support dependents. Not just one person who is allocated the RP. And this especially goes for situations where custody is 50/50.

OP posts:
lateatwork · 01/02/2025 09:49

Work more hours. Move. Take responsibility for your own children.
Can't believe how absolutely entitled you sound.

Itssofunny · 01/02/2025 09:49

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:41

That suggests they should be punished for being unable to make it work which is my entire point.

Show quote history

Punishment is a bizarre word to use here. If I start a marathon and drop out half way, am I then being 'punished' when I don't get a medal?

You decided to have kids. You decided to split up. It's your responsibility to make that work.

Living costs are ridiculously high and something should be done, agreed, but we need systemic change that would benefit everyone not just free money for parents who share 50:50 custody.

MidnightPatrol · 01/02/2025 09:49

Not sure you’ve got the best argument here OP.

You want the ‘rich shirkers’ to pay more tax so… you personally can receive additional cash to run your household, to keep you in the style to which you were accustomed pre-divorce.

ScaredOfDinosaurs · 01/02/2025 09:48

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 00:00

And I'd argue with the idea they only need one home. No they need to be able to have a home with each parent so each parent has the facilities to fulfil their parenting responsibilities.

If a guy can literally only afford a studio flat miles away from his kids, he can't have them overnight. He can't do school runs ever. He can't do emergency pick ups. He can't have a sick kid for a week off work. And not could a woman in the same position.

But why is it the state's job to pay? The NRP needs to step up and earn more, not whine that they can't afford to house their own children.

Arseynal · 01/02/2025 09:48

I can’t afford to run two homes “in the middle of London” either. I actually can’t afford one, which is why I don’t live there anymore and you can forget me paying more tax so your kids can have 2 bedrooms each in the middle of London because you accidentally had kids with someone “toxic”.
If you choose to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world then you will have to make compromises as to what you can afford and how long your commute is. If you only have your kids 50% of the time you can work a second job to help fund their extra bedroom. If the country was swimming in money I would rather it went on things like surestart, youth clubs, subsidised sport, integrated and subsidised public transport than to single people who want the income of a couple without any of that tedious compromising .

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:47

Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:46

Such as? Can you provide specific examples and how you would like tax collection to be implemented?

Surely if we did increase revenue through taxation, there are better uses than providing people with two homes, such as NHS, education, public transport, care services for the elderly and disabled.

Show quote history

You're providing children with homes. No adult would be entitled to two homes. It would be the parents of dependents so their parents have the means to parent them.

OP posts:
lateatwork · 01/02/2025 09:47

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:41

That suggests they should be punished for being unable to make it work which is my entire point.

Show quote history

So you think it should be rewarded?

Or deficit in disposable income when split over 2 households should be topped up by the state?

Nuts.

Bushmillsbabe · 01/02/2025 09:47

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:39

That's one thing. Collecting tax from the rich shirkers would generate masses of income. And as I said, things cost what they cost. Having a healthier society with equal opportunities would only ever be an advantage when it comes to creating a productive workforce. People would be healthier in situations where they can leave a relationship with the means to still be an active and involved parent.

Show quote history

That is always the line 'take from the rich'.
If it was that easy to do that, dint you think one if our governments wouod have figured that out. And if they do manage it, there is a queue of public services lining up for it.

Taxing the rich has been shown time and time again to be an ineffective financial policy. We tax big companies 10% for example - 10% of 10 million is a million in the public purse. We tax them more and they take their company abroad (like Google moving to Ireland which has low tax) and not only do we lose their tax, we lose the tax paid by those they employ. 50% of zero is much worse than 10% of a lot.

Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:46

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:44

The vast number of tax evaders we have in the UK...

Show quote history

Such as? Can you provide specific examples and how you would like tax collection to be implemented?

Surely if we did increase revenue through taxation, there are better uses than providing people with two homes, such as NHS, education, public transport, care services for the elderly and disabled.

MidnightPatrol · 01/02/2025 09:45

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:41

That suggests they should be punished for being unable to make it work which is my entire point.

Show quote history

It isn’t ‘punishing’ people because their standard of living is lower when single vs living as a couple.

By that logic every single person in Britain should be subsidised to the equivalent of having a second earner in their household. Which is obviously not sustainable.

OP posts:
lateatwork · 01/02/2025 09:44

You are entitled

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:44

Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:44

Such as?

Show quote history

The vast number of tax evaders we have in the UK...

OP posts:
Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:44

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:42

People who hide their income so they don't pay the tax they should.

Show quote history

Such as?

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:42

Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:41

What would you consider a rich shirker? What level of taxation would you implement? Equal opportunities, are you trying to claim high paying jobs and professional careers aren’t available to parents?

Show quote history

People who hide their income so they don't pay the tax they should.

OP posts:
Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:41

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:39

That's one thing. Collecting tax from the rich shirkers would generate masses of income. And as I said, things cost what they cost. Having a healthier society with equal opportunities would only ever be an advantage when it comes to creating a productive workforce. People would be healthier in situations where they can leave a relationship with the means to still be an active and involved parent.

Show quote history

What would you consider a rich shirker? What level of taxation would you implement? Equal opportunities, are you trying to claim high paying jobs and professional careers aren’t available to parents?

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:41

Margot2020 · 01/02/2025 09:39

There are many aspects of the welfare state I am more than happy to fund for a fair and compassionate society. But no, the taxpayer should not be on the hook to plug the gap in living standards when a couple decide to split a household into two. Absolutely ridiculous abdication of responsibility.

Show quote history

That suggests they should be punished for being unable to make it work which is my entire point.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:39

Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:37

Reducing MPs salarys would provide a tiny saving.

So you’re confirming you don’t know what crap the government is wasting money on, but you want it to stop. You have no idea what level taxation should be at, and you don’t know what taxes companies should be paying? So you just think you can magic up free money.

Show quote history

That's one thing. Collecting tax from the rich shirkers would generate masses of income. And as I said, things cost what they cost. Having a healthier society with equal opportunities would only ever be an advantage when it comes to creating a productive workforce. People would be healthier in situations where they can leave a relationship with the means to still be an active and involved parent.

OP posts:
Margot2020 · 01/02/2025 09:39

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:17

Yes some people.resent funding a welfare state which is again, a general antibenefits stance.

Show quote history

There are many aspects of the welfare state I am more than happy to fund for a fair and compassionate society. But no, the taxpayer should not be on the hook to plug the gap in living standards when a couple decide to split a household into two. Absolutely ridiculous abdication of responsibility.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:37

DancefloorAcrobatics · 01/02/2025 09:35

Parents can take responsibility for their children without the state providing 2 homes for the children because their parents split up. It's not easy but it can be done.

You look at this as the parents need to be supported =2 sets of homes/ benefit payment, but in reality the state supports the child = one home / benefits payment.
You forget, that the parents are adults, they are able to work an can make decisions for themselves and their children independently from the state.

You'd do better if you lobby for fair wages, better access to flexible working for parents and affordable childcare.

Show quote history

I do lobby for all of those things and have said twice that high enough wages would cover this. People can't take responsibility for their kids in the way that you're saying because it is really impossible for a lot of parents to remain a commutable distance from their co-parent after a split.

OP posts:
Simonjt · 01/02/2025 09:37

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:35

One easy thing to speak about are salary increases for MPs. But this thread isn't about that. Things cost what they cost.

Show quote history

Reducing MPs salarys would provide a tiny saving.

So you’re confirming you don’t know what crap the government is wasting money on, but you want it to stop. You have no idea what level taxation should be at, and you don’t know what taxes companies should be paying? So you just think you can magic up free money.

jeaux90 · 01/02/2025 09:37

Lone parent here. Not quite sure why I should pay more tax to a couple who can't get their financial shit under control.

I agree that women will often stay in a relationship longer than they should for financial reasons but this is why we educate our girls that financial independence is the most important thing, they don't have kids until they establish that and a career so they always have a way out.