Sorry, but as long as this rule exists, feminism is not working.

I think seriously abusive relationships are a separate issue though. If a woman is in a relationship which is so abusive that she can't get medicine, tampons or food, then councils/voluntary organisations/friends/relatives should be supporting her to LEAVE that relationship. Giving her more money while she stays in that abusive situation won't make things all right - the abuser could presumably take that money too and keep it for himself.

M, I think the remark about a cleaner is a bit inappropriate. Living in an untidy house is not equivalent to not being able to get a medical prescription, travel anywhere, buy food for your children or tampons for yourself because you have absolutely no income of your own whatsoever.

Witholding money from a non-earning partner is very common in abusive relationships. The only way I can see round this is if a couple is found not eligible for child tax credits an/or CB, an equivalent sum to CB and minimum tax credits is paid from the earner's wage into the non-earner's account (usually a woman).

The other alternative is for councils to make it much easier for people to leave an abusive relationship.

Not all benefits take a partner's income into account. Benefits such as disability living allowance, carers allowance, and contributory benefits such as maternity allowance, contributions-based employment and support allowance and contributions-based jobseeker's allowance can be paid regardless of your partner's earnings. Other benefits such as housing benefit and tax credits are based on joint income.

I think that the balance is about right at the moment, but the forthcoming cuts in tax credits and child benefit are going to disadvantage women. On the other hand, if your partner doesn't do their fair share of the housework you wouldn't expect the government to pay for a cleaner to make up the shortfall.

Would it not be counter-productive to the feminist cause? It would put a defined (low) value on child raising and diminish the argument that a SAH parent provides an equal contribution to a relationship, albeit one that is not quantified in monetary terms.

If you live as a coupleyou are financially dependant on each other.
Not so with housemates.

Can't see why you view this as a feminist issue.

(if two women or two men are living as a couple then I believe they are also counted as a couple for benefits)

Gender/sex not taken into account at all with this rule, it is 100% fair.

I agree because of the disproportionate impact on women that it's a feminist issue.

But benefits are about wealth redistribution and ensuring people are able to survive when things get tough. While I'm sure there are individual situations where the current rules seem unfair, I don't see that it would be fair in most situations to be giving public money to people who would generally expect to be enjoying wealth available to their household.

I'm also somewhat against moves that push us to be more individualistic and less household/family oriented. Over all I don't think that will benefit women. I think we have too few cultural expectations to financially support those close to us.

phooey - your anecdote does not make it a feminist issue. If you had been the one with a summer job and your boyfriend had tried to claim benefits, the same thing would've happened.

Thanks onimolap, knowledge is always good. Those particular rules sound fairly reasonable actually, pretty much what I'd put in place if I were queen.

I agree that it is a feminist issue.

I moved in with my boyfriend when he was a student and I was working term-time only. Our finances were totally separate - his parents paid his half of the rent, he was living off a student loan. I had a job and paid all the council tax, we split the other bills 50/50.

In the summer hols, he got a bar job to save for the following year's studies, and I was jobless so applied for benefits - the bloody arsing bloke comes round unannounced, I was in alone, and he challenged my application, asking me to show him where we both slept, implying that we were a couple as we slept together. He then told me that because my boyfriend had an income (obviously only for the summer) he should support me and that my claim was to be rejected.

I ended up taking out a loan to pay my rent

My mum did that when she left work.

Dilys: you can claim contributions based JSA for 6 months, regardless of household income and savings. After that you can still sign on for the NI credit, but will not receive the money if household income/savings are too high.

I can't see the state ever being prepared/able to give full state benefits to SAHPs whose partners are earning 6 figures, and it would be a cold day in hell before they'd give such a huge financial incentive not to marry.
Actually I think there is a moral case for giving jobseekers' allowance to a person who is actively seeking work and has paid their NI regardless of household income, but I don't even know what the rules are there.

It's creeping in for tax too - HRT tax payers are set to have CB clawed back via tax system if they are in a household with a CB recipient.

I agree with the OP. Where couples are assessed together for benefits more women end up poorer.

I think there would be uproar if it was suggested that women should have to file their taxes jointly with their partners but at the other end of the scale is seems to widely accepted that benefits should be claimed as a couple. I don't see why taxes and benefits follow different principles.

I pay my own taxes and NI, independently of my husband, and should I need to claim I should be treated independently of him then too.

darlene, surely the problem lies in the reason why it affects women disproportionately and not in this particular effect. If this does not happen to men as often as it does to women, it is not in how the rule is constructed but is caused by other factors - it's those other factors that should be the target of any action.

It's not unreasonable for a couple living together (as opposed to friends sharing a home) to be expected to pool their resources. If the (higher) earner does not pull his or her weight, the onus is on the non- or lower earner to decide what to do about it. It's not up to the state in the first instance to compensate the lower earner for their partner's shortcomings.

This is a feminist issue because it vastly disproportionatly effects women.

It is a major component of the 'poverty trap'.

Men and women living together are assumed to be financially supporting each other (almost always male-to-female).

I can see that they do it to save money but in principle it's wrong.

AFAIK in Sweden it's different.

I don't think there's a gender issue here, as others have said.

But there are potential inequalities. If you are living together without marriage or civil partnership, then the law does not recognise you as a couple in some ways (division of property at split up, and intestacy laws), but does in others (household income for benefits).

I would not want to see cohabitation treated as equal to marriage/CP, because it removes the choice to live without the legal status. But logically, at should also mean completely separate status - so benefits should be assessed as if you were simply flatmates. [Obvious current snag - affordability].

Yes. This may affect more women than men, but when dh lost his job he was entitled to 6 months contributions based JSA and then nothing after that as my income was too high.

iirc, when retiredgoth moved in with his new partner he lost his benefits entitlement because their combined income was too high, so it's not really about women is it? Except that women tend to be the lower earning partner (thought not in my personal case).

I agree with whatagradeA. It's not really a feminist issue because the rule applies to people of either sex. Although I must concede that in reality, this often does mean the woman, because men are more frequently the breadwinners.

It's not about whether they are having sex - it's about being part of a committed relationship, in which resources are shared.

I think you've completely misunderstood it, marantha.

No, the Co-habitation rule works no matter which party is the unemployed one.

If she were working and he weren't, he wouldn't get the benefits.

She still gets NI stamps, as would he if it were him.

It's not to do with if you're having sex, it's to do with "living together as if you were married" - ie, having responsibility for each other, financially.
If she were just flat-sharing, she wouldn't give two hoots whether that other person were fine, as long as they could pay their way.
when you're co-habitting, you have a vested interest whether they get chucked out (esp if you have kids).

I useed t olive with a girl (house-share) and I had to be interviewed in my home to prove that she wasn't my live-in girlfriend.