to bew commitig benefit fraud

[skooobie]

ok here goes....
im claiming as a single parent but p lives here but cant afford to declare it and now feeling bad> what to do??

There is something fundamentally wrong with a benefits system which effectively penalises people for living together.

That's the elephant in the room here.

But the op doesnt actually know what the benefit situation will be as she hasnt declared it so no, it's not the elephant in the room. Do you think that single parents should be worse off than someone with a partner?

It does cost you money to live together - I should know I just came off benefits.

My statement was meant to refer to the benefits system in general and many are better of living apart from their partners. It's silly.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a benefits system which effectively penalises people for living together.

It has arisen out of the fact that recognition is given that maintaining two households is more expensive than one.

Why is your partner not contributing to the household income? What is he spending his £ on?

I don't agree with commiting fraud but i could turn a blind eye if i knew someone who does that if she was doing a 'trial period'.
It is risky for a mother to give up all her benefits and take in someone who is not even her dc 's father. If things go sour then she will be trapped and the children will suffer too. She will have to go through bearucracy (sp?) to re-start her benefits ? I'm not sure about this, i imagine it takes some time ?)

I think it's sad that there are families living separately or pretending not to be a couple for financial reasons.

Yes, that is technically true to a very small amount when you remove the expenses of rent and council tax - which if both parents arem't working is what happens.

In that situation, the amount you lose through benefits is far more than the small amount you save through having a joing food bill etc.

The system needs overhaul. Personnaly I'd assess people individually not as households.

How could that ever work? Parents who werent working but with a high earnign partner would get the same as someone with a partner on minimum wage?

No quite, I'd have a cut off point of around £30k - if your partner earns less than that you're treated as an individual.

On the subject of benefit. DH has been off sick recently so we had to see about claiming benefits. Were surprised at the level that we got. Now he is ready to go back to work and we now have to accept that we wil be £12 better off per week with him working a 40 hr week! Makes you understand why some people don't bother!

'There is something fundamentally wrong with a benefits system which effectively penalises people for living together.'

'It has arisen out of the fact that recognition is given that maintaining two households is more expensive than one.'

• the issue though, is really where two people have bought/rented a house and built a lifestyle on the basis of two incomes, and then subsequently split. Of course they are going to then find it more difficult to maintain two households.

We bought our house on the basis of what we both earn. We have built a lifestyle on the basis of our joint resources. We have had 3 children because that's the family size that we can afford - independently, without expecting the 'state' to do it for us. If we were to split, then no way would I expect to be able to maintain anything like the standard of living I have now. Nor would my DH. As for having a second family, which many people do - forget it!

Surely the elephant in the room is not just that couple can find it more difficult to afford to live together than apart, but also that the reality is, if you move into a area/home/lifestyle on the basis of two adults contributing to it, then it's unrealistic to expect anything like the same standard of living if you then split.

if your dp earning is low that it wont even cvover the rent, then you may be entitled to housing benefit anyway. we get housing benefit as dh is a low earner.

The benefits a single parent gets in part (I think) also reflects the fact that a single parent family doesn't have the option of a double income.

Once a couple is living together it is possible for both to work, even if this involves working opposite shifts to avoid childcare costs.

MaMoT - which is why not just the system but also the culture needs an overhaul.

The focus needs to be on parents continuing to take responsibility for their children, even if they no longer want to partner each other.

If DH and I had split when our children were younger, why on earth should we have suddenly believed we 'didn't have the option' of both working? We wouldn't have been rendered incapable. We would still have been two adults, capable of working, capable of sharing the nursery fees between us. Childcare wouldn't have cost more- that would remain the same amount whether we were together or not.

As for working shifts around eachother to avoid childcare costs - not easy for many couples who live together anyway, if one person works irregular hours, or shifts don't tie in with eachother.

The biggest thing wrong with the system is that it has allowed people to walk away from their parenting responsibilities when actually, they should only be allowed to walk away from the marriage or partnership. It is utterly ludicrous that the expectations for couples who remain together and couples who don't are so totally, different. I mean, a couple who are together but can't afford to live on one income are expected to both work, and often fork out massive childcare costs too, yet a couple who split - well, until very recently the mother didn't even need to look for a job until her youngest child was 16! How totally stupid was that?

Anway, back to the OP... of course YABVU and bloody foolish too.

If you want to live with a partner, then do what the rest of us do, either get a job, get a second job, and get together enough money to stay where you are, or downsize, or move to a cheaper area.... or face the fact that you'd rather live alone on benefits.

What you shouldn't do is try to convince yourself that you're somehow a 'special deserving case' and that the tax payer (who, incidentally, are people just like you, with children and responsibilities and money worries!) should be paying for you when you're not entitled to it.

problem is that many men won't contribute to their children more than the bare minimum, let alone help with childcare when they split.

Blimey - I mean my ex had the boys yesterday and again today (not doing overnight....yet). I was due to drop them round at his on my way to church this morning at 9.30 and he rang me to say he was running late - he wasn't at home - would be there in 10 minutes! The way he was dressed when he got out of his car obviously someone had been out al night .

Anyhow........that's not what this is about.

When we were together he worked 12-9pm and I worked 9.45pm-7am.

When DS2 stopped sleeping I just stayed awake.

It can be done working around each other - especially if one works 9-5 - there are plenty of evening/night jobs around (not great ones admittedly) to bring in extra cash.

I agree that 16 was ludicrous - I've always intended to go back to work once DS3 starts school (which is next September) - never understood why the age was so high!

Problem is though when parent split there is no comeback on the man who stops being a parent.......in many cases if both partners were working when together it's often the women that will have had the lower paid job that would barely have covered the childcare costs let alone anything else. The man with his better paid job leaves, contributes nothing and she is unable to continue that job in many cases due to the fact that her income - even with the WTC just won't cover the costs.

It's bloody shite - and I have to say while I fully intend to find work next year I'm bloody shitting myself already about being able to stay where I am (cheap house - won't find anything much cheaper round here without increasing travelling costs), and especially finding childcare.

I'm already "training" (very slowly) DS1 (10 next month) to be a latch key kid during term time when he starts senior school......and I guess during the holidays he'll be here all day on his own.

Its crazy that you recieve more for living seperate than as a family, I have heard of plenty of people doing this in our area and they have been caught but olbviously they arent punished enough because they pay back at £3 a week and do it again and again.

They really need to sort this out once and for all.

But op you are being unreasonable you just have to manage and i'm sure that you really could, just in your head your used to all this extra money.

MaMOTTat - yes I think your right about the benefits reflecting the fact there is no-one else who can work/ claim with regards to single parents.

BUT it may interest people to know this is £16.20 a week for single parents and the rest is ALL means tested.

So if you had a partner who say didn't work and claimed JSA you would lose the single parent allowance the coucil tax would go up by 25% and then WTC would stop I think if only one adult is working over 16 hours. HB/CTB/CTC etc would then be worked out on the different income.

I do not personally see how this would leave you worse off? Although you probably wouldn't necessarily be better off?

If the rent is more than he earns, then he needs to move out, or you both need to find somewhere cheaper together.