To think the government can't force women to declare what their dp earns?

[ThreeLittlePandas]

I'm a SAHM and claim child benefit for my 3 children. What my dh earns is his business and the government can go whistle for it if they think that I'm going to declare his earning.

I claim CB not dh

In fact they can fuck the fuck off....

Yes, but does one person have an obligation to tell another person about their finances? I think this will be very hard to enforce, because the person being asked to declare if their partner claims cb, can just say that they don't know and could well be telling the truth.

I don't 'get' it myself, my dh and I share everything, financially, but his parents really were completely separate, in terms of money. I don't think they knew, at all times, what the other one had coming in.

karmabeliever, I don't know if there is a legal obligation, but the assumption is that a couple will know. Obviously the person may not genuinely know-in which case the benefit claim cannot be processed therefore no benefit. That's only logical, right?

There should be no such assumption - beginning with the Married Women's Property Act and only completed comparatively recently, the right to independent finances and taxation has been hard one.

If the Givernement wishes to overturn these rights, it of course can. But I would have expected the abandoning of a major principle of UK taxation to have been rather better explained.

I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to assume one partner will know if the other is claiming cb. However, if the mum has always claimed cb, but their partner,on these new declarations, states that they don't know if it is being claimed (and that could be true, although rare), I'm wondering how the benefits people will be able to cross reference the information held on all the people who live at the address, in order to establish the truth for themselves. Do they have the system set up to do that? I can see it being an administrative nightmare.

EdithWeston, but that is the way the benefit system works. Horrible, isn't it? Total unfairness when you consider that we are taxed as independent people. And as a neutral observer who is just observing things without wishing harm or gloating about anything, I'll say this: a lot of middle class women sahms are about to witness the indignity of the benefits system for the first time.

It is not inevitably how the system works, Wamster. The Government can make the system it wants.

For some benefits, you have to make a joint application.

But this allowance - established in 1945 - has never been a household benefit based on a joint application.

They could have opted for changes to it which do not breach the important principles of independent taxation. They didn't, and that to me is telling.

They are also, separately, undermining the principles of no double taxation.

I find both of those changes reprehensible, especially as they appear to be slipping them in stealthily.

I'm saddened by how many people are clearly delighted by the removal of a long-standing, successful, universal benefit that has had a very positive effect on the finances and independence of women.

The existence of universal benefits that people are entitled to under certain circumstances (no, entitlement is not a dirty word) is a big part of the social contract of the welfare state.

If HRTs don't "need" CB, then arguably they don't "need" any provision from the state at all - pensions, healthcare, schools.

If we have no entitlement to services from the state, but can just go cap in hand when we are too poor to provide for ourselves, then the post-war settlement is over, and it's just a matter of waiting for the entire edifice to be dismantled.

Anyone who thinks that will mean more money for better services for the poor is a fool.

The end of the welfare state is what the Tories want. And apparently most of MN too. It's surprising and disappointing.

It isn't particularly difficult to prove benefits fraud: I think the powers exist for homes to be checked, for example. HMRC have no problem throwing a totally disproportionate amount of money at an investigation! It's just that plenty of people don't get noticed. If nobody reports you, it's perfectly possible to slip through the net. Especially if you take certain precautions. Once those fuckers have their teeth into you though, good luck getting out of it. Possible, but not easy!

And of course the government can force people to declare what their DP earns (let's not pretend the higher rate taxpayer will always be a male!) or withhold the benefit otherwise. You have to do it for tax credits, if you want them. That's not to say I'm not worried about potential implications of this, but it can be done. There'll be some fraud, no doubt, as there is with every benefit.

How much CB fraud has there been up to now?

I don't know AthingInYourLife, but I can't see HRT-ers wanting to break the law to get a few extra quid a week, can you? Not worth the candle, I'd say.

The lady who posted here last night is either one of two kinds of people:
She knows the system very well and adept at getting round the rules-but I find it hard to believe that the benefits office will buy the 'flatmates' line. ANY two people living with their child is going to be greeted with suspicion!!

Or hasn't got a fricking clue as to how the system works and has never claimed a benefit in her life.

Like I say, can't see many HRT-ers breaking the law for this, can you?

Some, probably not much. I've heard of a few cases of people trying to claim for children who weren't in the country (and didn't qualify under eg the EEA criteria) who weren't theirs etc. But I doubt it was very common.

?? They already do. I applied for JSA and had to declare my partner's income, and we're not even married.

I don't understand the problem at all...... HMRC already has the details of income for nearly everyone and they certainly have details of all earned income already!

All those affcted by the changes will be a) already completing self assessment, OR b) be on the payroll of their employer. Both these scenarios involve much data collection by HMRC every year anyway. it will not be much of a step to include a box on the tax return regarding CB, or for employers to collect the information and submit via P14 (the HMRC side of the P60).

scaryteacher - do you belive that HMRC do not already have all of this info? I don't understand what you mean by they can't have it both ways? Yes, we are taxed as individuals; but benefits (included CB) are awarded as a family. Families will still have the option of not disclosing their links with their higher earning partners - they simply will not receive CB. If for example a SAHM receives CB but her partner does not disclose this for the reduction in taxable pay he/she will be committing benefit fraud plain & simple.

Sorry - haven't read whole thread but I think there must be many women out there who actually don't know what their partner earns.

I was one of them until recently, when I asked him outright.

If my dh doesn't know if I'm claiming CB because I refuse to tell him, then how can he be liable for prosecution if he mistakenly tells the inland revenue that nobody in the house is claiming it?

I think the changes to child benefit will uncover loads of financial abuse within higher income families. Women married to higher rate tax payers with no income of their own who've been relying on child benefit for their own spending money, who will have loads of problems once the changes go through.

If my dh doesn't know if I'm claiming CB because I refuse to tell him, then how can he be liable for prosecution if he mistakenly tells the inland revenue that nobody in the house is claiming it?

From the HMRC website:

The penalty rates for inaccuracies can be:

*up to 30 per cent of the potential lost revenue if the inaccuracy is careless
*up to 70 per cent of the potential lost revenue if the inaccuracy is deliberate
*up to 100 per cent of the potential lost revenue if the inaccuracy is deliberate and the person attempts to conceal it

There is no penalty if a person can demonstrate they have taken reasonable care to get their tax right, but despite this, submit an incorrect return.

The percentages are stepped and are higher when the underlying behaviour causing the inaccuracy is more serious.

Penalties are significantly higher for those who deliberately try not to pay the right amount of tax to obtain an unfair advantage.

'I don't know if there is a legal obligation, but the assumption is that a couple will know.' Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, or so dh tells me.

MissKeithLemon - they may have all the info, but under Data Protection my tax info should not be linked to dh's, as I pay tax as an individual.

I don't agree that cb is claimed as a family. I claimed it and receive it, not dh. It is not (until January 13) contingent upon our income levels.

I am with Edith - irritated that a major change to tax law (the independent taxation of women) is being undermined by this. If you are due a tax refund, it won't be long until we are back to the days of it being withheld until it your partners tax has been checked and there is no underpayment which your refund can cover.

If they want to put a charge on cb, then it should be at the tax rate of the person in receipt of it; either nil if they don't use all the tax free allowance, or 20% if they are basic rate.

That is the problem. As things stand, one adult is not required or legally entitled to know about the sources of income of the other. This removes that for married people. Which is a pity, as married women's property rights, culminating in full financial independence, is a form of autonomy which I consider important and which was hard won over many years.

"Financial independence" is already compromised for couples, even unmarried couples, who live together. As others have said, you're already required to declare household income when you claim JSA, for example. (I'm pretty sure you have to disclose your partner's earnings when you apply for a mortgage as well, but correct me if I'm wrong.) I've always found this practice very unfair and medieval, especially considering that in no way can your live-in partner actually be forced to support you financially if s/he doesn't want to. So you lose out on one source of help without being guaranteed another, through no fault of your own.

There's no such thing as common law marriage in the UK when it comes to your rights and entitlements, which is fair enough, I think people should be allowed to make this decision (i.e. to get married or not) on their own. But then the government should recognise you as "single" and tax you or pay you benefits based on your OWN wages in situations when you are, for all intents and purposes, financially independent.

But then the government should recognise you as "single" and tax you or pay you benefits based on your OWN wages in situations when you are, for all intents and purposes, financially independent.

But that would cause even more unfairness and I dont think it would be financially viable. As in my situation, when I was claiming full tc/wtc/cctc when I was a single parent. That amounted to quite a bit. By your reckoning I should have been entitled to keep these even when my dp moved and he earned a decent wage as this claim was my single claim based solely on my wages. I will admit that losing these benefits left me financially dependent upon my dp but what would the alternative be?

the government should recognise you as "single" and tax you or pay you benefits based on your OWN wages in situations when you are, for all intents and purposes, financially independent.

If you are in fact financially independent, you have no need to claim any benefits at all - so the question wouldn't arise.

Obviously if you are taking out a joint mortgage, then the income of both partners is taken into account.

The HMRC definition of Child Benefit is:

Child Benefit is a tax-free, non-means-tested benefit, administered by the Her Majesty?s Revenue & Customs (HMRC), paid to people who are responsible for, or treated as responsible for children or qualifying young persons...

Child Benefit is payable to only one person for a particular child or qualifying young person in any one week. Where two people satisfy the entitlement conditions, only one of them can be entitled and receive payment. The law provides rules to decide which one of them it will be.

In other words, Child Benefit is exactly that. It is no longer "Family Allowance". It's not Mum's Benefit, or Dad's Benefit. It is paid to whoever "is responsible for, or treated as responsible for, children or qualifying young persons."

Regardless of their sex.

"Financially independent" doesn't necessarily mean you have money. It means you don't have anybody step in when you, say, lose your job. Which may well be the case even if you have a partner. The law doesn't and can't force unmarried partners to support each other financially (and rightly so, imho.) So when you lose your job and want to claim JSA on the basis of your own past contributions, they shouldn't ask you how much your unmarried partner earns. Yet they do.

When I mentioned mortgage applications, I didn't mean joint mortgages, obviously. I meant one you take out on your own. I had friends complain that the bank wanted to know about their partners earnings even if the partners were not mentioned anywhere on the papers and never intended to contribute to the repayment in the first place.

I'm not sure how exactly child benefit works, but at a first glance I don't understand why it is awarded to only one parent to begin with. Especially if the argument is that it is for the child, not the parent. Surely all children have two parents, why not split the amount in two and pay it to both parents, problem solved? Divorced parents could then get the other half incorporated into their child support payments or whatever.

Bottom line is, I agree with everyone who argues that making you declare another person's earnings you might not even know about, let alone benefit from, is just wrong. In the case of married couples it may be argued that by marrying you expressly agreed to be counted as a household with joint financial responsibilities, even if we all know that's not always the case. In the case of unmarried people, the whole thing is even more ridiculous and reprehensible, imho.

If I asked my (now) XP what he earned the response would have been "fuck you, it's none of your business". He used to hide his payslips too, we had separate day to day accounts but a joint one for kids expenses / CHB / tax credits so I never saw his salary go in.

The law doesn't and can't force unmarried partners to support each other financially

But it does. Like I have already mentioned, I lost all my ctc/wtc/cctc when dp moved into my house which was mortgaged solely in my name. We were not married and my ds1 was not biologically his. Yet when he moved in, the rules stated that his income was taken into account and I stopped receiving all the above. My dp then had to support me and my ds1 financially as my wages alone would struggle to pay my mortgage, let alone anything else.

Nope, it doesn't. It will force you to lose your benefits on account of his income, but it will not force your partner to support you if he doesn't want to. He can still tell you to pay half the bills, your mortgage etc. and there would be nothing you could do about it.

The law doesn't and can't force unmarried partners to support each other financially

Yes it does, as kickme illustrates, through regulations arising from legislation on welfare benefits and family law.

It means you don't have anybody step in when you, say, lose your job. Which may well be the case even if you have a partner.

If someone chooses to live with a partner who can't step in and help through hard times, then they're not much of a "partner" - but that's a matter for the individual, not the government.

The DWP's definition of a benefit unit is:

A single adult or a couple living as married and any dependent children.

So if you live with a man as husband and wife you cannot claim to be single without committing benefit fraud.

From a recent DWP Press Release:
People who tell the DWP they are single parents to get Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance, but are actually secretly living with someone as husband and wife, cost the taxpayer nearly £100 million in overpaid benefits, making it one of the most frequently committed benefit frauds. Just ten recent cases have cost the taxpayer over £1 million.

Ministers are also warning women that it is often they who face prosecution as the claims are invariably in their names. Despite their partners often encouraging the fraud, they often escape punishment.

You can read the whole thing, including the penalties for benefit fraud here.

it will not force your partner to support you if he doesn't want to.

And it will not force you to live with him either!