to think i will have too much money on benefits.

[5toocoolforschool]

OK so dh and i have split up.He is staying with a friend and is finding somewhere else to live.We have 5 children.He is a relatively high earner and i have always been at home with the kids.

I have applied for everything i am entitled to (income support,child tax credits,child benefit,housing benefit, i will not have to pay any council tax- was not entitled to any of these before)

On top of this i will be receiving maintenance from Ex.

All in i will be receiving £3,300 per month!

That is only a couple of hundred less than dh gets paid.

I am porting this partly because i am sure i have missed something,should i not be getting maintenance from dh as well?Everywhere i have looked says i can.

Partly,i just think its bad.I mean i wont be claiming these forever,i have been accepted on a course (again which i wont have to pay for,which i will be given a grant for childcare)and after that i will be working again,so 3 years max.

But now i can see how easy it must be for someone to just see this as a lifestyle.

it would be interesting to see what the op actually gets once she's got everything sorted.

I don't agree with maintenance not being counted as income, when its paid at a high level, doesn't seem fair someone getting benefits they are entitled to also receives maintenance and it doesn't count anywhere, its disregarded however high it is.

and I know some men don't pay it jacks365, but plenty do, they arent all bastards.

Mrs De Vere- why do you mock the concept of taking more responsibility?

You misquote me. I was talking about a country with a minimal level of welfare support, as indeed was intended when the welfare state was first set up here. I didn't see any of the sights you describe although I will agree there are plenty of countries where it is rife. The question is whether the welfare state can itself create some of the unpleasant consequences you describe. Our high rates of teenage pregnancy, the Rotherham scandal, men feeling it's Ok to walk away from their families and women accepting this. I just feel our welfare state is not working and we shouldn't be scared of discussing the downside.

How much welfare, in your opinion will support the vulnerable and not take away from personal responsibility and incentive?

*So you had Susan living on income support with two children.
Her ex Dan living on the dole.
They took a fiver off of his dole money and gave it to Susan.
Then they took a fiver off of Susan's income support.

Meanswhile Dan thinks he has paid his bit and is also pissed off at Susan for 'grassing' him to the CSA.

Yeah. It was great.
What happened was that arses stopped working, abusive arses threatened their exs with violence if they grassed them up so the woman got sanctioned or had to pretend she didn't know who the father of her child was.*

Which is what I said upthread happened to me, apart from the exchange of the fiver as I refused to get the CSA involved and they were reasonably new so didn't chase it. He just gave up his job and sat around until it was time for dd to leave school, whereupon he started another family and is now quite happy to bring up his new family and providing them with what he never bothered to provide for his first child.

my extremely long term alcoholic friend gets

1 x 2-bed council flat (paid)
and benefits that add up to 330 per week

she is a professional shoplifter too

whilst I am pleased she is not on the streets its ALOT!!!

MrsDV wasn't mocking the concept of taking more responsibility (and, having seen her around MN for years, I know that she takes on the kind of responsibilities, both personal and professional, that would leave the average person buckling).

She was pointing out that that is not what happens in countries with a "minimal level of welfare support". Perhaps you didn't see "any of these sights", as they were behind closed doors, but, having lived in an EU country like this, and seen the personal misery and frustrated ambitions that result (and larger issues, like the demographic timebomb lying in wait for a country that offers people no support in raising their children, leading to a birthrate below replacement level), I can fully concur that they exist.

Oh, and just to add, in the country to which I refer, lack of welfare support doesn't, funnily enough, lead to the unemployed miraculously all going out and getting a job. Unsurprising, as the jobs aren't there.

fromparistoberlin73

Can you provide us with a break down of those benefits please, also are there any children as if that money is covering 5 people rather than 1 it's a different picture entirely.

It is entirely likely that ParistoBerlin's friend's benefits of 300 a week include her rent and council tax. She probably has 150 tops to spend on her bills, food etc. Nobody gets 300 to spend....even if they are unwell.

"Obviously I don't know the OPs circumstances(eg if there was violence in the home) but when it appears to be so easy to lead a subsidised lifestyle where is the incentive for individuals to work at relationships of for fathers to take financial responsibility for their offspring?"

1. This sounds like you think that people should be too scared of the financial consequences to split up.

2. Parents who are capable of being actual parents take financial responsibility for their offspring, regardless of any welfare state's existence. However, the universe has provided us with a multitude of evidence that plenty will see their children destitute, even when they have lots of money themselves. As a society, we have come to realise that these people are bastards, and we have come together to mitigate their effects on their vulnerable children.

And good on us for it.

jacks, no I cant

however there are NO kids (she basically lied that she saw her son to get extra bedroom)

I dont really have a major opinion but I do think its concerning we have a single child free woman in a 2 bedder and some families are in hostels- but saying the systems needs a rejig is NOt the same as casting aspersion on people who get benefits - just to be clear

Its a bit of a mess and some people suffer, and some get too much thats all

Paris

So, she isn't actually child-free? She is a NRP and has a two-bedroom flat so that there is a room for her son if there is ever contact?

are you suggesting if people lose their job, have difficulty finding another job they should move out of London, move their children to different schools and maybe leave their network of support

out of curiosity, why shouldn't mortgage holders be offered the same protection? they too lose their jobs and when savings run out they have to move out.

I think it's great that on top of losing a job you aren't forced to move right away, but for how long should that last? 1 year? 2 years? at some point shouldn't we say that no you don't have a right to live in the most expensive part of the country on the taxpayers expense?

Written - mortgage holders can apply for mortgage interest relief if out of work, so they can keep their home (and valuable asset)

not after 31 Dec 2012 apparently.

www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest/overview

It's called support for mortgage interest and is definitely available.

Ehric, you only get that after 13 weeks. A lot of people - even homeowners - don't have enough to tide them over for 3 months. Housing Benefit is paid immediately you sign on I understand?

Yes that's true. However you get more leeway with a mortgage company than a landlord.

Ehric, you only get that after 13 weeks. A lot of people - even homeowners - don't have enough to tide them over for 3 months. Housing Benefit is paid immediately you sign on I understand?

it also doesn't cover the principle (which it shouldn't) but that might be the major portion of the rent. they may have to move because they can't cover the principle. and, it appears, is only good for the first 200,000.

also, if you are on job seekers allowance, the relief runs out after two years. it is meant as a stopgap measure.

If someone would guarantee that I'd definitely get my maintenance, or that ex won't suddenly quit his job and sign on then yes they should be counted written until that happens then no they shouldn't.

fair enough. perhaps they should be taken account in some way. like you get the right amount of benefit, and maintenance payments go to the government. or something.

However you get more leeway with a mortgage company than a landlord.

I would have thought that was entirely dependent on your mortgage lender/ landlord.

I would have thought that was entirely dependent on your mortgage lender/ landlord.

probably, but I imagine she/he's right. but that is simply because it's in the lender's best interest to do so and, furthermore, the lender has rights to a massive asset in the case of default. the landlord has no such cushion. all rent lost is gone.

Home owners are not entitled to the same protections b enefits claimants get so homeowners who work full time feel beneftis claimants are feather bedded, don't have to endure the over crowding those who share friends' flats to who work full time, don't hvae the same immediate help with the mortgage -remember for most people with a mortgage about half of what you pay each month is not interest - it is paying back the debt so the fact the state after 13 weeks pays half your mortgage is not going to keep you in your house. Instead you leave and move to the cheapest areas of Liverpool or Sunderland because you cannot afford to stay in London or whatever. Those on benefits are not normally subjected to the same requirements to move.

Lenders often find the borrower has no equity in the house so not a massive asset - a massive liability, particularly when it's a recent purchase and a forced sale.