To think the current benefits system sets single parents up to commit fraud?

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

I am a single parent, I'm currently a student and earn a small amount from self employment, so receive some housing benefit, CTC, WTC and CB.

Let's say, hypothetically, my bf moved in with me (there is no real danger of that happening for a very long time, but let's pretend). He earns £50k a year. If he moved in, as far as the system would see it, my children are his children, and therefore he would be jointly financially responsible for them. I would instantly lose all of my benefits, leaving me around £1100 a month worse off. This would leave me in a position of being no longer financially independent, and feeling like I had to go to him, cap in hand, to ask for money. Money, which often would be spent buying things for my kids.

My bf is a very nice chap and all that, but I doubt he'd cough up a grand a month to provide for me and my children. I doubt there's many blokes that would. His dd would also lose out, as through suddenly having gained two extra children, the maintenance she is entitled to would go right down.

Bearing all this in mind, I can see why many single parents are tempted to move their partner in 'on the sly'. Of course this is very risky, but only for the single parent (usually the female). As the benefits claimant it is the single parent who will be prosecuted, the partner they'd moved in would have no repercussions, even though no doubt they'd done quite well in terms of their own living costs, probably chipping in a token amount towards food and bills.

I think this makes it very hard for single parents to ever have a serous relationship, unless they happened to be a high earner themselves, so benefits weren't an issue. Or I suppose if both adults were on benefits, as they wouldn't lose out there. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than a citizens wage (which will never happen).

I don't understand.

You've acknowledged yourself that the partner moving in would benefit financially from the arrangement, but you think the taxpayer should continue to stump up the cost?

Why on earth should you continue to get housing benefit while your partner on £50k lives rent-free in your house?

If you move a partner in with you, surely he needs to accept that you and your kids are a package and that he'll need to support you if you're no longer entitled to state support. If he doesn't like it, then don't move him in.

I don't think you can really see someone moving in as losing housing benefit and such as I look at it this way. He is paying rent for where he lives now right? He would not have to pay that rent and what he WAS paying will cover the loss of HB and CTB.

I am not completely sure but I think you would still get your child benefit..and it would then come out of his wages as extra income tax. So it won't so much be a 'cap in hand' thing if you see it that way as the money will still actually be paid to you...just comes off his paycheck.

That's my plan, memy, realistically if and when my bf did live together, I would have graduated and would hopefully be earning a decent wage (although it would be much lower than his). The tax credits system has been a godsend for me for the last few years, but now my dc are in school it's time for me to get a career.

She would only get the child benefit if live in partner is earning less than 50-58,000 a year, otherwise she would lose it too.

Frankly it is not that benefits force you to commit fraud, they force you to remain single.

Crosspost es Fluffy, that is a good plan, the differences in salary cannot be undone in a couple of years but as long as you have enough to support your children (or move out of things not work) you will be fine in that hypothetical future

Yeah CB is only if you are both under 50k (slight reduction to none paid I believe if you are above)

So one warns 50k and the other unemployed won't get it but two earning £45k would

As with a lot of threads like this, I just can't get my head round people viewing things as yours and his wage separately. Its 'our' income when in a serious relationship, to me anyway. Me and partner have never had issues with stuff like this and I'm starting to wonder if this makes us strange in some way as it appears most others do things much differently to us. This was before we even had kids too...as soon as we were 'serious' there was no more mine and his :S

broken no I don't think the taxpayer should stump up the cost, and I suppose I'm potentially fortunate that my bf is a high earner so if we ever lived together it maybe wouldn't be such a huge problem, but it would make things very tricky if he was in a minimum wage job. Or if I still had preschoolers, and lost my childcare assistance. I'm not really talking about just me here, it's single parents in general.

Yeah CB is only if you are both under 50k (slight reduction to none paid I believe if you are above)

So one warns 50k and the other unemployed won't get it but two earning £45k would

--

Thats a bit weird, isn't it? One cannot earn above 50k but jointly you can have an income of 90k and still get CB? Unfortunately we do not have a high enough income at the moment to worry about things like this but that seems a rather weird setup if I am reading it right.

I sort of understand where you're coming from... I'm on my own with two kids and tax credits have fortunately put me in the position where I am able to work full time and pay childcare.
If I moved in with a partner, and his earnings took us over the threshold, I would feel terrible about wanting to continue working and asking him to help with my hefty childcare costs.

I understand that anyone wanting to move in would be taking us on as a package, but it's a pretty big thing to ask...

Agree that it is a weird set up re CB.

So your partner shouldn't be financially responsible for you, but you are happy that your neighbours support you through their taxes?

"If I moved in with a partner, and his earnings took us over the threshold, I would feel terrible about wanting to continue working and asking him to help with my hefty childcare costs"

Just to be devil's advocate here, why is it Ok to take the taxpayer's money, but not your partner's. Because you don't have to ask the taxpayer?

Yes, but as you say, it is single parents, if you are living with someone, you are not single.

Vicky, it is not only about being serious about the relationship or not. It is also that when you blend families, it is often the case that the partners have responsibilities towards children of their previous relationships, and money has to be ring fenced for them. It us also the case that many women have got used to survive on their own and they are too proud to become financially dependent on a man. I suppose if you and your partner have children together, the line is blurred, but if you don't it is not so straight forward.

I've already said I don't think that, hellsbells.

Gwen, because the children are not his (and the guy may need his money to support kids from previous relationships). So the only option may be to stay single.

*gwen
*
I understand the point, but tax credits have made me feel quite independent in the sense that I do have a full time job. A job that doesn't pay me enough to cover childcare bills. I earn less than what it costs to get them looked after. But I'm still proud of going out and earning money and teaching my DCs to have a work ethic, and doing it by myself.

I guess having to expect someone with a name and a face to help would almost take that feeling of independence away.

Yes they're both handouts but it just feels different. That's just my opinion however.

I think current policy puts women (as they tend to be the RP) at a massive disadvantage. You can date me, but there's a rather large price tag attached, in the form of paying to bring up children that aren't yours. And the media are so quick to be scathing about mothers who move their partner in without declaring it. Surely their partner was complicit in that too? I realise they weren't the one claiming benefits but in the same way you can get prosecuted for driving with no insurance for letting someone drive your car without insurance, surely the man would be equally culpable?

I think that that's the problem. Many people do not realise that you only get tax credits if you are working. And many people are working hard and very long hours, it is just that sometimes the salaries are a catastrophe.

It does throw a proportion of women and their children into immediate financial dependence on a new and untested domestic partner, which is psychologically significant and probably discourages a lot of people from repartnering. Gov't do want people to repartner, so it's an interesting policy area.

I don't see that a 12 month run-on would hurt. It would ease the transition and essentially let people 'trial' a cohabitation without immediate financial dependence.

why would you let him move in and continue to claim benefits? And put at risk the only means of support you have, for a man who is not totally committed to your relationship (or else he would take on your family unit)?

Unfortunately I think single mothers need the security of a job or the protection of marriage if they want a man to live with them.

Memy - yes staying single is realistically the only option in a lot of cases. Realising co-habiting would never be on option, financially, has been a factor which has caused the end of relationships for me.

(By 'run-on' I mean a 12 month continuation of all benefits and TCs that were payable the day before the partner moved in)

Maybe it is slightly intended to make sure you are serious before moving in with someone for the kids sake? We all know of some single parent that has partner after partner that roll through the kids lives. I don't agree with this fully as a reason but maybe that's part of the thinking.

But if you were to struggle to find employment after studying, it would further prolong your relationship steps.

I guess it is not the only option but if you are working more than 40 hours a week, and taking the lion's share of the responsibility to raise the children, a what time do you study to improve your chances of a better job? or, can you really aim for a better job knowing you can't commute because the after school club closes before you can get back?