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).

Apples yes it is obvious. I don't think they should still be getting tax credits and full rent paid. Imo it is unfair that young adults working for NMW have to take on paying full rent, council tax etc. I know her mum has always felt very guilty. She's currently unable to work.

My point was that benefits are based on household income and even parents and adult dc (and any other non-dependants) are expected to 'share' the household income.

that tax credits and other lone parent benefits

tax credits are not the sole domain of lone parents. Nor is there such a thing as a 'lone parent benefit'. HTH

My wife and I are currently separated. She receives the following:

£220 p/wk tax credits and child benefit;
£200 p/wk earnings (part-time but reasonably well paid); and
£230 p/wk maintenance from me.

She pays for one session of childcare per week (£40) but I'm currently paying the mortgage and most of the bills (exc. council tax) which relate to the home.

One of the things that I was absolutely shocked about was that the maintenance I paid didn't reduce entitlement to tax credits.

I give my own example above so as to demonstrate the absurdity of a system which means that my wife is financially better off than a good number of families - some with two earners - even if I wasn't currently meeting household expenses.

Can this honestly be the intention of the system? I have no desire to see her cast into poverty (nor the children of course) but there is something not quite right here.

I sort of see where the OP is coming from; however, I'm of the opinion that children are jointly the responsibility of the biological parents (I say that as someone who was raised in a step-family). If a step parent WANTS to contribute, then fine, but I'm not sure that there should be a legal or moral obligation for them to do so.

If the OP's partner has been assessed as being incapable of providing for his children, then the State should extend the disability benefit to provide for half of the cost of raising his children (the OP being responsible for the remainder). This would mean that the OP could get on with her life and be in the position she would be if she'd had a former partner that was paying maintenance.

My wife and I are currently separated. She receives the following:

£220 p/wk tax credits and child benefit;
£200 p/wk earnings (part-time but reasonably well paid); and
£230 p/wk maintenance from me.

She pays for one session of childcare per week (£40) but I'm currently paying the mortgage and most of the bills (exc. council tax) which relate to the home.

She should be declaring 'payments in kind' (mortgage and bills) you make on her behalf. If she's not, she's committing fraud and it's not surprising she's comfortable. Fraudsters often are.

One of the things that I was absolutely shocked about was that the maintenance I paid didn't reduce entitlement to tax credits

And yet a majority of single parents receive £0-£5 CM weekly. So there's big inequality in the system.

She's currently unable to work.

If she's unable to work then she must be able to get something. I thought none of the disability benefits were means tested?

I'm of the opinion that children are jointly the responsibility of the biological parents (I say that as someone who was raised in a step-family). If a step parent WANTS to contribute, then fine, but I'm not sure that there should be a legal or moral obligation for them to do so.

I kind of agree with you there. Not that I'd want to be in a r/ship where the step-parent was semi-detached personally.

Just

I hadn't thought her a fraudster. I honestly hadn't realised about the mortgage. That arrangement is coming to an end shortly - as it was more about making the transition easier. I agreed to it on the basis that it would be temporary - and I honestly didn't realise she was getting tax credits too! (We're new to all of this).

Also, it's not about being semi-detached. If I get into another relationship, it's quite likely that the lucky woman would have kids. I'd continue to pay for mine, and in all honesty, my earnings are such that I could still maintain a reasonable standard of living myself (inc any step-family). Many people aren't in that situation though, and I could see where tension might arise when someone is effectively trying to support two families.

I'd already be questioning the judgement of anyone that's in a relationship with me!

The whole thing is a minefield, isn't it?

I'd already be questioning the judgement of anyone that's in a relationship with me!

I'm sure you're lovely

It is a minefield. I guess I'm just shocked that as a country in the developed world, this is the best we can do.

I won't pretend to have all of the answers, but all I see is unfairness in the system. Frankly, it just doesn't encourage personal responsibility. I know that the unexpected happens, but given (nationally) how often the unexpected happens, you'd think we'd be better able to deal with it.

I've improved since we separated apparently. Which is no great surprise. We're all much happier to be honest.

Malice You are paying £1000 a month? That's a lot and much more than most ex's would get. Have you used the CSA calculator or whatever it's called now to see how much is actually expected.
Having said that the money is for the children so if you are that high an earner it's not unreasonable the children can expect a similar standard of lifestyle to that if you had stayed together.

Maintance isn't included because the onus is on the non resident parent to pay and many don't. Or they aren't honest in their earnings or it changes over the months and years. In all cases it would cost a fortune and is very unsettling for the resident household to not know how much income they can expect.

reveal Yes, the amount was determined by the CMO. We chose the option where they assess (presumably annually) but I pay directly.

I don't begrudge paying (she does a good job with the kids), but having just thought about it this afternoon, I'd suggest that in the cases where parents are separated, Child Benefit for each resident parent be increased and that a loan account (similar to what we have for student loans) be established for each parent -with the NRP paying a higher proportion. The balance could then accrue, with payments only due when certain income thresholds were reached, with any final balance being paid upon death if necessary.

I'm a single parent of 2 children.

I don't qualify for any benefits. Not all single parents do!

And if you are a household earning 50k per year then WHY would you feel you had the right to housing benefit ect?

What is needed is a major overhaul of the entire system.

In my fantasy world the following would apply (I'll use imaginary numbers):

The father (named on the birth certificate which the woman would put on and if the father disputed he would have to prove he was not the father via DNA test) would have to pay half the cost of a full time childcare place set by the government (e.g. £500 for a 2 year old, reducing as kids require before/after school care only) plus a CSA calculated amount based on how many nights they have the kids. This would be non negotiable, deducted at source from salary and paid straight to the mother, it would also be the same for each child not on a reducing basis.

The fathers would then be responsible for claiming top up benefits to manage their own lives/accommodation if required.

You certainly can get tax credits if you don't work, you can't claim working tax credits but certainly child tax credits. Those on JSA or income support get child tax credits

The OP claims to do a small amount of 'self-employed work' so she can claim working tax credits.Loads of people have 'pretend' self-employment eg faffing about on ebay to claim they are 'working'

Can this honestly be the intention of the system? I have no desire to see her cast into poverty (nor the children of course) but there is something not quite right here.

it's just not a safety net, as everyone describes. People don't temporarily collect benefits. 1/3 of london is on HB forever.

My self employment is not 'pretend', thank you kitkat.

The system is very unfair in so many ways. I supported 5 children as a single mother and worked full time and I paid my ex (as I earn m ore than he does) not vice versa. I don't earn little enough to get tax credits or child benefit even.

If I didn't work we would get at least £18k - I was amazed when I worked that out - huge huge amount of housing benefit if we rented.

The incentive to work full time as a single mother is not there for many once we've paid for full time child care for under 5s and I don't see universal credit helping with that either.

We need more carrots and more sticks. Much lower benefits cap and more ability to keep all your income once you start working with much less clawed back or a minimum annual income payment by the state to everyone over 18 whetehr in work or not instead of any benefits or state pension at all and then there woudl be no fraud. You get your £5k a year (£10k per couple ) and if you need more because you've chosen to live where rents are high then you'd better ge tyour finger out and get a job and if not you'll have to move in with 3 other adults to be able have enough to eat. More sticksl ike that.

Hello user! Nice to see you still about

I dunno. Your partner could get hit by a car tomorrow and that would be it. I'm not sure why anyone has children (especially more children than most people in the UK - 5) and then decides it's "unfair" that they have to support them. Ultimately, don't have more kids than you are willing to raise alone.

As for benefits, I'm not sure why people think they are hard done by. Child benefits are not to benefit the parent, they are to benefit the CHILD. They belong to the child. The state supports the child because a responsible person cannot. Once one arrives, the state is off the hook. If you don't trust them, don't move in (or financially support yourself).

Kitkat, I do work as self employed Wednesday to Saturday's, and have a permanent job on Mondays and Tuesdays, main difference between the two are:

• I get holiday paid in one, not on the other.
• the salary of one arrives always at the end of the month, the payments of the other come when it suits the businesses that hire my services.
• if I am ill, one pays my salary without questions for up to a week. The other one pays nothing and is likely to let me go if I am not back by the afternoon.

Gone are the days when people could faff around in Ebay or pretend they were commercialising a hobby to get tax credits. You need to present evidence of payments, expenses, tax returns, etc to qualify for support.

We're bloody lucky we have a "system". If someone lives with you as a "partner" then everything should be shared and rightly so. If it goes pear shaped then you can always claim what you had before.

Your boyfriend lives 3 hours away? That's a long drive!

I get what you're saying, I think, and I agree that in theory it's weird that if you happen to be receiving benefits as a large part of your income - for whatever reason - it then renders you 'dependant' on a partner, in way that it wouldn't with a different source of income.

I was a single parent for ages and became a budgeting expert (cos I had to!) and was very used to being independent on small amounts of cash. Now I live with my DP (and earn a fairly good salary) I still find it really difficult to share finances and feel like our income is 'one,' for all kinds of complicated reasons.

I guess it's one of those situations where you just have to weigh up the pros and cons of that before moving in together.

The rules around bf staying over and the disgusting and belittling way they treat single parents over THAT issue, is a whole other conversation. Grrr.

Seriously! I'm sorry, but let's say 'hypothetically' you didn't have any DCs. Would you then move in with any partner and not expect them to contribute towards rent/mortgage, bills, food, etc?? I don't where your BF lives at the moment, but unless its with his parents and on £50k he's churlish enough not to pay them, I wouldn't be surprised if his lone household outgoings currently come to somewhere around the £1k mark! Even if is current outgoings are lower, as he lives in a shared house (not very likely earning £50k) then again as other's have said if he wants to be with you, he is taking you on as a package and if he doesn't have that attitude coming in, your children will be living in a miserable home! So you're thinking many people in your position are supposed to move in with their partner for free whilst they consider defrauding the state and taking our hard earned taxes. Then you have the cheek to come on here and ask us, if we think that's reasonable!? This has to be a joke! As far as your BF's DC is concerned he can make a parental arrangement with his ex and pay any amount he wants, so if he doesn't feel the cut is fair to make to his DC, he doesn't need to. Even if its through CMS (prev CSA) he doesn't need to tell them he has new dependants, if he doesn't want them to change the award. If you're going to lie/not disclose the whole truth to any government agency, I'd suggest it was that one! My now DH and I moved in together and my DC, I lost my Tax Credits, he didn't flinch at having to pay to our new family unit (he was earning £40k at the time. He also stuck to the child maintenance arrangement for his DC and when he was redundant for 6 months, I suppose you could say I made the payments (because my own financial income had improved, as I'm sure yours will once you finish your studies!) But I don't see it that way, the payments came out of our household account!