That cutting benefits to widow/ers with young children by over twenty thousand pounds is heartless and cruel?

[Somerville]

My DH was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2013 and died in 2014. During both the period he was ill, and immediately afterwards, it was extremely difficult for me to continue working. A well as caring for him and then dealing with the huge administrative burden, I have children for whom continuing to attend school every day and 'cope' with normal life was impossible. Alongside all that I had to somehow try to find a way to live with my own grief. And then get out and learn a living - as a freelancer I'd have had no income at all unless I continued to work.

The bereavement benefits I received helped me immeasurably.

• I got a bereavement payment of £2000 which helped cover the immediate few months after his death when I could barely get dressed - let alone work.

• I also got a monthly amount of widowed parents allowance - about £450. (Non means tested but taxable, meaning that as my earnings increased I returned some of this to the government through my tax bill. However, I knew the safety net was there when my earnings dropped again - as indeed they did at one point when one of my children could only manage half days at school.)

I've remarried so no longer qualify - fair enough - but if hadn't I'd have received this until my youngest child left school.

However, the support available for parents who are experience the devastation of becoming widowed after April 1st this year is changing.

• £3,500 immediately.
• £100 per month for the next 18 months.

That's it.

Research by the Childhood Bereavement Network (CBN) suggests 91% of widowed parents will be supported for a shorter period of time than they would under the current system, which can pay out until the youngest child leaves school. It says the typical working family will lose out on more than £12,000, and expects a working parent with young children to lose even more – £23,500 on average. link here

Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner. And with bereaved, confused and devastated children.

How about it MN? Am I unreasonable to think this change is cruel? And if not, what can I do about it?

Why would any begrudge widowed parents with young DC financial help?

...and for those wondering where there taxes are going.

Apart from the huge deficit you're helping to make up the tax pot so that well off self-employed people like me and large companies can pay less tax. Currently I pay 20% corporation tax, from April I'll pay 19% and then 18% the year after.

Aren't Tory governments wonderful

I will be donating my 1/2% to local causes.

I just still think it should be means tested. I earn ten times what DP (soon to be DH) earns.

I'd be devastated if he passed away but I really wouldn't need financial support. Other support, yes of course, but not financial. I would much rather think that the money I would have been entitled to went to people who needed it.

I agree monkey.But as it says up thread, it costs more to means test. Instead for people like you they would just tax it.

Means testing it just makes it even more unfair. Self support and in the event of losing a spouse you'll have to make do despite several threads stating work would be impossible for a while. Don't self support and rely on state help and we will reward you even more is the essence of means testing.

Life has always come with risks, nothing is safe or guaranteed. People should prepare for the worst case scenario before committing to the huge commitment that is having children. They get no say but have to live with their life until they can change it as an adult.

I do think it's crazy that the Tories are getting away with all of these cuts to vulnerable people by pushing the 'there isn't enough to go around' message whilst simultaneously giving every single company who pays taxes a 2% tax break.

I'll have to look at the budget to see what that amounts to but A LOT it's fair to say when you think of all the large corporations.

Means testing would make it more unfair but the fact of life insurance and death in service payments.

My DP would be pretty rich if I popped my clogs to be honest. He'd have around £1m lump sum. I can't see how it's unfair to say that he shouldn't receive £3.5k and few hundred a month.

You wouldn't have to claim it though, Stumbly. It isn't sent automatically - it has to be applied for.

But yes I do get your point.

A lot of widowed spouses in decent jobs have to give them up for a while due to childcare issues though. Grief stricken children often won't/can't attend school, for example. My DH died just after a half term holiday, and 2 of my kids didn't go back to school until after the next full holiday. Given that life insurance can be slow to pay out (it was in our case because we had already put a claim to get it early as DH had just been declared terminally ill - this had to be cancelled before I could make the correct claim and it all got messy) and that there is a funeral and wake to pay for, finances do become very pressured even for those who, according to their previous year tax return, look decently off.

Yanbu. Yet another cut. I would sign a petition on this. Please do link on this thread if you start one (or find one that already exists).

Thank you.

I've counted back and realised happily that there are more posters who support the current system for bereavement benefits than who prefer the new proposed ones. It didn't feel like that yesterday, but only because some of those who like the reform posted more often and shouted louder.

Somer I'd happily sign a petition.

Yes you have to claim it. So if you don't need it, don't claim it. I suspect with everything that has to be done after your partner dies, and looking after your kids, it will be largely the people who need it who will claim it. And most people don't know about it. It was a cancer charity who told my relative about this benefit.

I actually can't imagine the pain of losing a husband/father or wife/mother.

Sorry you had to suffer through that Somer and anyone else who's had similar experiences

Well it also should be remembered that people like my DH, who die young, have spent years paying in for a state pension they will never get. My DH paid NI for 30 years, I got widowed parents allowance ( on which I paid 40% tax) for 3 years, I don't feel guilty, every penny went towards counselling.

It is different to divorce because the person is gone, forever, from the world. 6 years on it is still impossibly painful.

Thanks Unborn.

And yes brasty - the volume of administration after DH died was astounding. The very nice funeral director who I made arrangements with told me about bereavement benefits.

Somer
I've counted back and realised happily that there are more posters who support the current system for bereavement benefits than who prefer the new proposed ones.

Sorry but I really don't think you can say this. Just because someone says they don't like the new system doesn't mean they fully agree with the old system.
It strikes me that nearly everyone thinks the new system is too harsh but that there are plenty of posters think that the current system of potentially 18 years of non means tested benefit is too generous. I thought even you said that bereavement benefits should be means tested If it was cost effective. I'm on my teeny tiny phone and can't easily scroll back down the thread but I seem to remember you saying/implying that 18 years might be too long??? (Not sure about this though so please correct me if I'm wrong)

Well I can say it because I did.

You disagree Toast and that is fine. I found some of your questions helpful, so thanks. Genuinely.

It's good to go into a campaign with an idea of the objections that will arise, and also having thought about which compromises would be most palatable.

Yes you recall correctly. I think (need to consider it some more) that I would support it being means tested if it would be cost effective, and if done on actual current finances not the prior tax year. But I've researched that extensively today and with approx 40k claimants currently that would not be the case. One of the charities who works in this field is collecting data to analyse to see if the hypothesis that those who don't need it don't claim it, so that will be interesting to see, as well. And as it is taxable, those who need it most to get to keep all (or most) of it and others pay their applicable tax band.

Redsrule
I have been a widow for just under a year - I can't imagine that the pain will ever lessen.

Sorry my grammar was terrible there. Hope that all made sense. I've got some flu-ey thing and need to get some sleep now but I will check back tomorrow because this has mostly been helpful.

RedsRule God it's so tough, isn't it. I spent it all on counselling, too.

needmorespace The one year point is tough, I'm so sorry. Be as kind to yourself as you can, and I hope you have plenty of support.

Can I just add on a side note, please consider making a will.

OP, out of curiosity I have been reading around this and I think the figures quoted in your OP are wrong. It's a little more favourable than was suggested in your OP but still a LOT less generous than the exsisting system.

The most recent info i can find is Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017:Written statement - HCWS409 HERE the Bereavement Support Payment Regs 2017: written statement made on 12 Jan 2017

Recipients with children can receive an initial larger payment of £3,500 and up to 18 subsequent monthly payments of £350.

The £100 monthly payment is for those without children.

For akk the posters suggesting that the benefit should only br paid until the youngest child is 5 , how does that help families bereaved when the child is 6 or older? I suppose the parent shoukd go straight back to work and the children straight to school?

For akk the posters suggesting that the benefit should only br paid until the youngest child is 5 , how does that help families bereaved when the child is 6 or older? I suppose the parent shoukd go straight back to work and the children straight to school?