To be disgusted over the cuts to widowed parents

[brexitstolemyfuture]

They came it today and this is the first I've heard of them. Have I been really ignorant or have they been slipped in?

And do you really believe every single parent gets maintenence from the NRP?

My point shatner is that none of the cuts are fair. All of us (unless we are super wealthy) are going to suffer.

& yes I did vote & not conservative

reallyanotherone not if your partner has died but your weren't married. I was made a single parent through those circumstances and because we didn't have our names written on a piece of paper I wasn't eligible for any additional help at the time.

allthered You say none of the cuts are fair. That doesn't answer my question - why was it FAIR to give benefits to people just because they had had a third, fourth, fifth child etc?

There are plenty of people who SHOULD get benefits who don't. I think cutting a benefit just because you've decided you want a third or fourth child is absolutely fair.

I am well aware they don't, which is why i said "technically".

But for benefits lines have to be drawn. You either have to treat all single parents the same, and therefore cut widowed parents payments in line, even though they won't ever get CM. Or widowed parents are given extra benefits to reflect the fact that nrp are alive and should be contributing financially, and they have an agency in place to try and ensure cm is paid.

2 scenarios

1- 2 people live together for a while, have kids, house. One partner dies. Other can't pay the mortgage. Right now no entitlement to anything beyond usual benefits.

2- 2 people married, kids,house. One person dies. Other can't pay benefits. All existing benefits + widow allowances.

If this is about helping kids then both sets of kids should be given the same support (deceased partner support or similar). It's not. It's about rewarding marriage. I think it just needs to stop.

losing a spouse is something you have no choice in whereas a relationship split (if there was one in the first place) is no where near the same whatsoever.

This ^

Uppity Is it even possible to get a mortgage without having life insurance to cover it in the event of death? I didn't think it was. In which case the widowed partner can't meet the mortgage shouldn't occur.

This article neatly makes the point about how it's generally just the pension being paid out: www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/02/cancer-patients-family-stands-to-lose-50k-under-benefit-cuts?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=220093&subid=21035338&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

@shatners - life insurance is not a legal requirement to taking out a mortgage. Building insurance is.

I think the monthly payment should be longer for widows/widowers with preschool kids but other than that I agree with this cut. The original system was meant to replace the deceased spouses (usually male) salary whereas the new system is designed to assist with the immediate costs of the bereavement.

It didn't seem a sensible to give some people up to £112.55 a week (non means tested) for 18 years while others who could potentially be in almost the exact same position nothing at all. That's not right.

The new bereavement support payment is non means tested and easy to claim. If you have children under 20 in full-time education you get an initial payment of £3,500 then £350 fo a further 17 months
(If you don’t have children under 20 in full-time education you get £2,500 then £100 a month for 17 more months)

HERE is a recent slightly bunsfight'y thread on the changes.

Life insurance is a must if you have children. Not enough people prioritise it.

@uppity.

Where do you draw the line for relationship without marriage? What would the definition of relationship be? Any way you try and define it us open to abuse, this is why marriage as a legal declaration of a relationship exists.