to think the benefits system makes women subordinate to men

[PeppersTheCat]

If a single parent (the majority which are women) partners up, she loses her benefits and become literally at the mercy at her new man. There is an assumption that the man will fund the woman AND her children. Essentially, women are encouraged to stay single parents indefinitely OR lose their independence and rely on the goodwill of their partner.

How is this system fair? Is there any hypothetical way around it? (Particularly if you have young children).

I have nothing to say other than this is a really good point and I've never thought of this before. Also I am interested to read what other people think.

Surely the way around it is to get a job?

Presumably if shes in a solid enough relationship that her partner is moving in with her then she could also get a job and share the child care when i worked (im now a carer for my disabled child) myself and dh worked opposite shifts .

You don't have to move a new partner in if they're not 100% committed to taking on a parental role. You're making it sound like it's a done deal

Single mothers aren't helpless victims. They can make choices about what's best for their children. Some even get jobs and pay their own way.

Women are not encourages to stay single at all! It's horrible to suggest that women must be money focussed.

The woman, depending on household income, will still be entitled to Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit. She would also be entitled to Child Maintenance from the kids father.

Not that that is the important thing. It's FAMILY that matters.

I don't see how you could honestly think the system is unfair.

They’re being encouraged to get a job - with 2 parents childcare should be easier to manage.

Being on benefits isn't being independent.

Do you go from man to man?

M4Dad Very true. Being on benefits is being 'at the mercy of' the state, instead of a particular person

How is this system fair? Is there any hypothetical way around it? (Particularly if you have young children).

Yes. They could make child support a realistic amount that actually reflects the cost of raising children. They could make it pretty much impossible not to pay it and when they have achieved that they can get rid of the benefits that are associated with being a lone parent as the NRP will be actually supporting the child. This would mean there would be no loss of money to a lone parent who decided to move in with a new partner.

You may have a point but are you suggesting that women should keep all their single benefits AND move in with someone else, thereby having the reduced costs of living with someone as well as benefits paid because they are not living with someone?

Thats not right either, is it?

They could make child support a realistic amount that actually reflects the cost of raising children

I'm sorry, I may have read you wrong but are you expecting the state to financially raise your children for you? If you have children you enter into certain responsibilities.

If the state did make child support a realistic amount where would be the motivation for anyone to go to work, ever?

All the money myself and dh get is considered family money wether it comes from dh wages tax crexdits carers allowance whatever and this had always been the case even ehen we were both working if a women feels at the mercy of her partner prhaps she shouldnt be moving him in?

Being on benefits and working aren't mutually exclusive.

(For the 'just get a job' contingent.)

Are you suggesting the household gets all the same benefits and the income from the man? Should the woman not be trying to find work? I'm not really sure what you are suggesting?

I'm sorry, I may have read you wrong

You have.

I think it's the other way around, actually. Women used to be dependent on a husband's wage. Now men are rather optional.

It is women who have a tenancy agreement, courtesy of having children. A man can be admitted or booted out at will. And likewise men can drift between billets as they have no financial interest/obligation in staying put.

Apologies then.

Well, you're making the assumption that the single mum is on benefits to start with there. I don't see why they would necessarily be.

If I (by some miraculous and implausible chance) moved in with a man, there's a good chance that I'd be the higher earner and I certainly wouldn't be losing any benefits (assume I'd still get child benefit and if I didn't it would be because I no longer needed it).

In some cases you're probably right but you're turning single parenthood into a bit of a vulnerable victim role which is certainly isn't for many. Lots of us (especially if we were 'lucky' enough to be single from the start of the child's life) made plans and choices on the premise of being single and needing financial security.

In my opinion, if you have kids you don't move in with someone until you're both ready to be a "family". I'm not saying being a blended family is always easy, but you need to support each other including financially.

I'm sorry, I may have read you wrong but are you expecting the state to financially raise your children for you? If you have children you enter into certain responsibilities.

I read child support in that context as being child maintenance from the non resident parent. And agree that no one should be allowed to get away with paying less than a fair amount for the children they helped produce. Not easy to monitor and uphold though. I'm prepared to stand corrected.

Surely it would work the other way too?
If a single dad moved in with a working woman?

NoCry I am not and never have been an NRP and you won't find me defending those that don't pay their dues. But in CM as in all debt collection a sense of realism is essential. Some NRPs are genuinely unemployed; some are untraced; many have other children by later or earlier relationships and that affects their ability to pay. There is no
magic wand here.

I agree with nocry that the answer is to make it impossible for absent parents to get away without paying child maintainence at a realistic contribution to raising their child

I don't think it's unreasonable to reduce benefit payments to a single parent if another adult moves into the home. That adult should at least be contributing to the household costs even if they're not paying for things specifically for the children

Yes fritz, child support is (or should!) be paid by a NRP of children. Loads of factors affect whether and how much is paid. And yes it's apparently a very difficult thing to enforce. Which is the problem.