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).

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?

Are you expecting the state to provide for children that you have with a woman but don't want to support m4dad?

Because if a woman with kids moves in with her new man and suddenly has much more money, why should she continue to claim benefits? The father of her dc shold be supporting his dc.

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 didn't misread it, you didn't read it.

Child support should be paid by the NRP, enough child support should be paid by the NRP, child care should be affordable, or god forbid free.

I suppose the way around it would be a national wage.

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 wholeheartedly agree. If you are able to pay and don't then it should be a criminal conviction.

You didn't misread it, you didn't read it

For which I apologised.

Benefits are essential for survival, but place us in a poverty and social trap which is difficult to get out of

For everyone saying 'why dont they just get a job' IDK if you are aware but single parents and disabled people are not allowed to apply for just any job.
The Tax Credits office now calculate every week, whereas it used to be every 6 months or so. As a result, people eligible for tax credits are not allowed to apply for jobs that are 'as and when'. We can only apply for jobs that are fixed contract - fixed hours and pay. Tax Credits wont recalculate weekly if our hours or pay change too much.

This is a handy way for employers to weed us out of their company profile.

Well. It's patriarchy that makes women subordinate to men, not the benefits system. Women are disproportionately affected by cuts to benefits because there are more women than men who care for children or disabled/elderly relatives, or work in lower paid jobs.

If a single dad on benefits moved in with a female partner who was in paid work, she would be expected to support him and his children financially. So it works the other way around too, it's just less common.

If my ex partner paid for his children I wouldn't need to claim income support

The part that burns me is if you try to leave and he works your claim might not be paid at first because you have made your circumstances worse

I do understand your argument. But there is no other solution. You don’t have to live with someone to be in a relationship.

In a way, it’s a good thing because it makes women seriously think if this is a man, they would like to live with and who will be there for her and her raise her children.

It's horrible to suggest that women must be money focussed.

Having food in your children's bellies and clothes on their back is money focused?

btw, I thought Child Tax Credits were removed if you partner up?

Being on benefits isn't being independent.

It means not having to go cap in hand to a person which is a very unequal setup. Being unequal to the state is a given. We all are to some extent.

having the reduced costs of living with someone

Reduced does not mean erased.

Don't have children that you can't afford. Pretty simple.

It means not having to go cap in hand to a person which is a very unequal setup

Sorry, but I'm under the impression that if you move in with someone then you have shared financial responsibilities and that includes any children you or they may have. If you feel like you're going cap in hand then you're probably not in a real relationship.

Nothing a Universal Basic Income wouldn't solve!

Complaints about the workings of so-called 'legacy benefits' become increasingly irrelevant as Universal Credit is rolled out. The sanctions regime means that any minor failure to comply with JSA style conditionality results in destitution. And yes, this will serve to encourage women not to leave relationships. The effects will be catastrophic, and alongside the inflation and job losses caused by Brexit we'll be looking at a considerable population die off. If you follow this train of thought you will realise that, while benefits claimants will be among the first casualties, they will not be the last. And while women and children are generally more economically vulnerable than men, a catastrophe of the scale that will unfold over the coming months and years will not discriminate on grounds of gender.

YANBU, but perhaps a little myopic.

You could say it's unfair that single men can't have babies, when single women can and couples can (surrogacy for some).
Maybe they can though I've not heard of it.

Nothing a Universal Basic Income wouldn't solve

A what?

No tax credits arnt removed if you partner up they are based on the income level if you are in a relationship with someone on a low income you will still get child tax credits maybe even some working tax credits if you are going to start a thread you should maybe do a bit of research first

Universal Income is also known as Citizens Wage, and its being tested in some countries.
It changes peoples attitude to those who need benefits.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/replace-the-benefits-system-with-a-universal-basic-income-paid-to-all-citizens-think-tank-recommends-a6777101.html

I had a child then my marriage broke up and he buggered off leaving me penniless so don't have children you can't afford is irrelevant

I have mixed feelings about this, in terms of making women subordinate. think that financial independence is financial independence, and I say this as someone who receives tax credit and child benefit.

Whether you are dependent on income support to top up your income, or a partner, it unfortunately boils down to the same thing, and if you are financially dependent then unfortunately yes those are your 2 choices, either being dependent of the benefits you are entitled to as a single parent, or losing this to become a family unit and therefore have a household income. Anyone who is in a partnership can be considered reasonably financially dependent on the other, if their lifestyle is only sustainable based on both of those people being together.

I don't really see how this makes women any more vulnerable to staying in unsuitable relationships than any other woman. If you take a look at websites like Gingerbread they have really advice for women, I am assuming specifically so they can see that life as a single parent is doable.

Yanbu

Agree andrew there is no magic wand. I'm not stupid. But, the current system is not fit for purpose. Parents who are working and earning well are able to avoid paying what they should and in some cases anything at all. For example, there is no allowance for childcare factored into calculations. I can only use my own circumstances as an example but my ex partner pays £23 per week, per child in child support. He left when my youngest was 1 year old so full time childcare was required at a cost of £250 per week. Working tax credits pay up to 70% of childcare for a lone parent. I have an older child but based on just the one year old I would still have a bill of £175 to pay per week even if I got the full 70%. Half of which should technically be my Ex's bill to pay considering he worked full time (and overtime when he could get it) and was (theoretically) responsible for at least half the weeks childcare responsibilities. £23 per week didn't even cover a third of his (already well reduced By tax credits) childcare bill let alone the feeding, clothing and housing of the child. (None of which he provided as he chose not to parent his children). There do need to be adjustments to the current system.

Basic income/citizen's wage.

x2boys ahhhh right. I was basing my post off my own circs where bf is not a low earner.

PortiaCastis hear. hear. What are we supposed to do? Put the children up for adoption?