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).

[CherriesInTheSnow]

"Don't have children if you can't afford" is quite a ridiculous sentiment, how many people have children knowing full well that they are going to have a huge change of circumstances or become a single parent? I genuinely don't understand statements like that they just sound so incredibly ignorant

[x2boys]

Yep i agree with that Portia when we had our boys we were both working full time and had a reaonable income we didnt know of course ds2 would be severly autistic of course making it nearly impossible for both if us to work life doesnt always turn out the way you plan it.

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

Sorry just realised I have my math wrong in previous. Gah. Anyway. His child support still didn't cover his portion of childcare bill (£37.50).

[MargaretTwatyer]

So basically what you're saying is that women should get extra money for living with a partner who is not the father of her children.

How do you think families where parents are together would feel about single mothers getting benefits, maintenance plus sharing a single wage on top when they just have to manage on one wage?

Or women with the father of their children who have to go back to work to make ends meet. How do you think they would feel about single mothers being paid to stay home with their children despite having a wage coming in to their household when it's not available to them?

Do you think it would encourage a stable home life for children if women were essentially financially incentivised to leave their fathers?

What would you think of a situation where a household earning more than, say £80k per annum are getting benefits purely because the children are not with the current partner, but one earning £25k get nothing because they are?

I'm all for a means tested rate being paid to SAHM along the lines of the childcare fees for tax credits (paying the mother to care for her children rather than someone else), but I'm really not into the idea of subsidising wealthy people's households because of their lifestyle choices.

Either get a job or don't move in together. Don't expect other people to subsidise what is essentially your choice of who you're currently fucking.

[M4Dad]

Universal Income is also known as Citizens Wage, and its being tested in some countries

I like the sound of a "Citizens Wage" however, I don't think it should be free. To be a proper "Citizen" I think you should contribute to your society so I'd suggest that everyone in receipt of the adult non-oap payment should do 8 hours a month of voluntary work. I think it would bring us closer together.

[manicinsomniac]

IDK if you are aware but single parents and disabled people are not allowed to apply for just any job

What?!?! Since when? That's discrimination. I've never been given any indication that I can't apply for certain roles (okay, I've been in the same school 10 years now but I've held several positions within in and have had a couple of unsuccessful interviews elsewhere). And as for disabled candidates - in many work places, far from being banned from applying, they are guaranteed an interview.

[MargaretTwatyer]

And why does this only apply to women with children getting new partners? Surely women with children who are still with the fathers are subordinated in the same way and deserve the same?

[PeppersTheCat]

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.

How would the single man that partners up with a single mother be dependent on her?

[RunningOutOfCharge]

You can apply for any job you like!! How ridiculous

[thereallochnessmonster]

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 is good in theory - but how many men earn enough to (a) support their children and ex in one home and (b) buy another home to support themselves and any future children? Serious question.

I imagine if you're on minimum wage it would be impossible. Where you live in the country would have a bearing - who can afford to run two houses in London, for example?

[VeryCunningStunt]

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

Precisely.

Essentially, women are encouraged to stay single parents indefinitely OR lose their independence and rely on the goodwill of their partner.

Unless it is the case that a male single parent who moved in with a working woman / female single parent who moved in with a working woman / male single parent who moved in with a working man would be eligible to retain all benefits, your point is moot.

[thecatfromjapan]

This was one of the arguments against the old CSA when it was initially thought up.

It was argued that, previously, a lot of women had found that the state was a better supporter than the father/partner.

It's not good.

[CherriesInTheSnow]

I kind of agree with Margaret, the more I reread the OP the more silly it sounds really. You can be with someone and not live together or be financially tied, if you are not prepared to give up the security you have managed to gather yourself as a single parent.

Or you can become a family unit and share bills and all other costs at the gain of running one household and potentially having 2 incomes. If you feel at the mercy of your partner, you probably shouldn't be getting into a relationship with them in the first place, at least not one so serious that you are making them part of your child's family and of your own household. I don't really know what else our society can be expected to do?

[existentialmoment]

If you move in with someone you don't have an equal relationship with and would have to go cap in hand to, that;s on you.

[sickofital]

@NoCryLilSoftSoft but in order to get rid of benefits for single mothers the other parent wouldn't just have to have pay half the cost of raising the child they'd need to pay it all plus all of the main parents expenses (haircuts Clothes rent all food/bills and travel costs) which isn't exactly fair either

[thereallochnessmonster]

IDK if you are aware but single parents and disabled people are not allowed to apply for just any job

Who on EARTH said that?? Can't find it in a post. Can you pls justify this or give any evidence for it?

Companies arte NOT allowed to discriminate against people. Disabled people are encouraged to apply for jobs.

[DrCoconut]

My absent father paid no maintenance - he couldn't because he was dead. The idea of removing support for lone parents on the basis that NRP should pay up would leave families like I was in very vulnerable now that the government have slashed widow's payments.

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

but how many men earn enough to (a) support their children and ex in one home and (b) buy another home to support themselves and any future children? Serious question.

Not their ex. Just their children. Future children are surely something you choose not to have if you can't afford the ones you already have?

[TheGuffalo]

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

I know troling is your thing but even you must see thatit's a bit obvious that sometimes women have children with men who then fuck off and leave them?

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

The idea of removing support for lone parents on the basis that NRP should pay up would leave families like I was in very vulnerable now that the government have slashed widow's payments.

Actually in that scenario the problem is the slashing of the widows payments. Widowed parents should be eligible for government support to raise children of deceased partners. I would expect that to be fully protected in the case of getting rid of lone parent benefits.

[ProfessorCat]

Being on benefits isn't being independent

Actually, when I was accepted for my disability benefits, it enabled me to buy the wheelchair I needed, so I'd argue that it's made me more independent.

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

Ah, because everyone's situations are the same. I chose to have my son when I was in a marriage and owned two businesses. I could afford a child. Then my husband left me when I became disabled, I had to give up my career and lost my home, was socially housed and had to rely on state benefits. My ex-husband hasn't paid a penny since he left 7 years ago. He dodges the CSA as he's self employed. He's NC with DD. That's all my fault of course and I should never have had a child.

[CherriesInTheSnow]

"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.

How would the single man that partners up with a single mother be dependent on her?"

I said you can be considered financially dependent on someone if your joint lifestyle is dependent on both of you being together, which or most people is the case. If a single parent gets with a single man, they live together for years, then split and have to leave their joint rented home or whatever, then he has been equally dependent on their relationship/household finances. I suppose what I'm getting at is anyone in a relationship, if you're living together as a household, has to take those decisions into account.

[PortiaCastis]

My ex skipped the Country so no not a penny did I get from him and yes NRPs should pay up but an awful lot of them do not

[ProfessorCat]

as for disabled candidates - in many work places, far from being banned from applying, they are guaranteed an interview

Ahahahaha this is hilarious 😂 I take it you've never tried applying for jobs as a disabled person?

Both my current LEAs "guarantee" interviews for disabled teachers. I did a little experiment. I applied for 20 jobs, ticked the disabled box for 10, and didn't for 10. Even though I was "guaranteed" an interview as a disabled person, I was not offered one as a disabled candidate. I was offered 9 interviews at the schools where I didn't tick the box.

The loophole? The interview is only if you meet the person specifications. They can say you don't, even if you do. And I more than did.

It really isn't as simple as people make out.

[Osolea]

But if benefits don't go down when a working adult moves into a household, then the state is giving money to a family/household that doesn't need it.

How can that be right?

I think if you're a single parent at the state of wanting yourself and your children to live with a new partner, then you're creating a new family, and of course families should support each other. If my late dh had wanted to move into our home without contributing anything other than what a lodger would pay, then I wouldn't have wanted him living with my kids.

I agree with a pp that dependence on the state for income isn't financial independence, so really there is nothing to lose in that way.