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).

[TheGuffalo]

You apologised for not understanding but it was obvious m4dad that you jumped with out even reading it at all because you were so indignant that someone might actually be expecting women to get help from the state to keep children alive.

[5rivers7hills]

Or you could look at it the other way.

The benefits system allows women to be independent from men and not have to try and find a new husband to take care of her and the children.

There is generally zero benefit to the children of moving in with a new DP...

[NameChanger22]

I'm a single mum. I work and don't claim tax credits. I have no interest at all in finding another man.

I don't know if it's fair or not. I think woman have much bigger things to worry about than this.

[Pickleypickles]

As a single parent working and claiming benefits it is a thought that crossed my mind. Speaking for myself though it is something i would make clear to a hypothetical partner before we ever moved in together etc.
If you start a serious relationship with someone you expect to work as a team in regards to childcare living costs etc. I would never be with a man if he couldnt accept that i need a chunk of his income for my child to keep living the lifestyle she has atm.
I think the issue is actually people who dive into a million different relationships and move men in with them after 6 months and dont even know the guy.
Basically, i think if you are in the right relationship with the right person i dont see that it should be an issue at all.

[Viviennemary]

This is rather illogical. Heaven forbid somebody's live-in partner is expected to contribute to the household. But other people are to contribute by way of taxes. And being on benefits isn't being financially independent. I agree both parents should be made to be financially responsible for the raising of any children they have.

[Gottagetmoving]

If you live with someone then their income is counted against any benefits.
It's not just single mothers, it's the same for any woman who is not earning and who lives with someone.
You can't expect the state to keep you if you have money coming into your home. I often think the system is unfair and harsh but really,...why should you benefit from a partner and the state too?

[Hedgehoghogger]

What frustrates me is that it put the resident 'step parent' often more financially responsible for the child than the non resident parent.

I have always worked full time as a single parent but had some help with childcare through tax credits and child benefit. I moved in with a high earning partner to the extent that I lost the tax credits and essentially he was responsible for paying back the child benefit I claimed.

I have no issue with us not having any state support as we as a household are high earners. However the amount he had to 'make up' as such was higher than their father would have to pay per month in maintenance (he refuses to give any through the threat of not being able to afford to see them afford his expensive holidays but thats another story altogether).

Of course though, we then had shared house costs so really I wasn't any financially worse off. I was also hugely lucky that he shared these costs with me - many new partners (particularly ones written about on here) would not. That's when the issue comes in - new partners have no legal requirement to pay, but the money is taken away from the woman.

[makeourfuture]

Basic income/citizen's wage removes all of this confusion.

[Firesuit]

As someone already said, benefits have exactly the opposite effect, they mean women's reliance on men has been reduced.

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

I think that was the point of introducing them wasn't it? To reduce (mainly) women's reliance on male partners?

I agree with a citizens wage.

[HelenaDove]

Georgia so that letter is basically saying that single parents are not even allowed to date. And/or would make it more likely that the relationship could be moved on too quickly and he could end up moving in too soon if the parent looses benefits just from dating or is at risk at losing them through dating.
Making it a higher chance that the single parent could end up in an abusive relationship. The whole point of dating is to get to know each other.

The sinister undercurrent is that single parents should be punished for dating and having sex.

[Fastnotfurious]

As far as I'm aware, a partner does not have to be living with you to be considered financially responsible for a lone parents children. If they stay overnight, eat together and are seen out together by neighbours, HMC class this as living together and therefore the woman would lose her benefits. This would be regardless of if the man had his own house and was paying his own bills. This puts lone parents on benefits at an unfair disadvantage as the rest of the world would consider this as dating, a basic pre-curser to any mention of living together.

I'm quite surprised at these responses after reading many a post where women are fuming that child maintenance has been reduced because their ex has moved in with a woman that had children and is supporting her children.

[Henrythehoover]

Why do I read these threads the fear of being one of those evil single mothers who scrounge of the system and shouldn't have had children if they can't afford them made me stay in an awful relationship with my 3 children for much to long. I work so at least that's one thing that people can't throw at me but I still have to claim to make ends meat.

[Mrsdraper1]

Actually, a single parent should be able to claim benefits and live on a decent minimum income. If you don't have that then the result can be devastating.
My grandma's dad died in WW1 and there were no benefits then to look after them- mum and two daughters.
They were desperate and bordering on destitute and the only thing to do was to remarry quickly. Her mum remarried a man who was a violent alcoholic and he beat the crap out of them all regularly.
My grandma refused to leave home when she got older as she wanted to stay and protect her vulnerable mother which she did until the violent stepdad died in an accident- the result of being drunk. She would never speak his name.
So I am in favour of single parents being allowed to live at a decent amount rather than having to take desperate measures. Whether that constitutes insentivising people remaining lone parents is neither here nor there.
However if you then move in with a new partner then your household income increases (if he is working or on benefits) so it's right that benefits would reduce.
Tax credits are paid to families on low incomes be that single parents or two partners with children. They wouldn't necessarily stop because a partner has moved in.
If you want to know how a partner moving in would affect your benefits then go see your lone parent advisor at the job centre or go online to a benefits calculator. If you are considering moving in with a partner then have a discussion about finances and how you are going to cover costs. If he's not prepared to contribute don't let him move in.

[BeautifulLiar]

I agree OP. The benefits system makes women look bad!

Single parents are pushed into getting a job, but non resident and non paying parents are able to get away with not supporting their children

[PeppersTheCat]

There is generally zero benefit to the children of moving in with a new DP...

A happier, less lonely mum?

I would never be with a man if he couldnt accept that i need a chunk of his income for my child to keep living the lifestyle she has atm

Not an attractive prospect - being expected to pay for another man's child.

GeorgiaOQueef That's crazy scary! Is it government policy?

new partners have no legal requirement to pay, but the money is taken away from the woman.

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about.

they mean women's reliance on men has been reduced.

As long as they stay single.

[megletthesecond]

Agust I love reading about Universal Basic income. Sadly I doubt it will ever happen.

[BitchQueen90]

I'm a single mum working and claiming tax credits because I'm on minimum wage. I have no interest in having a relationship right now but if I ever did in the future I would have to look very carefully at finances because the sad truth is unless my new partner were wealthy I'd probably be worse off financially. Honestly I'd rather sacrifice having a partner than being unable to give my DS the things that I never had as a child. Plus I'm content on my own.

[SaucyJack]

"new partners have no legal requirement to pay,"

No, but they have a moral duty not to cocklodge, and the RP has a parental duty not to move financially abusive step-"parents" into the home to the detriment of the DC's welfare.

There are hundreds and thousands of blended families out there who willingly make the situation work because they all want what's best for the new family unit.

It's not reasonable to expect the benefit system to work to the advantage of cocklodgers and parents who make poor and/or naive choices.

Not least, because it would ultimately lead to an increase in cocklodgers targeting single mothers if the thought they'd get to move in and keep all of their wages to for pocket money.

[Ylvamoon]

I just can't see your point OP. So, you have a new partner, you move in together - bingo! You share living costs.
AND any couple with £15k annual Income would receive same amount of child related benefits as a single parent.
I can't see any problem in that.

[HelenaDove]

"No, but they have a moral duty not to cocklodge, and the RP has a parental duty not to move financially abusive step-"parents" into the home to the detriment of the DC's welfare."


But unless they are allowed to date and the time to date how will they have the time to recognize the signs.

[TripTrapTripTrapOverTheBridge]

They are allowed to date and have time to date Helena some people just take letters to the extreme!

[CallingPeopleACuntOnFb]

Actually reading this it’s the cocklodgers that are the real problem

A real man, a decent man would have no problem contributing financially if he chooses to move in with a single Mum and her DC

Too many men move in and the Mum darent come off benefits because the lazy useless twat isn’t paying his way. I’ve seen it loads. A friend of mine ended up with a criminal record cos of it

[x2boys]

Why did she move him in then or not tell him to piss off?