My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

to think the benefits system makes women subordinate to men

192 replies

PeppersTheCat · 06/10/2017 11:56

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).

OP posts:
Report
NoCryLilSoftSoft · 07/10/2017 11:48

that all NRPs are evil.

On this thread? You've seen that on this thread? I've seen people (including myself) discussing NRPs who are unwilling to support their DC. Why would that mean all NRPs?

Report
eyebrowsonfleek · 07/10/2017 11:51

In an ideal world, RP would receive maintenance from NRP. The new partner would “benefit” from the maintenance as it may be used to heat the home etc

Does Child Maintenance come under benefits? I think that there needs to be a lot of reform there. For starters:

  1. The self-employment loophole. If a self-employed person tells the CMS that they earn £50pw then that figure should be used when they apply for loans and mortgages.


  1. Moving in with a partner who has kids should not reduce the amount of maintenance liability.


  1. The Benefits Cap should apply to the biological mum and biological dad to prevent dads having loads of kids that they can’t support without Tax Credits.


  1. Far stiffer penalties for non-payment. Non-payers should go to jail, lose driving license and be considered scum,


  1. Clearer statement from CMS that child maintenance pays for the days that child is with RP. NRP has to pay all expenses like clothing or childcare for days when child is with them.


  1. Child Maintenance should include a childcare element. RP often end up going part-time to reduce childcare costs and if NRP wants to reduce their childcare bill then they should be going part-time/flexi-time and see their child more.
Report
ivykaty44 · 07/10/2017 11:54

ohreally that is why I believe CM should be dealt with by tax office and taken as tax Is and the consequences for not paying should be the same.

Report
ProfessorCat · 07/10/2017 13:11

My NRP is evil.

That doesn't mean I think all NRPs are!

Report
ohreallyohreallyoh · 07/10/2017 13:47

that is why I believe CM should be dealt with by tax office and taken as tax Is and the consequences for not paying should be the same

Except the issue isn't with the NRPs who pay tax. It's with the ones who don't!

Report
ohreallyohreallyoh · 07/10/2017 13:58

I'm sorry drunk but I don't see how the fact your ex earns well absolves you of financial responsibility of your children. This is an argument well used and which often includes 'and she gets all the benefits' (whether or not she does). I can support my children without the help of my ex but that comes at quite a price - no money whatsoever going into a pension, for example. I also pay thousands annually in childcare so I can earn. I don't have £50 left at the end of the month, that's for sure.

I can see that having to pay maintenance is an issue for many NRPs and I understand amongst low and middle income earners it can cause impoverishment. But so does non payment of maintenance. So what do you suggest?

Report
ivykaty44 · 07/10/2017 14:46

Ohreally

The tax office would deal with all those paying tax and not CM and those not paying tax and claiming benefits

Report
DrunkOnEther · 07/10/2017 14:59

I don't have a suggestion. I honestly don't know what the answer is. The problem is, every situation is different. And that's what annoys me when people discuss this sort of thing tbh.

I do think that maintenance should be taken out of the equation when it comes to benefits though (as I believe it currently is). The amount & regularity of payment varies wildly from case to case. And you just know that if it weren't, then the government would just take it off the value of any benefits paid, so everyone except the government loses out there. As such, lack of maintenance should not in itself cause poverty. I know it does in some cases, but that's the fault of the government/benefits system/low-wage, inflexible job market/high cost of living; not the NRP.

I think some of the ideas on here are very dangerous. The idea of being financially reliant on somebody you've no relationship with seems unwise (& that's what taking it automatically, & having it affecting benefits, would do). What if they lost their job, & the first you knew was when the money didn't come in? And as I said, the government would love this as they could shift some of their benefits bill onto the NRP - note, the resident parent wouldn't necessarily even benefit from maintenance being paid at all in this case.

And that was £50 after regular, monthly household bills. Not spare. That's £50 for a month of food, household bits, non-regular bills etc. I had the children for 2 weeks in August. I scrounged odd bits of food from family afterwards as I had nothing left (but on the plus side, I lost a lot of weight), yet the ex went on holiday to the US for those 2 weeks. He is not missing out on anything. The £250 CSA say I should pay him is more than a month's food for me, yet less than he'd spend on a night out.

I do pay for them. For example, because I have them some nights, I have to provide bedrooms for them. This means my housing costs are vastly increased compared to if I didn't have them at all (where I could just have a house-share). I pay for food, clothes, toys, activities etc when they're here. And for all the drop-offs and pick-ups. Would be childcare for when I have them in the holidays too, except my lovely parents help out there. And hell, if my ex is annoyed at having to spend money on our children, I will happily have them. It's what I, and the children themselves, want.
I'll also note that ironically, if I did have them more than him, I could claim certain benefits, as it's obviously accepted that my wage is not enough to bring up children on.

As far as I'm concerned, my ex took my children, my sanity, my house and any future career. He put me in hospital several times. And to now take away my food, my ability to work, a roof over my head, and even my access to my children? Well, tbh, after the experience I've had with the courts & legal system, that seems just about right.

Report
ivykaty44 · 07/10/2017 17:14

Just because CM could be taken in the same way as tax doesn’t in anyway mean it would have to effect benefits

The amount of unpaid CM runs into billions and 90% of the people that lose out in this are woman

Every parent needs to help provide for their children financially unless they are in an asylum or prison

10% of any income if that nrp earns over £200 used to be the equation then less under that amount - much less

As for money suddenly stopping due to job loss, we’ll that can happen to anyone.

Report
Viviennemary · 07/10/2017 17:29

I think maintenance should be taken into consideration. Somebody once ages ago said somebody was getting £4K per month maintenance and still got tax credits. that is total madness IMHO.

Report
DrunkOnEther · 07/10/2017 17:53

As it is, if someone pays tax, they can't not pay child maintenance. If they don't pay, an attachment of earnings order is issued and the money is taken directly from their wages anyway. The issues many people face is when income is hidden from HMRC in the first place. I don't see how taking CM as tax is going to solve anything.

And if it was, then I'm sure it would then be counted as income, and I think it's incredibly naive to think it wouldn't be.

So all that would do is penalise the people who are already paying/receiving it, and not do anything to help/force the people who aren't.

Rates are currently 12-16% of gross weekly income. Gross - so before tax, NI, student loan repayments, pensions etc.

Yes, anyone could lose their job. But everyone at least has some sort of redundancy notice, which wouldn't by any means necessarily be shared with the recipient of the CM. And then what? The recipient has weeks of more hardship while they reapply/recalculate benefits?

Report
Ericaequites · 07/10/2017 18:45

Social policy needs to financially encourage two parent homes, especially when mother is married to the biological father of her children. For many years in the United States, mothers could not receive aid to dependent children if a man lived in the home. Statistics show marriage is more stable and healthful than cohabitation.

Report
PortiaCastis · 07/10/2017 18:46

Marriage was stable for me but then DV took over

Report
timeismovingon · 07/10/2017 19:02

Drunk, I don't believe it's true that a NRP paying tax has to pay CM - if the mother won't name the father then they don't have to pay. Given that CM is taken into account when benefits are calculated then there is no need for the mother to name the father if they don't want to (obviously they should want to because they will get more money).

I also don't buy the comments re childcare and giving up work. This business of saying that the childcare is more than my wage so I'll give up work is very short sighted. Both parents should pay proportionally for childcare and both parties should keep their jobs/careers. Many women would be in a better position if this happened.

I don't think this is just about money though, as I've said before men need to be made to take more responsbility for their children. Many women go back to work but take over all the pickup/drop offs and sick days etc. If women started making men do this it would become the 'norm' and business would expect it. A man's freedom from most stuff childcare/children related frees them up to further their careers and earn more.

Report
SleepingStandingUp · 07/10/2017 19:06

Social policy needs to financially encourage two parent homes
No social policy needs to financially encourage stable happy homes. Sometimes that means splitting up because you just dislike each other now. Sometimes its bloody imperative that people have options other than staying where they are until they're killed

Report
eyebrowsonfleek · 07/10/2017 19:08

Social Policy needs to protect the rights of kids better. It’s outrageous how many NRP don’t pay child maintenance,

Report
DrunkOnEther · 07/10/2017 20:41

timeismovingon,

You are correct, I was talking in response to people saying that people couldn't get NRPs to pay. Currently the RP has to put in a claim for CM. My points still stand though.

I did give up work. Having 2 pre-school children, childcare + work costs were £30 a day more than I would have brought in. Given that my ex made me leave university before I graduated, my earnings have never been great, & the childcare costs were the excuse he needed to get me to quit work altogether. Aside from that, I think many families would struggle to actually pay FOR someone to go to work.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.