To be mad that we will be poorer if i move in with dp than if we live seperately?

[malificent7]

Been with dp 2 years...still going very well. We want to move in together. If we do i will loose Universal Credit which means that we will be both worse off as he stretches in income to bridge the gap.
Money is tight as it is but it will put strain on us if we really struggle.

Aibu to think it should be cheaper to live with a dp? I thought this governent were all for promoting family cohesion. Im not buying it

[Pickleypickles]

jon i feel like you are arguing with people who agree with you, i think most people on here have agreed that OP is being silly and its only the same position as if she had always been with a partner so she gets little sympathy. She gets a little for not realising this sooner but she gets zero for thinking we should just pay everybody to live in a happy couple.

[glow1984]

OP, I feel your pain. DP and I worked out that we would be better off if we lived separately. On my own income, I would get council tax benefit , housing benefit, and help with childcare. Together, most of my wage goes on childcare, most of DPs wage goes on rent.

But we choose to live together because we want to be a family. Sometimes, it means we don't have any money at all once we have paid for everything, but I couldn't imagine living without him now.

That sounds so cheesy, but I'm leaving it in :D

[DonnyAndVladSittingInATree]

I assume he is lodging in one room and you live in a house/flat with more space than he currently has? If he has a brain he will know that it will cost him more to rent more space.

[Downtheroadfirstonleft]

You won't need so much money, so you won't be given so much money...

[AstridWhite]

Aibu to think it should be cheaper to live with a dp? I thought this governent were all for promoting family cohesion. Im not buying it

Yes but they can't win, can they? If they reduce benefits to the degree that there is no financial incentive to being a single parent compared to being part of a couple with a low to average earned income, they get slaughtered for hating the poor, hating women and punishing innocent children.

The system is so fucked up it's unbelievable but once people become accustomed to getting more for doing less, it's very, very hard to re-set the system without anarchy on your hands.

[JonSnowsWife]

Pickley I'm not arguing with no one.

[sailorcherries]

Stay as an individual and recieve UC.
Move in and lose it.
It is a choice many people face.

[Pickleypickles]

jon thats made me laugh (assuming your use of double negative was intentional)

[JonSnowsWife]

No just sleep deprivation induced!

[GetMeOutOfHerePlease]

Their total income will be less, but so will their total bills?

I kind of get what OP means, but when you move in together you go from being a single income household to a two income household and income related benefits are adjusted accordingly. His costs are increasing because he is going from being a single bloke with shared housing and shared expenses to a household where he is part of a couple who is solely responsible for all costs and a child.

I do get being nervous about becoming financially dependent on someone else though. Don’t feel bad though, if he is moaning that he will be worse off then maybe think again before him moving in, or renting/buying somewhere together.

[SilverySurfer]

Perish the thought that two able bodied adults should pay their own living expenses, preferring other people (taxpayers) to pay for it instead. When did this sense of entitlement become so prevalent?

[christmaspudding1]

so what do you think should happen op??

[unlimiteddilutingjuice]

I agree with OP.
Its very common for a couple to lose out financially if they move in together if they are both on a low income. I don't think it does much to encourage stable relationships and I don't think its fair.
I also think that the idea of treating couples as a unit for benefits purposes is outdated and puts women (in particular) in a precarious situation by making them dependant on men.
I think we've all read enough financial abuse threads on the relationship board to know why that is a bad idea.
If I had my way there would be allowances for life circumstances (unemployment, child care responsibilities, illness) that would be paid to the individual regardless of family income.
This is already how contributions based benefits work- i would expand the principle if i ruled the world

[JonSnowsWife]

Its very common for a couple to lose out financially if they move in together if they are both on a low income.

only the dp isn't on a low income. If he was the op wouldn't be about to lose UC.

[Viviennemary]

I think the OP would lose out even if her partner was on a very modest income.

[YellowMakesMeSmile]

Shouldn't you be grateful to not need benefits rather than whining about the loss of them?

If you want more money you could always earn it, a novel idea I know.

[katarinova]

I am in the same boat, much poorer after moving in with my partner as I lost all benefits (ESA) as he earned over the limit. Its very hard financially and I feel awful being dependent on him like this.

[Frouby]

The reality is that a man is going to be financially responsible for another mans child or children.

The problem isn't the benefits system it's the fact that more often than not women are left holding the baby while the absent father either pays a paltry amount of maintenance or wriggles out of it altogether.

When the women meets a new partner the state assumes that he will tip his wages into the family pot without a murmur and support this family. For some men this isn't a problem. My dp has supported my dd since day 1.

For others it is a problem. Imagine meeting a man and loving him enough to move in. Loving his dcs but still being concious that they are his dcs. Now imagine tipping up all or most of your wages to live together. He loses all his benefits. His ex pays a minimal amount to support her dcs.

It does cause problems and prevent people moving in together. I would imagine it encourages people to claim they are still living seperately. I imagine women are at risk of financial abuse.

But as long as people come off benefits then all is well.

We should direct our anger at the absent fathers not paying half of what it costs to raise dcs.

[Firesuit]

When I'm Prime Minister, benefits will change to be like tax, calculated per-individual rather than per household. So it will make no difference to your benefits whether you live alone or with one or more other people. This will create a huge incentive for relatively poor people to live with other people, sharing expenses.

It is ridiculous that a system that is supposed to help poor people gives them more money if they live alone, which is a more expensive way to live than sharing with other people.

[carefreeeee]

This is the kind of attitude that give benefit claimants a bad name!

[Viviennemary]

No I don't think benefits should be paid as per individual. That would be ridiculous. But I think the system as it stands now is unfair. They've yet to come up with a decent system. There is incentive not to live together as a couple because you'll lose out financially. That can't be right. And then people are taking up two separate houses which adds to the housing problem. I think there should be incentives for people to get married.

[ReturnOfTheMackYesItIs]

So he's probably got a room in a shared house a few hundred quid all in per month? Or lives with his parents and bungs them a few hundred?

Yes, actually contributing to a household rather than renting a room probably will be more expensive in that case.

[Charley50]

Gosh some really vitriolic responses on this thread.

[Christmascardqueen]

and an op that has yet to come back to discuss...
when you join together with someone it is for the betterment of both (if it's a good union) and together you join forces to work together to make things better.
sounds like he will be improving his living situation and despite not getting as much income you will have companionship and be able to help one another.
if this is a cash transaction then no moving in together might not make sense but if it is a true relationship both of you should benefit in other ways.

[BertieBotts]

2 years - I assume you have DC?

If so, hold off. Another year, another 2-3 years even. Unless you'd be happy to marry him given the length of the relationship, wait. This of course has the bonus of saving you money for now

Seriously though - don't rush into living together, it's not like being younger without responsibilities. When you move in together they are essentially taking on your DC as their own which is a big ask, financially, practically, emotionally. It doesn't work if you try to live together and have separate finances with a child involved. If you end up splitting up the DC have already got used to having them around and find it traumatic. The only way this works is if the DC are older and able to understand adult relationships without romanticising them.

Before you move in you need the following things in place.

• Would be happy to marry them as know them well enough/commit long term, pref for life
  
• Have spent significant/extended amounts of time together and confirmed that you don't want to kill each other
  
• They get on well enough with your DC you trust them to do everyday tasks like bathing, feeding, disciplining. If this is making you feel anxious it's too soon.
  
• Have discussed finances, childcare, housework split including long term/future plans
  

Yes it is less fun and is frustrating but you will find things go more smoothly this way.