To think you shouldn't be better off a single parent living with family than being in a working couple? **Title edited by MNHQ**

[CallingAllLovers]

In a nutshell, I'm working 17 hours a week and getting £700 take home salary, plus £82 something Child Benefit. I have one DC.

On top of this, I get about £800 it so in tax credits.

I'm now separated from my husband so living with family.

I'm far better off financially than I was when both myself and H worked and ran a home together.

I have a friend who's really struggling, her DH and her both work full time with one DC. Another friend in a similar situation with two DC.

I was incredibly panicked when leaving H, I often kept staying when things were really tough due to being petrified of how skint I would be.

But it's not the case.

I did wonder why the money I get was so high, then I was told tax credits don't care about your bills/outgoings, just your childcare.

AIBU to think I shouldn't be better off than someone working full time, or a hard working couple working full time?

I realise this thread sounds really goady, but I'm not trying to be.

It just seems like people are penalised for working more/having a partner.

@hogfather I explained that in a post a few pages back!

Leave your job then, if you think that that extra 15 hours a week for a year is worth it. When my kids were in full day childcare no one got any free hours. It's better now for people but still you're pissing and moaning that some people get 15x39 hours more childcare than you during the course of your respective children's lives. What is the answer to this "problem", as far as you're concerned? Just make sure as a matter of policy that no one in the UK has anything you don't? Should we also stop supplying wheelchairs and mobility aids because you don't get them?

With all due respect if a couple work 16hrs between them a week I think it’s ridiculous, unless there are health issues behind it.
When I was a single parent my outgoings were £1500 less. Granted I didn’t have my income. I was also topped up with £142 a week. Altogether that was more than I clear a month. I also received grants, which some are no longer available now. With what my partner clears now we’re alnost on the same as we were before. The only difference before was that I had more time, more time for my children, more time for housework and more time to cook. So yes I’d say I was better off as a single parent.

battleax I already said 3 (term after birthday)-4 is not means tested. 2-3 (before term before third birthday) is means tested!

So really it’s just a brief period when there’s something relatively minor that you’re not getting that some other people are getting.

But you have other opportunities and advantages anyway.

Just sit tight and ride it out.

I’m not sure what you’re running this “single parents are lavished with free stuff” propaganda campaign for.

@youvealways ffs what is wrong with you? Are you all there? Am I specifically speaking about childcare in all my posts? You asked, I answered. I’m talking about the bigger picture. It’s not just childcare, have a look above. Childcare is a big issue.

No you didn't. You mentioned possible benefits for low income homes. Your income is very similar to mine. I'd like to know what subsidies you think I get that you don't. And how with your partners salary coming in as well as yours I am better off.

@battleax I’m clearly not putting myself across correctly. I am going to ride it out. What I am saying and have said numerous times before, as OP is saying. Why are we better off/same situation as when we are working. I’m not saying single parents are lavish at all. It’s still a struggle for middle earners. If your on a low income then you have many entitlements, if you are rich then you don’t have an issue. It’s the middle earners not getting support when they are working.

There are plenty of couples purposely working pt, juggling children between them and claiming tc to top themselves up because they figure it's better financially than paying for childcare. Or where one parent works 16 hours so that childcare costs are minimal or even nonexistent once the kids are 3+ years. Again topped up by tax credits. Agree with the pp that actually the system works much more in favour of couples in this way, giving them a lot more scope to work reduced hours with two incomes still coming in.

@hogfather you are working. I’m discussing the entitlements I would be able to receive if I left my job and partner. Your situation is irrelevant to what I am discussing.

@youvealways your proving my point. Couples shouldn’t have to purposely work 16 hours. If they work any more hours then their whole payslip will be spent on childcare. There should be more childcare subsidies for parents who work full time but are not below the threshold or above.

I think people are making the mistake here of thinking The OP and other’s who agree are suggesting those SPF on low incomes should get less. That’s not the case.

There should be MORE help for families, that has nothing to do with taking anything away from anyone else.

Two non-working people on disability should not have more disposable income than a matching working family.

I think there is some argument to be said for both families receiving the same, but certainly not MORE that’s just not okay.

If anyone is misunderstanding what I am saying. Then I’m with @cantankerous

People really shouldn't get benefits just for existing. Work hard or don't have children.

You guys are talking ideal world here. The way the system works ,this fairness you seek means single people getting less money not working couples getting more.

But you're comparing Apples and pears squeezy. And your own experience sounds unusual if your partner living separately, and the loss of his income to your single household saved £1500 a month. If you mean in childcare the same would apply to a couple if one didn't work, except they'd only have one household, not two as outgoings.

Work hard or don't have children

good one Racecar! Ha ha!

You left a few parts out:

Work hard or don’t have children? You mean only ‘work hard’ at a well paid job, nobody should do any of the menial jobs that pay minimum wage. So if you’re a childcare professional or work in a care home taking care of the dependants of people who earn more than you, just leave.

And if you have children and you become their main carer make sure your husband doesn’t leave you, even if he’s having an affair or violent, keep him at all costs.

And make sure you don’t get ill or disabled. And that your children don’t get ill or disabled.

There you go Racecar, that covers it a bit better than your goady post.

@rebelrogue or possibly encouraging parents to work more than 16 hours. The government have limited families to working 16 hours. Even if it was 25 hours, that’s 5 hours a day mon-fri. Also meaning more tax paid by workers. Or if it’s a couple who can juggle childcare then it should be more than 16 hours.

@hogfather my partners income is very low. His expenses are 18k a year but that is still classed as his earnings. He clears, after expenses about £150 a week and he is working all hours. Our situation is very complicated and can’t explain it in too much depth as I would out myself. But yes you’re right it is comparing apples and pears but that’s the same as every individual case. But that’s not how it is seen through the governments eyes. It’s black and white. Maybe that’s where the issue lies.
The bottom line is still that I was better off single and unemployed. I also had more disposable cash. Possibly less food to buy. I’m not sure. But I definitely felt less pressure before.

Before anyone comments on the food budget I mentioned. This is because I don’t eat dinner but will feed partner. I don’t know if anyone feels the same but jumping from a family of 4-5 increased my food budget by a huge amount, whereas the jump from 3-4 wasn’t so bad. Might just be me.

squeezy that doesn't make sense. Expenses are not income, they are claimed seperately.

If he is self employed then his business plan isn't working.

@bluebeck he is self employed. For childcare purposes we spoke to the accountant and also the nursery. His income is based on his earnings before expenses.

Squeezy

I probably have a slightly different spin on this as I’ve been in an identical situation with a (well earning) partner and without.

I had Much more disposable income when DH wasn’t living here. Far more financial security.

There needs to be more help for two parent working families. If it was harder for us when DH moved in with a large salary, I dread to think how hard it must be for people on less money.

I reckon you've been overpaid and they are assuming you are running a household on that. i.e. paying gas, electric, 75% council tax, rent etc. You might find yourself with a big overpayment next year.

So your household is funded by you working part the year and your partner running a business that brings in minimal money (a failing business)? Of course you're struggling - neither of you are earning what you could do.

Not a failing business. Sorry I can’t explain.
Working part of the year 😂😂😂. You need to get over that. I get £26k a year which is more than a lot of people get all year round. I worked and studied hard for that job. It’s not a part-time job. I’m sensing a little hostility to people who work in schools 🤔