To ask if it's financially possible for a partner to move in (UC related)

[Shinydiscoballs1]

How does it work for universal credit if I decide on a partner moving in with me and my kids?
Would uc base my award on our joint income?
Do people find that this would not work financially?
If i get £800/ month just now on uc I'd be lost without that amount, but I couldn't ask my partner to suddenly contribute that amount, can anyone shed any light?

Sorry, the link is Entitledto.co.uk

why should a potential partner be expected to contribute to my children?

You could equally ask 'why should tax payers be expected to contribute to my children when I have a partner living with me?'

Sadly Crankley’s got it right. UC is there to prevent you from having to raise your children in severe poverty but if you have a live in partner, you both are expected to pay for the family’s expenses as any other couple.

I’m with @gamerchick

You either have a relationship that doesn’t involve living together, or you have a conversation that is explicit about how financially detrimental living together is and he needs to join finances with you in some way.

When my partner moved in with me he paid my rent, my bills, my food, he paid my children school fees, because I and the kids are part of the deal part of the package and if he wanted us then unfortunately we cost a fortune.

before the world of benefits and universal credits etc all existed my stepdad did exactly the same when he moved in with my mum. He knew the implications for her of him being her partner and took that all on board.

Depends if he's a partner or a boyfriend. if he's a partner then contributing to the household is a joint responsiblity - hence "partnership".

Because the theory they work on is that if you're living together as a couple then you're a family (whether the DC are his or not) and are pooling resources, including money. If you're living with someone they consider you to be as good as married, only without that legally protective bit of paper known as a marriage certificate.

Otherwise the government would effectively be subsidising him to continue living a single child-free person's life whilst actually he's living as part of a family. Why should they do that?

So if your relationship isn't solid enough and he's not trustworthy enough (or you're not, if the unwillingness is coming from him!) to be prepared to live as if you were married and pool resources, then don't move in with him. You'd essentially be telling him that if he moves in with you and your DC then he's agreeing to live as a family with you all, with all the workload and commitment (including financial) which that entails, what's wrong with that?

If less women were willing to put up with "less than" behaviour from their DP - things like considering anything to do with DC to be "women's stuff" for example, or cocklodgers who thinks they can move in and pay almost nothing because someone else was already paying rent and bills so that person can just carry on paying them alone - then there'd be far less drama on the relationships board from people in awful relationships, because those men wouldn't make it through the front door or would be swiftly kicked out again within a few months once their DP realised what they were like. Why should the government subsidise sub-standard relationships just because people prefer to live with a partner, any partner, just to avoid being single or staying at bf/gf stage? It would be doing the put-upon partner a disservice. Raise your standards and have a chat with him to establish whether he wants to be a partner (committed, living together as a family and pooling resources) or just a boyfriend (living separately with separate finances and no parenting duties). Then decide if what he wants is the same as what you want, if it's not then ditch him and look for someone more compatible.

Interesting that so many women on here are talking about their financial independence but are on benefits/UC.

That’s not financial independence. How is being reliant on the state any different to relying on a man?

@Radaradar well I paid into the system that's supporting me through the state.

When I'm the only adult I can choose what to spend the money on. When there's a man involved we have to decide between us to an extent.
I know that's not what financial independence means but could be what people mean

It’s independent of a romantic/emotional relationship.

A women won’t be forced to continue having sex with an abusive government because she can’t afford to leave and support her children otherwise.

So in short, it’s wildly different.

Absolutely this.

of course your universal credit will change if he moves in. You count as a household and would be expected to pool your incomes to pay for the household.

I love that you don’t think that he should have to pay towards your children because they aren’t his but are happy for the state to pay towards your children…

A women won’t be forced to continue having sex with an abusive government because she can’t afford to leave and support her children otherwise

Surely if she left, she would revert to being on UC, which she's already proven she can support her children on?

You are making me sound like some kind of benefits scrounger. I've paid into the tax system all my working life, I've found myself in an unfortunate position as a single parent and I claim what I'm entitled to in my circumstance. No more no less.
I feel its quite a big ask to assume a partner with no children make up that amount which is why I asked.
As I said it's hypothetical I don't even have a partner!!

I don’t think you or anyone who claims benefits is a scrounged regardless of what’s paid in.

however when you have children I think you should choose to live separately until you are ready to live as a family.

moving in with someone who isn’t supporting your family life is a mistake and creates division.

your independence and the provision for your child should outweigh the desire to live with someone not committed to your child.

imagine the inequality if you had a child with him? It’s just not a good idea.

I dont think anyone on benefits is a scrounger either, we find ourselves in these situations and claim what our system has in place...

'I love that you don’t think that he should have to pay towards your children because they aren’t his but are happy for the state to pay towards your children…'

This suggests I'm rubbing my hands with glee getting everything I can off the state, when I'm asking a genuine question that I wasn't sure of

Clearer now on the answer to my original post

I’m far more financially independent living alone and receiving UC than I am living with a partner and living on his salary.

I was in an abusive marriage. I couldn’t work due to my disabled DC and consequently I had no money, nothing whatsoever for myself. I couldn’t even buy sanitary towels without begging him first.

Compared to that crap I am hugely financially independent on UC, paying my own mortgage, paying my own bills, buying my own sanitary towels….

of course you wouldn’t want to allow a woman that little bit of pride because, you know, benefit scroungers 🙄

Sorry about some of the rude replies you’ve received.

I agree that it’s perhaps unfair to expect him to make up the shortfall. It’s unfortunate that you may be better off living separately for now.

There is a similar problem with people on disability benefits being unable to live with working partners. The claimant is expected to give up their financial independence and become reliant on the partner.

I empathise with your predicament OP but i'm genuinely confused as to why you feel your entitlement to benefits should remain unchanged when your household financials have changed?

If you feel it's unfair to make your partner pay towards your kids (or the household in general...maybe the relationship isn't yet mature enough to be in the "moving in" stage?

Also how would the government regulate this? Oh you're living together but you're not together together so we'll keep the funds the same, just let us know when you want to stop the £800 UC entitlement?

I'm not super clued up about how benefits work but i'm assuming they taper off as household income increases whether you're single or not, I think that's how it should work.

It’s also worth you knowing early that a partners income would be taken into consideration if your child wants to go to university and needs a student loan. The amount they are allowed to borrow is based on household income as the household is expected to contribute, but a non resident parent isn’t.

Could you possibly quote me on where I said my entitlement to benefits shouldn't change?
I was asking for anyone to 'shed any light' for me and what I meant by that was could anyone explain how it works as I wasn't quite sure.
Thanks for your input though

Also if you re read my post im not in a predicament as it was a hypothetical question, I don't even have said 'partner' I'm merely dating!! I was genuinely interested in how this all works

Hypothetical? Really?
20/04/2022 19:16 you said ‘no he doesn’t’ have kids’ in response to a poster but 16 mins earlier you emphasised that this is ‘all hypothetical’.
lying isn’t a good look.

@GodspeedJune they don’t get 0 Benefits though? just less.
Living as a couple more than halves the cost of living singly. Why should the state still pay the full single amount?

When you have children moving in is a big step and the man takes all of you on as a package. Same when you’re disabled. If he doesn’t want to share money etc you’re better off without him. Same for the sexes reversed.

You’re sharing lives, not playing house

I feel its quite a big ask to assume a partner with no children make up that amount which is why I asked.

quite a big from who? The government? The tax payer? Personally I don’t think it’s a big ask. Your household will have a bigger income so the household will get less/no benefits. Completely fair. A partner shouldn’t move in unless their prepared to live as a family.

I feel its quite a big ask to assume a partner with no children make up that amount which is why I asked.

Then he doesn't move in. If he wants to create a household and a family with someone with kids on UC and save himself a load of money as he no longer is maintaining his own house then he needs to ensure those in that family aren't all losing out at his expense.

Would he really expect to save money while you and your children lose loads of money? If so why would you want to kuve with him? I earn loads more than dp, so thus wasnt an issue for me. But if he expected to live with me, disadvantage me and my kids so he could benefit I wouldn't have even been in a relationship with him.

I have kids. It's a fact of life. They are here and have needs. Dp doesn't have to be with me. He doesn't have to live with me. He can't have the advantages of living with me without considering the children