To think we have to stop punishing parents for splitting up.

[JustAskingThisQ]

In a post earlier, I was talking about the law that says CM can be reduced if a man moves in with a new partner who has children as it's assumed that he will financially provide for those children.

This assumes that his ex will then net herself a new man to pay for their kids which is not only presumptuous, it's dangerous for her and the kids.

Of course this works regardless of gender, it's a RP vs NRP issue.

Well just now, I was looking up something to do with another trending thread and what I found out is that because the RP gets the CB, the NRP can't name their kids as dependents in the welfare system at all. Even if they had 50/50 custody. So that means that if, for whatever reason, I split from my husband and it was best I left the kids with him in the family home, I couldn't get any benefit top ups that would take into account that I need a place to house my kids, too.

So I literally couldn't have 50/50 custody. It would be near impossible for me to find a place close enough to do so due to the COL and that everything we have and know is in one of the most expensive parts of country.

It would not be all that different for their dad. He earns more money than me, but if he had to have a whole other home and supply the kids while they are there, he would maybe fall below the threshold and be eligible for benefits as a RP. But if he couldn't get them because only one of us can count the kids as our dependents, then he would potentially not be able to see them as much as he could, not be as involved in their lives as he could, and would end up paying more CM the less he sees them overnight. So a vicious circle.

What does this mean? Well it means that people like me will be more likely to stay in a toxic relationship which harms the kids. It means that mothers are more likely to have to shoulder the weight of raising the children even where the father wants to be as involved. It means parents have to consider fighting for that status in court just to be recognised as someone with dependents. Its because they've centred this whole thing around who gets a measly 20 quid a week. CB should be totally separate to who needs extra room for their kids.

The state pays for your kids once and you want them to pay double?
I think some taxpayers would like to be able to keep some money to pay for their own kids.

50/50 is shite anyway and only benefits parents. So no I don't support that at all.

It's a scandal that some fathers, apparently, don't step up. However. There's no way any government can change that. No-one can sanction a dad for not doing a school run or living miles away from his children. That's not what state intervention is for.

Taxpayers help fund state costs so it is state money. We are in a situation with high child poverty so actually many low waged parents aren't doing just fine. Additionally, it's forcing people to stay in relationships that are harmful to themselves and others. And that's not even counting relationships that are overtly abusive. Just the shitty ones.

We live in a time where most parents split up. We should be making it easy and convenient to still give children stable homes with ample opportunity to bond with their parents. It's in their best interests, and in the best interests of society, too.

OP, are you both working FT? Surely, if nothing are working FT, and entitled to help with some housing and childcare costs, it should absolutely be doable.

With one child only, it's perfectly possible to fi d a one bedroom, with extra space to make another one. A dining room that can be turned into a bedroom, a large lounge that can be divided, etc...

Ultimately, of you have young kids, work FT and on a low pay, the main priority should be to increase income and look at every way to do so.

Not giving them the means to step up means that even the ones that would, or could learn to, cannot. And women bear the burden of that.

So, would you pay more tax?

Well, unfortunately, women do bear the brunt. Women are also taxpayers. Why should a single Mum pay extra tax to fund your situation?

Can you give examples of crap the government is spending money on with amounts?

Can you give examples of what you would class as taxing people and companies properly?

The state pays to ensure all the adults and children have an adequate home; children don't need two bedrooms they need one. The NRP can still care for them, but bring them home for bed. If that isn't enough for you, then you'll just have to work and fund your two households that way.

Yes we both work full time and we don't get state top ups due to our joint income. I definitely would on my sole income and I think my husband might if he was the RP and having to fund a family home himself. I'm not sure of the exact threshold there.

However, if I had to move out and find a local property with space to house my kids, and I wasn't the RP, I wouldn't be able to on my wages. Definitely not 50/50, so I'd owe my husband CM which would leave me with even less money.

There's no way any place I'd have to consider would have a dining room to turn into a bedroom 😂 We would be talking a studio or one.bedroom if I was lucky to house 3 kids of both genders and different ages.

Parents can take responsibility for their children without the state providing 2 homes for the children because their parents split up. It's not easy but it can be done.

You look at this as the parents need to be supported =2 sets of homes/ benefit payment, but in reality the state supports the child = one home / benefits payment.
You forget, that the parents are adults, they are able to work an can make decisions for themselves and their children independently from the state.

You'd do better if you lobby for fair wages, better access to flexible working for parents and affordable childcare.

One easy thing to speak about are salary increases for MPs. But this thread isn't about that. Things cost what they cost.

Lone parent here. Not quite sure why I should pay more tax to a couple who can't get their financial shit under control.

I agree that women will often stay in a relationship longer than they should for financial reasons but this is why we educate our girls that financial independence is the most important thing, they don't have kids until they establish that and a career so they always have a way out.

Reducing MPs salarys would provide a tiny saving.

So you’re confirming you don’t know what crap the government is wasting money on, but you want it to stop. You have no idea what level taxation should be at, and you don’t know what taxes companies should be paying? So you just think you can magic up free money.

I do lobby for all of those things and have said twice that high enough wages would cover this. People can't take responsibility for their kids in the way that you're saying because it is really impossible for a lot of parents to remain a commutable distance from their co-parent after a split.

There are many aspects of the welfare state I am more than happy to fund for a fair and compassionate society. But no, the taxpayer should not be on the hook to plug the gap in living standards when a couple decide to split a household into two. Absolutely ridiculous abdication of responsibility.

That's one thing. Collecting tax from the rich shirkers would generate masses of income. And as I said, things cost what they cost. Having a healthier society with equal opportunities would only ever be an advantage when it comes to creating a productive workforce. People would be healthier in situations where they can leave a relationship with the means to still be an active and involved parent.

That suggests they should be punished for being unable to make it work which is my entire point.

What would you consider a rich shirker? What level of taxation would you implement? Equal opportunities, are you trying to claim high paying jobs and professional careers aren’t available to parents?

People who hide their income so they don't pay the tax they should.

Such as?

The vast number of tax evaders we have in the UK...

You are entitled

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/20/hmrc-has-not-charged-a-single-company-over-tax-evasion-under-landmark-legislation

It isn’t ‘punishing’ people because their standard of living is lower when single vs living as a couple.

By that logic every single person in Britain should be subsidised to the equivalent of having a second earner in their household. Which is obviously not sustainable.