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.

Such as? Can you provide specific examples and how you would like tax collection to be implemented?

Surely if we did increase revenue through taxation, there are better uses than providing people with two homes, such as NHS, education, public transport, care services for the elderly and disabled.

That is always the line 'take from the rich'.
If it was that easy to do that, dint you think one if our governments wouod have figured that out. And if they do manage it, there is a queue of public services lining up for it.

Taxing the rich has been shown time and time again to be an ineffective financial policy. We tax big companies 10% for example - 10% of 10 million is a million in the public purse. We tax them more and they take their company abroad (like Google moving to Ireland which has low tax) and not only do we lose their tax, we lose the tax paid by those they employ. 50% of zero is much worse than 10% of a lot.

So you think it should be rewarded?

Or deficit in disposable income when split over 2 households should be topped up by the state?

Nuts.

You're providing children with homes. No adult would be entitled to two homes. It would be the parents of dependents so their parents have the means to parent them.

I can’t afford to run two homes “in the middle of London” either. I actually can’t afford one, which is why I don’t live there anymore and you can forget me paying more tax so your kids can have 2 bedrooms each in the middle of London because you accidentally had kids with someone “toxic”.
If you choose to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world then you will have to make compromises as to what you can afford and how long your commute is. If you only have your kids 50% of the time you can work a second job to help fund their extra bedroom. If the country was swimming in money I would rather it went on things like surestart, youth clubs, subsidised sport, integrated and subsidised public transport than to single people who want the income of a couple without any of that tedious compromising .

But why is it the state's job to pay? The NRP needs to step up and earn more, not whine that they can't afford to house their own children.

Punishment is a bizarre word to use here. If I start a marathon and drop out half way, am I then being 'punished' when I don't get a medal?

You decided to have kids. You decided to split up. It's your responsibility to make that work.

Living costs are ridiculously high and something should be done, agreed, but we need systemic change that would benefit everyone not just free money for parents who share 50:50 custody.

Not sure you’ve got the best argument here OP.

You want the ‘rich shirkers’ to pay more tax so… you personally can receive additional cash to run your household, to keep you in the style to which you were accustomed pre-divorce.

Work more hours. Move. Take responsibility for your own children.
Can't believe how absolutely entitled you sound.

I think that people should have certain entitlements. Whether they have split up or their parents have split up shouldn't mess with said entitlements.

I think one of those entitlements should be that dependents are considered when assessing the financial situation of parents so both parents are counted as people who need to support dependents. Not just one person who is allocated the RP. And this especially goes for situations where custody is 50/50.

Working and moving would mean you cannot be there to actually have your children which ultimately puts more burden on the RP (usually the mother) to sacrifice their own working life and social life etc to actually parent the kids.

The fact a lot of dads have to move to a place that they can never do the school run burdens mothers.

So you can’t give any examples. I’m providing my children with a home, because I made sure I could provide the basics before I had them, thats what responsible parents do. If a parent wants their child to have two homes, they then need to increase their income via a better paying job, a second job etc. I

No, I'd want to be able to leave if I wanted to and leave my kids with their dad in their home if it was best for them, and still be able to give them a home close to where their friends and family are so I could also do my share of parenting.

I think you're getting a bit confused. You've set out on your life journey, chosen a partner, chosen whether and how many children to have, chosen what jobs to have, chosen where in the country to live, and chosen to split up. Nobody made any of those decisions except you. Whether together or apart, if neither of you have enough money to care for your children then you get benefits, which ensures adequate housing. When you're together, the state won't pay for you to have extra bedrooms and when you're separated they don't fund extra bedrooms except for the two adults who won't share. There is nothing removed, collectively you actually get more, so to call it "punished" is inaccurate.

I'd like a 7000 sq foot detached home in London actually. Is the state punishing me by not just giving it to me because that's what I want? No, there will always be a cut-off and then those wanting more work to get more (and most commonly settle for smaller homes because they can't afford it!).

So what would stop couples from deciding (or pretending) to live apart, and then claiming double the benefits?

I've given lots of examples. And yes the view that one shouldn't have kids if they need welfare assistance is a view as I've said earlier, but it's against everyone on benefits so it's sort of irrelevant to this discussion about extending benefits. Your contribution here could be summarised as "I think benefits should be stopped altogether".

Tens of billions already being spent on the benefits bill and sick and disabled facing cuts and you are asking for more to be given to parents who choose to split and maintain two households? Sorry but it isn't going to happen.

So you think CB should be given to each parent who has a child?

So a couple in a single home gets 3 lots. But a separated couple gets 6 lots.

Exactly this.

We already know that plenty already do this ! However big crackdowns are coming on benefit fraud too.

Not much but that already occurs now. There would be little.point really because you'd have the costs of two homes in terms of rent and CT and that's what you'd be allocated. It isn't as if you can pretend to have the second home and not pay on it while receiving money for it.

The only example you provided was the MPs salary increase, which would generate a very very very small amount of revenue.

It isn’t against everyone on benefits, benefits should be for people who have an actual need, not for people who fancy a bigger home who don’t want to increase their income to pay for it. Benefits are about needs, they aren’t about wants and desires.

at what point does the parent in the situation have to take responsibility for a situation they created?

That is an excellent question.

No I think CB should be irrelevant to whether you're counted as someone with dependents on a UC form. Right now, unless you are the RP, even if you have 50/50.custody, only the person with CB is considered as someone who needs a 2bed vs a 1bed.

You’d obviously sublet it