Astounded that this is actually legal

[movingthemountains]

A friend of mine has 4 children, 1 with her ex partner from years ago and 3 with her husband. They have been separated for a year and plan to divorce eventually. He moved out of their rental property and now lives with his mum. He doesn’t work, never has really, apart from the odd job here and then over the years but it’s never lasted. She works part time, 2 days a week. They share the kids 50/50 and it’s all amicable.

Due to the two child benefit cap, which applies since the youngest 2,were born after 2017, they are unable to claim for all 4 kids simultaneously. As a result, they each claim benefits for 2 kids instead.
He receives between £900-£1000, a substantial amount considering he has no rent or bills to cover. It’s wild that they can pull this off, but if they were living together, it wouldn’t be possible.

AIBU to feel shocked by this?

Additionally, before anyone suggests that this is just a bait (generally how these threads go), friends do talk, you know!

Yes. Let them focus on bettering themselves, not adding to the burden the rest of us work hard to support.

Most of these people deal their own bad hands.

As to the weak and whiny “things can change in an instant” bullshit: yes things can. That’s why responsible, prudent people plan for adversity, save for emergency and use contraception. Not procreate thoughtlessly with taxpayer funded dole as plan A, B, C and D.

In order for society to run, there has to be a load of unskilled workers. A massive percentage of our workforce don't earn enough to guarantee their children will always be alright. So unless we reshape and rebalance society to prevent the need for poor people, you are creating a second class citizen, who are allowed to work physical and demanding jobs but not to have the home life that they deserve. It's a matter of human dignity, they aren't worker bees.

We are developing into a strange society where children are viewed as a burden and not a blessing.

We have a massive demographic issue including a declining birth rate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvj3j27nmro.amp

Women are averaging 1.44 births, which means we are reducing the home born population by more than a quarter every generation.

If we didn’t have any old people to support, that could by some of the wilder (mad) environmentalists be seen as a blessing. But we do have lots and lots of pensioners.

That means we either need to become a lot poorer, encourage massive immigration or have bigger families. There are no other choices.

Of course we need to avoid generations of benefit takers and encourage social mobility meaningfully. But, assuming that can be done, even if a child grows up supported by benefits, they will repay this investment many fold by their lifetime’s work and tax payments.

I am sure there are many on here who grew up in poverty but are now massive tax payers. Too many on here would have seen their parents as feckless rather than borrowing from the state to fund an amazing investment!

The benefits system is insane in the UK. Those chancers are just playing the system.

This stood out. 'But, assuming that can be done, even if a child grows up supported by benefits, they will repay this investment many fold by their lifetime’s work and tax payments.

REALLY, can you guarantee they won't claim benefits?

The welfare state was introduced to help people in their hour of need NOT as a lifestyle choice. We should go back to that and only pay benefits out to those that have contributed.

Blanket rule: no previous contributions no benefits

@Pistachioitaliano ,

‘The welfare state was introduced to help people in their hour of need NOT as a lifestyle choice. We should go back to that and only pay benefits out to those that have contributed.’

Fundamentally, I agree. But child benefit is for the child, not the parent. And the child clearly has to pay in arrears unless you want to return to young chimney sweeps?!

Pay in arrears? What exactly about a life on benefits inspires children to become captains of industry?

No, if someone has a child at 25.they could have been working (contributing) 7 years.

Get what you can out of them. They don't care about the less well off, so do whatever it takes to improve life

The real question is why she has had 3 kids with somebody who has - your words - no intention of getting a job!

I’m interested to know how he is getting that amount? Can you explain OP, since you seem to k who what he gets, what elements etc

Don't foster resentment. Either report the matter or forget about it.

If the government wants people to have more kids, they need to provide financial incentives for people already based in the UK. But what do they do instead?
Allow mass immigration so that immigrants can work(pay tax) and have kids instead, that's how the UK have been stabilising the population all this time.
It is honestly no surprise birth rates have gone down, child benefit is a pittance and everyone who is middle class suffers.

If it is good for the child and that allows dad to pay food and other stuff when they are in their care…then it is what it has been made for.

Not sure anything is “pulled of”.

Just FYI

• Two-child limit: If you have more than two children born on or after 6 April 2017, you may not be eligible for additional benefits for those children through Universal Credit or Child Tax Credit, but this doesn't affect Child Benefit.

All children are entitled to child benefit- but you can't get other benefits - regardless of where the children live

Not illegal but it's just another weird rule on UC. There's so much they need to fix, I'm not going to start on the self-employed rules there but I'm left with 2 kids and no eligibility, hoping my income and savings hold up.

My daughter and SIL would have loved to expand their family but they stopped at 2 because that was manageable and they could afford to provide 2 with a decent standard of living and in the worst circumstances close family could have helped financially with only those children.

It's not a case of "Been able to pull this off". It's perfectly acceptable for her to claim for 2 and him claim for two if they don't live together and share 50/50 custody. Had the custody been 80-20 then the parent without would have been reduced to claiming for 2 only. It's exactly how they advise 50/50 custody parents to claim I know this due to a friend having 3 kids. She isn't able to claim for all 3 so she claims for dest two. Dad claims for youngest. They were advised to ensure they agreed to 50/50 and didn't change this agreement. Otherwise only one would be eligible if the split was altered.

What would you like to see done with the £900-£1000 that he is claiming?

I’d rather it supports a family than wasted in government consultancy fees or MP expenses. As benefit claims are per household I don’t think he is doing anything wrong.

Ot’s laughable that people get so offended over such a small amount of money in the big scheme of things. They’re hardly living in luxury with that amount over the course of the year.

Of ALL the financial corruption in this country, particularly in government, this is what is irritating you? The government PR machine is working well then!

It sounds like OP thinks this man should be supported by his own mum, and not by UC... even though 2/3rds of his UC is actually for his kids, and their mum gets the same.

OP is talking about the child element of UC, not child benefit.

Why shouldn’t this man support himself, not live off his Mum; and support his own children rather than allowing the state to do it?

He is not working so gets UC. He gets the child element for 2 children, and the mother of the other two children gets the same. His mum not charging him for bills etc is up to her.

You could say that about anyone, male or female. It's the eternal question.