Couples who live separately so they get additional financial support

[slimline]

A couple I know got married over a year ago, yet they still live separately. She has two children from a previous relationship and lives in a 3 bed house. He lives in a 2 bed house and has no children. I mention the size of their homes because it’s clear that there is ample space for the entire family to live under one roof. I can’t think of any other reason for their separate living arrangements (considering they have made a commitment to each other through marriage) aside from financial security, as her eldest child has SEN and she doesn’t work. He is working, which I assume could complicate things if he were to move in. Yes, I understand it’s legal, but I can’t help but think they’re taking advantage of the system in some way. This isn't the first time I've heard of couples or families living apart in order to increase their income. I’m ready to be accused of benefit bashing or called all the names under the sun. Don’t care sorry!

Don't disagree with you OP. It is unfortunate, but a lot of people see benefits as an "entitlement" as though it is some endless pot of money, and not something that everyone in society should contribute to responsibly and use responsibly.

I agree that it a couple are in a serious enough relationship that they have chosen to get married, they ought to consider combining their homes and income to minimise dependence on benefits.

The top and bottom of it is they are doing nothing wrong, I can see you are really bitter about contributing to the welfare system but whether they live together or not it will make zero difference to how much tax you pay. Would you get some personal satisfaction about this particular couple being financially worse off? Your tax is also going towards foreign aid and government debt, they have spent millions on external consultants, tens of thousands on office refurbs, obscure art projects, statues all sorts of shite and there’s absolutely fuck all you can do about it. Personally I’d rather work full time than rely on the state so even if someone on benefits takes home the same money as me I wouldn’t wish to swap places, not everyone hates working but if you do I can see why this gets under your skin. There’s a lot of people doing much worse but if, like you say, it should be challenged then challenge it with them. This would not bother me at all but each to their own

I understand your frustration where you see unfairness in the systems, however if you really want to make some change, rather than complain on here, why don’t you lobby your MP!

Even if you were to stop paying anything out of your income tax for people of working age (non disabled) and their children, the amount you’d stop paying is negligible, maybe 3-4%. If it were reduced only for those that may take advantage of the systems, then it would be far less given it amounts to less than 1% of government spending overall.

So, based on that logic, it just seems like the issue isn’t the money as such. Are you equally cross about spending money more widely on benefits, so disabled adults, or maybe pensioners? Maybe foreign aid? Otherwise it doesn’t seem worth your ire to be so clearly disgruntled by the real impact on you, which as it seems is financially negligible.

Lastly, you know nothing about this family from what it seems. Maybe her disabled child doesn’t like the husband, maybe change pushes him off base, maybe, perhaps mum would love the husband to move in and give her some support. Maybe the mum is up all night with her disabled child!

Maybe have a touch of compassion for a situation you know nothing about.

Have a chat with the unscrupulous ultra rich who divert their money all over the place to avoid paying tax on it! Not a woman with an SEN child living apart from her husband to make her life financially viable!

A really sensible and logical post 👍

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

To be honest whenever there is such bitterness about contribution to the welfare system I do wonder if the person it's from realises they might be, unless they have a very significant level of savings and assets, in need of it if a life altering event crops up. I know many in my ine of work who have had a stroke, accident, other sudden life event in 30s/40s or 50s - right across the board - suddenly in a completely different situation who have needed to apply for benefits when they literally never thought it could be them.

I think if married you should be treated as living together even if you aren’t. But why did they bother getting married?
The rules should be changed but I suppose is very complicated.

Mind your own business, is your own life really that boring. 🥱

Because they love each other and want to future proof their financial arrangements in case of death? Its increasingly common for couples in second relationships where children are involved to not do the 'we come as a package' thing and maintain their relationship largely separately from their parenting. In time, most kids will grow and be independent at which point they may or may not decide to cohabit but either way, a second adult who is NOT a child's parent should have no obligation to provide for that child rather than its own parents and state support where appropriate.

Yeh it’s rubbish, it’s just people taking advantage of a system but legal.

lt's only legal if they have formally informed DWP that they are married.

I guess if this child has a step father with an income large enough to run a home alone, it’s reasonable to expect the step father to support his family rather than the tax payers

I disagree with this, I would rather a child’s step parent contribute towards them than me as a taxpayer

Then they should wait to get married then! And just date. For benefits it’s a loophole that should be closed.
It’s not fair that they want the best bits but not the bad. They are either married or a dating couple.
In this situation I wouldn’t have him move in either BUT I wouldn’t have got married!

OP, you sound genuinely genuinely horrible. Its none of your business, there may well be reasons they have chose to live this way none of which theyve chosen to discuss with you. In the 2 or so hours you took to reply like a cword to everyone yesterday I hope that SEN mom spent in the sunshine with her child and her husband not givjng you a single thought. Something deeply rotten about you.

It’s entirely possible that the couple are doing this for financial reasons. Maybe it doesn’t work for either of them to create that kind of financial situation.

She has two children and maybe they’ve decided they don’t want to live together whilst her children are young. They may not want him to live there, he might not want to live with them full time.

He might struggle with the childs needs.

It sounds like there could be pretty sensible reasons despite loving each other and wanting to be committed to each other. Yes they could have stayed in a relationship and not got married but maybe they wanted to.

I wish more couples were more creative and thoughtful about how to make relationships and blended families work.

But who are you to decide what other marriages look like. You can decide what you do but you have no say about anyone else.

I absolutely celebrate that people have realised that just because it’s what’s expected, it doesn’t mean you can’t live a different way.

What if you are married but the relationship has broken down? Are you saying people should have to stay living in the same house and be financially reliant on each other until a divorce goes through

The kids aren't" his" family though

@SplishSplash123 blended families have very different issues to a couple of child free singles choosing to live together.

Fathers should pay for their children not the state, women that can’t support themselves shouldn’t have children?

If they're married then they get UC as joint applicants. If they've not told DWP they're married that's 1 thing.
However as a parent of kids in receipt of DLA - it's hard work. Having a refuge kid-free house makes a helluva lot of sense to me.

Why? Its irrelevant if they're married or not if they are maintaining separate homes. There's been quite a few posters whi have explained they're in that exact situation, often due to the emotional needs of children from prior relationships. The reasons to get married are personal and possibly to do with legal protection/ next of kin issues but what's 'not fair' about it? I dont understand this argument.

Of course not - did you read the part of my post that said employers should pay wages high enough that they don’t need to be topped up by tax credits? You seem determined to take offence and find me a bad person. Saying there should be more shame around claiming benefits doesn’t mean I support a return to the workhouse or that every person claiming should be ashamed of themselves.

Are you 5?

You ABU and rude and it’s still none of your business