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!

Theyre doing nothing wrong

But you don’t actually know anything about their finances? Including for example what support she gets from her family, childrens ex or from her new DH?

DSis did this - absolutely no benefits. Plenty of complicated reasons on both sides. Now happily living together.

Tell that to these children’s fathers. They should be paying, not evading.

All the posters saying 'mind your own business' are part of the problem.

When couples are doing this (and there are two where I work doing this) it takes up two houses, usually claiming as a single parent whilst the taxpayer supports them.
Don't you think part of the housing problem would be solved if fathers were actually made accountable (like they are in the US) for taking care of the families they have created?
Why SHOULD the tax payer pay extra to support families where both parents are actually present, for kids these people have chosen to create?
It's everyone's damn business.

And the one family I know of who lived separately where he was actually paying for both households, it turned out while she was doing all the parenting, he was banging everything that moved.

Who said he is? It wouldn’t impact her benefits either way

I do not live with my DP. We do not want to live together anyway.
I am on UC, and he is not. We would both be a lot worse off if we lived together.

Ah so it is benefit bashing just not about these specific people, I suppose you have a mental list of who is "entitled" and who isn't.

No, I do not believe that women should seek out men to depend on financially. However, if a woman has made a commitment to a relationship through marriage, then I believe they should combine their resources, instead of living apart in order to maximise benefits.

He’s not their father

Idiots gotta idiot....

Only if they live in the same household.

I never said they were benefit claimants. Stop making things up lol

This I would neither want to live with so eone else's kid s and definitely not be financially responsible for them

I know a husband and wife who don’t live together. They each owned separate properties and both have always lived independent lives. They’ve been together for about 15 years now, they see each other one night during the week and then spend each weekend at one or the others house. They’re perfectly happy with the set up and seem a very happy couple.
No kids though and no benefits that I know of, so does that make it okay for them to want to live separately op?!

Quite a few people have pointed out several
other valid reasons why living together may not make sense for them

There is a magic money tree. It's called wealth tax, universal basic income, state investment in renewable energy, taking water back into public ownership, sorting out and investing in school and sen provision so that fewer people get on the treadmill to low earnings, preventative community healthcare so people don't have such poor and expensive MH, and also expensive prison sentences which mean we have to build more expensive prisons. It's called rejoining the EU so we can benefit from shared resources, it's called welcoming innovative immigrants and boosting green growth by giving them jobs. Above all it's called regulation that stems the absolute bleeding of all our national wealth into the pockets of private equity. Why is it more expensive to take your dog to the vet or your child to the dentist these days? It's because the magic money tree is shaking its golden leaves into the baskets of billionaires. It's called impact investment and community wealth building.

There is a whole forest of magic money trees.

But we can't plant them, we can't have all these good things, because people like you, OP, don't educate yourself about how the world really works, and would rather sit with the emotion of punitive, mean spirited zero-sum-game resource management.

I understsnd your frustration OP. I too give in to mine - actually here, I know damn well that me saying this just adds to the polarisation and doesn't help you change your mind. But I sometimes I too give in to frustration.

Yes, evading fathers should be made responsible for child support. I’ve asked about this on the Rachel Reeves web chat thread (closes tomorrow!)

Sanctions are not being used, despite being available.

How many government ministers over how many years have come on MN and said they’ll deal with it? And yet still hundreds of thousands of men owe billions to their own children. They walk away and hand off their children and their responsibilities to the mothers and the taxpayer.

But you don't know what their reasons are. You're guessing, at best. Making assumptions about the ins and outs of someone else's relationship. You can't see what is going in and out of their bank accounts. You don't know what contributions each is making financially to their situation.

You very clearly indicated just that. Lol at you too.

In reality it’s nothing to do with you none of your business and nothing for you to use the space in your brain worrying about.

It’s a completely different situation, because they’re not relying on the state to fund their lives.

If lived together his Income would be treated as hers so likely she would lose a lot of rent being paid /and uc and new husband would be supporting his wife and step kids

which is the way it should be esp as married

but obv they live alone. She gets everything paid for as can’t work due to sn child

No, I didn’t. Learn to read.

He wouldn't necessarily be better off. He's then on the hook for 4 people's expense.

I do know someone who was a single mum of 2. Got tax credits housing benefit etc. He boyfriend lived in a shared house paying £80 a week inclusive.

If they had lived together she'd have lost all her benefits and he's be expected to support her kids and her. Would cost him much more

The jealousy is just oozing out of you.

Let me guess, this man turned you down?