Avoiding spousal maintenance

[Schleich]

Hello,

I'm going through a separation at the moment, and we are trying to construct the financial settlement between us to be as fair and tax efficient as possible.

I am a relatively low earner, and would be entitled to a significant amount of universal credit - I have no savings or any other assets (nor does STBXDH) other than the family home.

I understand that child maintenance does not affect universal credit, but spousal maintenance does. Is there anything to stop us agreeing an artificially high child maintenance monthly payment instead of separate child maintenance and spousal maintenance payments, to avoid losing out on universal credit?

Also, STBXDH has suggested setting up a joint bank account (which only he will pay into as the high earner), which we are both able to use to pay for all costs relating to the children. Would this impact on universal credit? Does anyone see any issues with this?

Thanks!

OP why ca't you train for a job which will earn you enough, rather than artificially manipulate figures so that taxpayers (the rest of us) have to support you?

Oh I read your last thread and I was really sympathetic. But not now. I hope you get shopped for benefit fraud if you try and structure your finances to claim benefits while sending your children to private school.

You and your husband have been financially reckless - you gambled away the equity in your home on a failed business. You and your children are unfortunately going to suffer for that mistake and you need to stop burying your head in the sand.

You cannot afford private school. You cannot afford 5 bedroom houses. You've blown it and the sooner you admit that to yourselves and your children the better.

Circumstances change, it's not down to the government to provide funds to maintain your level of lifestyle choices. Children move schools all the time including during those GCSE years

Exactly. And let's remember it's not "the government" funding your lifestyle choices. It's taxpayers - may of whom cannot afford school fees themselves.

OP you need to go for as much of the assets as possible then get a clean break order.

If he can't afford a house to have them all so has to rent a flat so be it as they are teenagers.

In regards to screwing up your kids doing GCSEs education - work on convincing your ex to pay for them to finish and send them to a state school or college

At the same time work in maximising your earnings.

Why is it right that mum gets a house to have all the kids but dad doesn’t?

He’s equally their parent

@RedRumTheHorse

OP you need to go for as much of the assets as possible then get a clean break order.

If he can't afford a house to have them all so has to rent a flat so be it as they are teenagers.

In regards to screwing up your kids doing GCSEs education - work on convincing your ex to pay for them to finish and send them to a state school or college

At the same time work in maximising your earnings.

Op should do this too then? She can't afford a 'house' for the kids... Her STBXH can, but not if he's paying for the op.

Go to the turn2us website and play with the figures to work out your best outcome.
'play' with the figures??! Seriously? No wonder do many people wrongly look at people on benefits negatively as THIS is what people think is true. Living a 'fancy' life from the state, not living hand to mouth in deplorable circumstances for some!

@millymollymoomoo

Why is it right that mum gets a house to have all the kids but dad doesn’t?

He’s equally their parent

Whoever is the main carer of the kids needs the majority of the assets to house them. As the OP has been the main carer of the kids so far then she can argue that this is her.

It may not be fair to the parents but the kids need somewhere to live without their lives being completely turned upside down.

Can people let me know what jobs op can train for at this stage of her life that will allow her to put four children through private school. Id love to know!

@RedRumTheHorse I'm not sure she can though - on either this thread or the other one OP confirmed that her ex was as involved as her and had also taken time out of work to look after the children. They aren't babies anymore and the OP also confirmed that they wouldn't all choose to live with her or they had the choice (which they should do at their age)

What Zaffa said.

The OP has already said she can earn £35K in her role and will get £1000 per month from her ex. She was part of their joint failed business. They have a good income at the moment but are not able to save money because they spend it all.

The children are teens. They intend to be 50:50 on care and she has said some of them may live with their father.

The OP doesn’t need to train to put her kids through public school. She needs to accept they can’t afford it. She doesn’t need the 5 bed house she wants either. She needs to accept she can’t afford it. She perfectly able to work full time and live in a small house without tax payers funding her unnecessary aspirations.

I think really OP if you want to maintain your current lifestyle as your main priority you'll need to remain married. If you divorce it isn't possible for two people to maintain the same lifestyle in separate houses they could previously only afford in one, you would need to bring in double the income you did as a couple and it doesn't sound like that is possible.

I don't know why you are divorcing but you do have to accept that by doing so, your lifestyle must change. Your husband isn't going to sacrifice his own lifestyle to improve yours - no matter what he says now. What happens when he meets a new partner, gets married or has more children?

and surely it is reasonable to try to structure our financial agreements in the best way to achieve that if government support is dependent on that structuring?
You are coming up with the exact same arguments albeit adapted to your personal wants to justify getting extra money because you think you deserve it and your family luxuries are a must.

You can twist it as much as you want in your mind to the point of being totally convinced by your reasoning, it won't take away that small voice at the back that tells you that it is immoral and makes you a not very good person.

You wouldn't get spousal maintenance if this was put before a court and even if you did it would be very short term. I'd agree to an inflated amount of maintenance instead and definitely no joint bank account. However, remember he could stop paying this at any time and you'd have to go through the CMS.

As PP, dad is present and active and will have 50:50, so OP is necessarily ‘ primary career’. People on mn always want to have that narrative when in RL that’s often not the case

Honestly OP I think you've been reading too much on here. You really need a lot more legal advice that you'll have to pay for than the 30 mins you've had.

Right now you think you're entitled to receive hundreds every month in child maintenence, despite splitting the responsibilities equally with your ex, school fees paid in full by ex, half of all other child related expenses paid by ex, 70% of pensions, and all of the house equity. And on top of that you want spousal maintenence! How exactly will he afford that, even on a £100K salary (it's not as much after tax as people think)? You're living in dreamland! You're taking your ex for a mug, his solicitor will have a good laugh at those claims!

I think what's happened is you've lived a champagne lifestyle and you don't want it to end. The joint assets you have are not a lot considering your joint earnings, so clearly you've both been enjoying spending, not saving or investing. But that life has stopped now you've split up.

I suggest you start by being realistic. The starting point for any settlement is 50/50.

I'm sorry you're separating but you need to get real and get proper legal advice or you could find yourself in a very difficult situation financially. You are getting divorced so your ex's salary is no longer yours to spend.

The best advice I can give is to try to support yourself independently as far as possible while working out a solution that works for both of you and your children.

@Zombot you nailed it.

She perfectly able to work full time and live in a small house without tax payers funding her unnecessary aspirations

Exactly, @LemonTT

I'm finding some of the OP's thinking to be shockingly complacent. Doesn't want to give up a nice free-spending lifestyle? Well, you know, don't divorce then ...

I'm all for having a society which recognises the huge amount of unpaid work that women do in raising children & keeping families going, but there is a limit. When I see women I know working 3 jobs, just to keep a home for their children, the OP's planning seems, well - entitled.

So you want to have your cake and eat it? You want to get universal credit, even though you shouldn't be entitled to it? Because you'd get spousal maintenance?

My god there is a bucketful of judgement here - on a site that loves nothing more than to call out judgemental behaviour.. The likes of Clymene 'hoping' the OP gets 'shopped for benefit fraud' for what fraud exactly Clymene. ? I advised her (32 years with DWP/DSS ) to go to the turn2us website and play with the figures. Then make any claim that is payable , based on declaring all income /property legally held by her. Where is that remotely fraudulent? As a fraud officer I would LOVE to have the benefit of your knowledge. The only possible attempt at a prosecution would be for 'deprivation of assets' which wouldn't even get pass the public interest threshold if the financial agreement is rubber stamped by the court as an order !

I see absolutely no wrong in using available state benefits to increase the family welfare in terms of stable housing or stable schooling at the time of divorce... or are you saying that benefits should only be payable to those who choose to avoid work, take drugs, neglect their children etc .. having NEVER paid into the system..
Furthermore- if we are really going to get on our moral high horse about who should and should not be able to claim state support - surely OPs family - where the STBEDH has been a High Tate tax payer and has therefore paid in more than most .. has more 'right' than many ? (Not that I agree to any moral stance related to benefits. They are an entitlement (or not) by law. If you fulfil the conditions of entitlement - you have as much right as the next person. Moral judgement is not part of the t's&c's.

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

My god there is a bucketful of judgement here - on a site that loves nothing more than to call out judgemental behaviour.. The likes of Clymene 'hoping' the OP gets 'shopped for benefit fraud' for what fraud exactly Clymene. ? I advised her (32 years with DWP/DSS ) to go to the turn2us website and play with the figures. Then make any claim that is payable , based on declaring all income /property legally held by her. Where is that remotely fraudulent? As a fraud officer I would LOVE to have the benefit of your knowledge. The only possible attempt at a prosecution would be for 'deprivation of assets' which wouldn't even get pass the public interest threshold if the financial agreement is rubber stamped by the court as an order !

I see absolutely no wrong in using available state benefits to increase the family welfare in terms of stable housing or stable schooling at the time of divorce... or are you saying that benefits should only be payable to those who choose to avoid work, take drugs, neglect their children etc .. having NEVER paid into the system..
Furthermore- if we are really going to get on our moral high horse about who should and should not be able to claim state support - surely OPs family - where the STBEDH has been a High Tate tax payer and has therefore paid in more than most .. has more 'right' than many ? (Not that I agree to any moral stance related to benefits. They are an entitlement (or not) by law. If you fulfil the conditions of entitlement - you have as much right as the next person. Moral judgement is not part of the t's&c's.

I am perfectly ok with judging the OP based on what she has said and posted.

I didn’t judge the benefits system or people who use them.

And objectively, the OP isn’t helping herself. She is replacing reliance on one man to reliance on that man and state. All the while continuing to “ “sacrifice”her earning potential. Once her kids grow up, she losses all that income and is stuck in a low wage job without the capital for a home or a pension in retirement.

She is choosing low wages and dependency when she doesn’t have to. But she will again expect others to bail her out.

She is choosing low wages and dependency when she doesn’t have to. But she will again expect others to bail her out.

As is her right. If that is what she chooses !
By that argument EVERY single parent who chooses to have a child when unemployed or unable to afford a child on their income but makes a choice to continue the pregnancy knowing that the state will pay.

The same parent is then at liberty to have another child , knowing the state will pay again. Limiting her to at least 6 years of low wage and /or unemployment due to child care. When the decision to NOT have a child would enable her to 'maximise her potential' .
Yet time and time again on here , pregnant women are advised ' do what's best for you, don't have a termination if you don't want one. ' You have a choice' !

So 'choice' of lifestyle' is not open to all then ? The OPS lifestyle choice to use the benefit system for the benefit of her family is of less value than a jobless pregnant woman making her choice to have a child funded by the state when she doesn't 'need' to ?

Benefits are not governed by morals. Should they be ? That's a very dangerous road..

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

She is choosing low wages and dependency when she doesn’t have to. But she will again expect others to bail her out.

As is her right. If that is what she chooses !
By that argument EVERY single parent who chooses to have a child when unemployed or unable to afford a child on their income but makes a choice to continue the pregnancy knowing that the state will pay.

The same parent is then at liberty to have another child , knowing the state will pay again. Limiting her to at least 6 years of low wage and /or unemployment due to child care. When the decision to NOT have a child would enable her to 'maximise her potential' .
Yet time and time again on here , pregnant women are advised ' do what's best for you, don't have a termination if you don't want one. ' You have a choice' !

So 'choice' of lifestyle' is not open to all then ? The OPS lifestyle choice to use the benefit system for the benefit of her family is of less value than a jobless pregnant woman making her choice to have a child funded by the state when she doesn't 'need' to ?

Benefits are not governed by morals. Should they be ? That's a very dangerous road..

If there is a logical argument in there then I can’t see it.

But if it helps you see where I am coming from. I don’t want any woman or person to be poor and dependent. Relying on the state and an ex husband is not a good place to be in. She can make a choice but it needs to be informed.

Btw, Our benefits system is a function of our societal ethics. How we design our benefits system is therefore governed by our morality. That’s why you are a fraud investigator.

But again, I am not judging the benefits system. I am judging the OP and I am fine with that.

Tbh, I probably wouldn't have posted anything if the OP hadn't made that nasty crack about sky tv and IPhones.

I thought benefits were designed to lift people out of poverty rather than enable people to keep 4 children in private school and live in 5 bedroom houses.

Obviously I should look at turn2us and see if I can claim anything to enable me to live a more affluent lifestyle.

Btw, Our benefits system is a function of our societal ethics. How we design our benefits system is therefore governed by our morality. That’s why you are a fraud investigator.

and that 'morality' is translated in to legislation. Defined by the Social Security Act, Which allows benefit to be paid if the claimant satisfies the 'conditions of entitlement ' for the benefit being claimed. This applies equally to all people. If you are entitled. You are entitled. There are no appendices or caveats that make benefit non-payable , because you are a pregnant 19yr old or a divorced 43 yr old mother of 2 with an ex husband. The law is the law.

Your judgement of the OP is that she shouldn't become dependent on the state. Yet, the state does not say that, if the criteria are met. You argue that she has choices. I agree. She has a choice to be dependent if she so chooses that as the best thing for her family. In the same way that single parents have a choice not to be dependent by not becoming single parent, or to have the child and depend on benefit.

There is no difference, except one of timing. A woman expecting a child or one that already has one. Both looking to do the best for their children.

Unless you are advocating that jobless woman with no financial security who choose to continue a pregnancy should not receive state support either , because it harms their chances of finding well paid work and hinders their life chances. ? That's a whole different question about the states provision of social welfare and whether it should even exist. Yet while it does, it is there for all who qualify according to the law.