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!

Clyme as is your right. ! You may decide that you don't wish to. Again that's your choice but don't confuse YOUR morals with the law.

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

You keep missing the point. The morality being criticised is the OP’s not the legal morality of statutes. And actually it’s her husband’s as well. Nobody else’s morality. Not that of a jobless single mother or anyone else.

FWIW We are governed by society’s ethics and morality. But we have own own codes. And we can live by higher standards than those set by the law. In matters of tax avoidance or smacking children for example. I don’t think either is morally right either.

She asked for opinion on her choices and her morality. It’s been given. You have given yours. You don’t have to police the thread to remove judgements and opinions you don’t like.

disorganisedsecretsquirrel

I’ve been watching this thread with interest. I think you nailed it. I hadn’t personally seen it like that initially, but I can see your point. Which was brilliantly written.

I’m not sure how anyone could accuse you of removing judgements and opinions you don’t like (seeing as you haven’t nor have the power to). Particularly as this thread has been entirely based on that by others.

I'm neither policing the thread nor giving judgement. In fact it's the opposite. I am saying it's about choice.

Your morals are yours alone to adhere to, as long as you don't break the law.

The OP asks if anyone can see any 'issues' with her Ex DH paying her higher than required CM to avoid it being calculated as income for UC. She didn't ask for a moral judgement as far as I can see - she just wanted to know if UC processes would have issues with it.

The answer I have given relates to the law. No there are no issues. It's perfectly legal. Therefore she is as entitled as anyone to claim as long as everything is correctly declared.

The comparison with tax avoidance is correct. It's legal, you can do it. Is it moral ? Well that's up to the individual. Depending on their circumstances. As we do not know all the minutiae of the OPs affairs, it is not possible to say and even then, your moral values are irrelevant. You are not her.

[quote LemonTT]@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

You keep missing the point. The morality being criticised is the OP’s not the legal morality of statutes. And actually it’s her husband’s as well. Nobody else’s morality. Not that of a jobless single mother or anyone else.

FWIW We are governed by society’s ethics and morality. But we have own own codes. And we can live by higher standards than those set by the law. In matters of tax avoidance or smacking children for example. I don’t think either is morally right either.

She asked for opinion on her choices and her morality. It’s been given. You have given yours. You don’t have to police the thread to remove judgements and opinions you don’t like.[/quote]
This!

It might be lawful but morally it’s questionable.

Much like the large corporations that have offshore accounts to avoid paying tax in a particular country. Legal but morally questionable....

Yes OP

You an indeed load your child maintenance in order to be able to claim UC
BUT
It will leave you very vulnerable because at any time your ex could simply decide to reduce the CM in line with his legal obligation ie remove the loaded “SM” element, as you won’t be able to do anything about it

Sorry missed - how many children is £800 CM a month for?

OP - he’s not that high an earner if that’s what the calculate stipulates unless for one child.

My ex on £150k a year - two children £1460 a month

I thought the same as you........

We must be wrong!

Thank you SteinhamGloria I was beginning to think I had accidentally logged on to a benefits scrounges daily mail forum... I also think it upsets the narrative to realise there are DWP fraud investigators who wholeheartedly support benefit provision in this country and believe it to be a great thing that should be accessible by all who meet the conditions required.

Contrary to popular belief, most in my area of work are big supporters of the welfare state. That's why we get so fucked off with those that steal from it.

As long as it's legal. You can claim. Do not let someone else's morals deter you.

@Clymene

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.

Middle paragraph - I thought the same.... we must be wrong

You want UC AND to send yours DC to a private school? That isn't really what the system is there for...

Exactly. I am not judging the morality (or otherwise) of the benefit system. I am judging the OP for being sniffy about people on benefits buying nice things when she wants to continue sending 4 children to private school, while living on benefits

It’s probably a grey area anyway. Certainly wouldn’t be usual telling the headteacher kids can’t go in this terms ski trip because UC hasn’t been paid on time

@Alderaan

You want UC AND to send yours DC to a private school? That isn't really what the system is there for...

Tell me where the legislation for social security says that ?

What about drink, drugs and fags ? That's preferable to paying for education is it ? Someone living on benefits smoking 20 a day is spending £360 a month but come on here and say 'my neighbour lives on benefits and smokes constantly, AIBU to say she shouldn't do this' ... you will be torn to shreds for being 'judgemental '.. but it's fine to judge someone who is just as legally allowed UC , to privately educate her children. ? Double standards !

But it is perfectly fine for people living entirely on benefits to have expensive Sky TV packages and brand new iPhones?

I think keeping your kids in private school is a touch more responsible than that

State schools are free and perfectly satisfactory - I'm a university professor & was educated comprehensively all the way.

We've no savings or assets because we've spent all our money on holidays, private school fees and a failed business venture!

Hugely responsible - not.

But you are requiring that other people, who don't fritter money on holidays, who use the very satisfactory State school system, and work hard rather than fail at business, should pay for you to maintain this lifestyle ... ?

You really don't live on this planet do you?

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?
Ironically, with that argument, you are saying that HE should be entitled, but it's not him who will be, instead he will pay more that he has to, and OP, who hasn't been a high tax payer will be the one benefiting. That's not really in the spirit of divorce!

Benefits are not governed by morals. Should they be ? That's a very dangerous road..
It sounds like you've become totally institutionalised. Benefits can't be governed by morals, but individual should be. Sadly, the more morals are removed from the legal system, politics, the welfare system, the more people abuses it.

Encouraging people to play the system, because the system has failed to legislate to avoid yet another potential loophole, is bad enough. When it comes from someone who works/worked for the dwp, it's actually frightening.

@dontdisturbmenow

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? Ironically, with that argument, you are saying that HE should be entitled, but it's not him who will be, instead he will pay more that he has to, and OP, who hasn't been a high tax payer will be the one benefiting. That's not really in the spirit of divorce!

Benefits are not governed by morals. Should they be ? That's a very dangerous road..
It sounds like you've become totally institutionalised. Benefits can't be governed by morals, but individual should be. Sadly, the more morals are removed from the legal system, politics, the welfare system, the more people abuses it.

Encouraging people to play the system, because the system has failed to legislate to avoid yet another potential loophole, is bad enough. When it comes from someone who works/worked for the dwp, it's actually frightening.

Exactly. To think that someone who works there is encouraging people to claim, because there is a loophole that technically can’t prevent them from accessing it

Kicks the door down to all sorts of abuse, but hey, who needs morals when there’s loopholes and it ‘legit’!

@Schleich

Thanks to everyone for your input. I've definitely decided to avoid the joint account - my ex and I have agreed categories of costs relating to the children to each be responsible for - e.g. he will pay all the kid's activities, while I will pay for the kid's clothes.

A number of people have viewed it that we are trying to commit benefit fraud, and that simply isn't the case. Neither of us have EVER received any benefits from the government, but right now we want to try to keep the children in private school (particularly the older ones who are at/close to GCSE years), 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?

Anyway, thanks again everybody.

trying to commit benefit fraud, , and that simply isn't the case

so what is this then? 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?

^^ That's not benefit fraud. That's arranging your divorce settlement as a 'clean break' which is very common and routinely advised as the best way to do it.

OP is not funding the DC''s private education, her exH is so it's not relevant to OP's benefit claim.

OP isn't asking for a 5 bedroom house. She wants 2 3 bedoom houses. Better from the state point of view that she manages to achieve this as otherwise the claim would include a housing element.

26 weeks is the usual disregard for holding money from a property sale if there is an intention to purchase another property with it. There can be discretion from work coaches to extend this but it's by no means guaranteed.

The voice of common sense on this thread is disorganisedsecretsquirrel . No point getting annoyed by benefit regulations. Most of the time they work against claimants. The only reason that pp are frothing so much is the private education ..... which is not being funded by benefits and never could be!

Why should i as a tax payer fund the op having a five bedroom house and kids in private school?

I’m a low wage earner, claim tax credits, yes. I also get pip for being disabled. I have an iPhone but it’s a 6 on giffgaff I pay £10 a month for and yes I have sky tele but it’s bundled with phone and broadband and I wfh so I need broadband and sky is the same as I was paying for just broadband. My tv is over 10 years old and is 32” before anyone asks that.

Again - you're not. The dh is funding the private school. The op will not get a 5 bed house from the share of the equity. The only way they'd get a 5 bed house is if they stay in the current one.

Taking out the private school.

Why should I fund the op in a 5 bed house? That’s what the op wants, to cheat the system to maximum effect so that she gets more than she would be entitled to if she just got maintenance.

Howzabout she does what the rest of us have to and goes to work full time?

How’s she going to manage in her massive house and lifestyle when the UC starts to reduce as the children drop off?

So people on UC shouldn’t

Go on holiday
Drink
Smoke
Socialise
Get a take away

Because “the tax payer” shouldn’t fund this kind of thing?

Op, have you thought about birds nesting, he buys a smaller place and you rotate in and out?

For the account, I have one separate from my own and both our maintenance payments go into it. If it needs more, we both pay more in.

Some people screw the system, some people play by the rules.

Being determined to find a way to get more benefits instead of having their OH pay for the children they helped make is sickening and bottom of the pond level scum behaviour. Kids might Benin private school, but their parents are teaching them awful life lessons.