Lone parents are financially better off than (low income) couples - discuss!

[PersephoneSnape]

I didn't want to further post in the 'ask dave a question thread' but I am a bit hmm about some of the comments there about lone parents being better off financially than couples and that couples with a SAHP should let the working parent inherit the tax allowance from the non working parent.

I work full time with three children and pay tax. I get the same tax credit as a couple with three children who would have the same combined income as me - but i lack the support, help and love of a OH in raising my children. despite that i think i still do a damn good job. I still have to pay a mortgage, provide heat, light, clothing etc for my children, i just don't have to feed another adult - which is a relief because i can barely afford to feed myself sometimes (hello, noodles!)

IMO letting a working parent have the tax allowance of a non working parent would mean that i earn £5500 untaxed, but the guy sitting next to me with one child and a SAHM , would be able to earn £11,000 untaxed. My children would be treated less equitably than the married couples children, because my ex left us.

People who think that single parents equates to feckless slut living the life of luxury should walk a mile in my shoes. Doing the job of two parents isn't easy and we don't spend the 'extra' money that we would spend on our absent partners food or travel on bicardi breezers and silk cut. A lot of people struggle financially whether they are a couple both working minimum wage jobs, a couple with a SAHP, a working single parent or a single parent on benefits. Any tax breaks should, i feel, be aimed at children, regardless of their parents status, rather than simply rewarding people who are married.

a tax break won't keep a marriage together when things go wrong. It won't stop adultery, domestic violence or just plain falling out of love...and then you have more single parent families with a single parent and their children coping with marriage break up and significantly less income because the tax breaks go to married couples.

Oh I also wanted to say that I certainly don't think lone parents have it easy at all and take my hat off to those having to do it. I find it hard enough to get everything done when dh worked away. That was nowhere near as bad as being a LP because I knew the end would come and he would be back and help out.

goingbonkers you said "I never meant to come to rely on the money for everyday living and intended to save it (£40 week), "

Then you were being paid too much. The money is meant to go on everyday living. The govnt (and therefore the rest of us contributing) aren't here to provide you with extra savings!

If you're skint now you should wonder how many other claimants are 'putting it aside for a rainy day!", when now you are worse off and need it.

Well I'm not on any benefit but I haven't got any savings, can I ask the govnt for some?

candlewax, i know - it's being floated around as a proposal that people think the tories might do this if they win the election

alfiesmum, your poor friend! I do remember it not being all sweetness and light when ex was around and he did have his moments of supreme uselessness, but those were tempered by the ability to have a responsible adult around to share childcare etc - eg, we both worked 5 days over 4 at one point, so didn't need childcare for two days a week. when he left i needed to go back to work an extra day and find two extra days of childcare.

Perseph. maybe the discussion should be..the govnt allows fathers to easily shirk their financial responsibilities, discuss!!

There are times when I wish I was on my own. It can be hard always compromising to fit in with another person . But I know how hard it would be without DH as support and backup.

Finances aside.

BTW I do agree with alfiesbabe and microwave. Luck has bugger all to do with it. IME marriage is hard slog as well as a long series of compromises and narrowed horizons. As well as all the good stuff.

Very big topic with so many issues involved. Will try and keep this brief so forgive if my points don't come across entirely as meant.

I think for me the main difference between a couple as opposed to a lone parent is that the lone parent has the choice to work or not, whereas the couple have the option of not working, or either or both of them working. There is more flexibility in their choices. There are more options as to the hours they can work too.

What i mean is that if I as a working lone parent am ill or have to take time off sick, there is no-one to step into the breach, financially or otherwise. If a couple have one main breadwinner and they have extra bills or are ill, the other partner can get out there and earn in the mean time.

And you do have the option to use your partners tax free allowance. The partner can get a part time job up to the value of that tax free allowance. Lots of schools need part time class room assistances, playschools and nurseries need staff... There are options for work which matches school hours.

Also if you are in a couple you have far more flexibility as to hours because you have a 'free' babysitter at home (no disrespect meant by that term). So if you wanted to work evenings at a petrol station, or stacking shelves to suppliment your income that is possibly easier to do in terms of child care for a couple (where one can work day time and one evenings/nights) than a lone parent who can't increase the family income by doing additional hours quite so easily.

Couples on very low income can get WTC & CTC. The government subsidises up to a basic amount. I am in the position now where if i work more hours i'm no better off as my benefit goes down and my tax goes up. So there is a plateau where you have to earn a heck of a lot more to be better off or do a lot of hours or just accept this is your income level and you get by just about.
This is where couples may be finding themselves, because by the second person working they are earning above that plateau where it may not be worth their while to do so financially because of what they lose out on as a result.

And the poster who said she went back to work and was on £3.20 after paying childcare.. IMO that's a very narrow view on the matter of your single income and expense within a couple. If you average the household money per hour worked and the childcare costs over both your income as a couple i'm sure you wouldn't be on so little per hour. Even if the reality is you pay it all yourself, your partner is still paying other bills and contributiong to the household income and bills from their money. So to see if it is worth doing it might be better to look at your overall household income and expenses and to consider some of your parnters income as paying for those childcare costs too.

It is a tricky subject and different viewpoints on teh subject thrown up different ways of looking at it. But i don't think it matters if you are a lone parent or a couple, once you get past that point of being worse off (or no better off)by earning more until you are earning significantly more (as a lone parent or jointly as a couple) you will be in that same position of getting by on a minimum and not being much better off working a few more hours.

Gilly

madamez - a child who is the result of a one night stand still has a father!!

Ive done the Maths via the governments online calculators.
If I lived with my partner I would get little/no help with benefits.
If, however I was a lone parent, who reduced my hours to 16 a weeks I would be paid as much as my working full time.

That doesnt imo act as an incentive to be in/stay in a relationship.

gilly I don't get your point of considering both incomes paying for childcare because if one of you is not working then there is no childcare to pay for.........

I worked it out as our overall income and regardless of who worked what hours (we earn a similar amount) with us both working we would only be £50 per week better off with one of us doing 30 hours and one of us doing 16 hours or if we both worked 30 hours then I think it was £65 per week better off, not an amount to be sniffed at my any means but after trying it for 6 months I felt my children were missing out too much for such a small gain and me being stressed out with a demanding job with no future prospect of a pay rise.

I do believe that I am better off financially now that I am a single parent to 3 children.

I work (as I always have) 4 days a week (2 days at home with internet link to the office and 2 days in the office). My mum looks after my children 2 days a week so therefore no childcare costs. I earn a fairly good wage for the hours I work.

On one hand I am now paying the mortgage/bills/food/clothing/holidays on my own with no financial support from a.n.other but my ex-husband contributes to the children's keep which more than compensates for the money I am missing out on by being with him.

If I look at what I have now compared to when I was with my husband, I find it a lot easier to pay for holidays, etc. and to provide my children with everything they need (not always what they want!!!).

Because I am a single mum to 3 children I am now able to claim (I forget which one it is) either working tax credit or child tax credit (actually, thinking about it, I get working tax credit but do not qualify for child tax credit because I earn too much.

... but saying that, would I rather be on my own (slightly better off financially) or with my husband (slightly worse off financially), I would choose to be in a 2-parent family any day.

For me, it is not just the financial side of things, it is the 'little' things like putting the bins out, trying to get some decorating done (just stripped front room and youngest's bedroom, but am no good at wallpapering - now need to pay a decorator to come and decorate for me - why did I bother in the first place???), having that extra person in my life to give me emotional support, a cuddle in front of the telly when the children are in bed.

Where would I rather be? Financially less secure (but still secure, obviously) but with someone in my life.

Does anyone seriously split up with a partner because they'd be slightly better off?

Spicemonster, I never split with my husband for financial reasons, why would anyone do that? You would have to be pretty shallow, I think.

I would much rather still be married to my ex-husband than in the situation I am now in.

well exactly bumblelion. I don't get what the issue is really. I'm a single parent but have never had anyone around so I know I would probably be better off financially if there was someone else contributing. But it isn't just about the financial side of things as several people have said - there's lots of advantages to having another adult to share the load with. I think to reduce it all to £ is a bit simplistic

ElenorRigby - that's shocking. Why should people be disadvantaged by staying together as a couple? Or to put it another way, why should our children be disadvantaged financially by having parents who choose to stay together?

Microwave - I actually said that to the LP advisor at the time. I couldn't agree more! That's the point I am making in defense of married couples: ie: my sister couldn't afford to work as she got no help with childcare costs.

However, as the job centre cocked up my assessment, I was told my income would be a lot better than it turned out to be. They overestimated it by about £200 a month, so the £40 wk had to go towards the shortfall. Now I am losing it and can't make ends meet. (They didn't include the IWC in the assessment so this was supposed to be 'extra')

I was advised by the job centre to save it rather than use it for everyday living for the very reason that it stops after a year and was told not to come to rely on it. I am not saying I agree with this. It is there as an incentive to get lazy people off their arses. I told the JC I was happy to work anyway! I have always paid tax and have always been prepared to work. I used the benefits system for a short period of time - to get me back on my feet. That is what it's there for. I don't want to be on benefits and have worked hard to get off them. And I don't think people that use the system correctly should be made to feel ashamed of being on benefits like I was.

I honestly don't think that married or single parents have it easy! I think money is being spent in unneccesary places and all the IWC has achieved for me is leaving me right in the shit!!

Well I am a lone parent, and I would be far better off on my salary if I had a spouse who either earned, or stayed at home doing all the jobs that I currently pay other people to do.

I really don't think it's possible to say who is better off. I don't think it really matters. I haven't got a DP and that's fine. My DD is happy and loved. Things are very hard financially but the same goes for a lot of married/cohabitting couples. It's really not a competition!!!

I agree with MicrowaveOnly that the gov should sort out the NRP's tho!! I've never had a penny from my ExP and I really think they should be enforcing CS. I don't ever hear from the CSA. When I call them I'm told they are waiting for some unknown person in another office to 'do something' before they can proceed! Proceed with what?? They never do anything! I think in over 3 yrs I've had 2 letters and 1 phonecall. Useless!!

But having a DH doesn't necessarily mean you get support. Mine works nights, including every weekend. I have to do the grocery shopping because he is never around. If I'm feeling stressed in the evening, or sick like LewisFan, he's gone to work. He is "too tired" to do anything most days. We don't go out together and if he isn't working he's asleep.

On the financial side I have to do all the bills/ paperwork. His contribution is to spend on his credit card, not mention how much he has spent and land me to sort out the bills. If I was running the accounts without him spending I would have no trouble balancing the books. He doesn't help with it at all and just bleats that he isn't spending it on himself, which isn't the point.

Because my children have 2 married parents who both work they get no funding for university. They have to have loans. Their friends whose mothers are SPs get EMA to stay at school (so don't have to get a Saturday job like my kids) then get grants and bursaries for university. How is that fair? They would be thousands of £s better off if we weren't together.

Good post evenhope. It's a mad world we live in, where if you stay with the father of your children and work your arses off, you get hammered at every turn.

Evenhope, EMA is based upon parental income and not status. If parental income is less than £30,000 then the children is entitled to it.

Grants and tuition fees are the same, it is based on parental income and not status.

Also, lone parents only seem to be better off if they are receiving maintenance. Not all lone parents receive it-widows dont get it. People always assume lone parents are lone through choice-sadly that isnt always the case

Amazinwoman - yes, but the EMA thing is still ridiculously open to abuse. Where a young person has split parents, only the income of the parent who the child lives with is taken into account. How's this for a ridiculous situation: my DH teaches in a private school and has a number of 6th formers who receive EMA. In many cases the split is quite amicable, and the young person moves between mum and dad's home, though the mum is cited as the primary residence. So, dad can be earning 100K and paying school fees, but because mum has a little part time lin money job, the kid gets EMA!! Meanwhile, DH and I have stayed together, and work our butts off as full time teachers and our kids get nothing. Now, can anyone explain to me how that's fair?

sorry, meant pin money job

It's better not to be single. then, when people at toddler groups ask you what your husband does, you can just tell them, instead of having to put them through the misery of realising they have committed an embarrassing faux pas.

because people compare a single working parent to a partnership where one adult works - whereas, childcare-wise, they are in a more similar position to a working couple - oh, but with half the income. And twice the likelyhood of having to stay off work with a sick child. And everything to do on your own when you get home - and still having to fit in the time with the child.

It is NOTHING like having a full time worker and one parent at home. NOTHING.