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.

Gosh I don't know what toddler groups you attend, but I've never been asked 'what my husband/parner does'. How odd. Was occasionally asked whether I worked (which I did part time when my kids were toddler group age) but I dont think anyone would have assumed that anyone else did/didnt have a partner. And most of the time was spent discussing kiddie things.
Also, I don't think most people would compare a single working parent to a couple with a stay at home parent, I think most people would compare it more closely with a couple where both work, though as you say, you can't make a direct comparison. having said that, you can't really make comparisons anyway. I know couples who both work in very high powered stressful jobs where they hardly get to see their kids, so it would be silly to lump them together with, for example, a working couple who are both home by five.All situations are different. We just need to establish some basic systems which are fairer and don't automatically penalise couples who stay together.

ok FioFio - but i really don't think people get hugely embarrassed or feel they have made a faux pas these days. It just isnt true. In my dd's tutor group, parents who have stayed together are in a minority! It doesnt make me feel marginalised or embarrassed!

And evenhope's point of having a financial liability for a husband is irrelevant. That's not the government's fault, that's his fault.

alfiesbabe, i have been asked several times what my husband does, and in most cases the people who ask me are hugely embarrassed when I explain that I don't have one, and neither do I have what most people would consider to be a job. So it is true, it just doesn't happen to be your experience, which I understand.

Agree that having a financial liability for a husband is not the government's fault. Neither is it the government's fault if couples split up, a husband or wife buggers off and tries to evade their parental responsibility. As I said before, every child begins life with two parents, and unless one parent dies, those two parents should take their responsibilities to support their child financially, emotionally and in every other way, seriously, until the child reaches adulthood. It's the responsibility of parents, not the government.

the point about EMA is that it is assumed that £30k a year means that you can supplement your child to continue at school (yes i agree it's a bit 'meh' that there is a cut off point and it is at the point where two parents earning £30k a year aren't really rolling in it, but still get no help for their 6th form child.) but £30k a year is out of my individual earning capability, being that i have to stay at home when a child is sick, leave early to pick them up - I have to throw myself on the mercy of my public service employer, use my annual leave or flexi to get said ill child - that isn't shared with another person and it means that i stay in my relatively low paid job, because I haven't anyone else to rely on for child-related emergencies.

if i earned £30k a year as a single person, then i wouldn't expect help either. but i don't. i earn a substantial amount below that.

I didn't go to university because my mum was a single parent and we needed the additional income. so i went to work. we may have also needed that additional income if we were a two parent family, but i think that the point about dads on £100k a year and those families exploiting EMA is a loop hole that better off people take advantage of, and a reason for EMA being more strictly administered, rather than blankly stating that some single parents don't need it and some couples who have a combined income over the current threshold do.

I would intend that my dcs on entering 6th form get EMA if it's still about (I'm presuming i don't get a huge leap in wages in the next four years..) and supplement that by having a part time job as well, balancing their study with work so that they can start to appreciate that you get things that you want by earning your own money.

Persephone - you sound like you have a really sensible approach to it. I just feel strongly that the loophole should be closed. If a single parent is earning less than 30K, then when there is another parent earning and it brings the combined income to over 30k, then the combined income should be counted. Just because the parents no longer live together, doesnt mean the absent parent should be absolved of responsibility does it? It shouldnt be the government ie the taxpayer shouldering this. It just seems a ridiculous situation that if DH and I were to split up, then our kids would suddenly get an allowance for staying on at school, when the reality would be that they still have two parents who should take responsibility for them!

Thing is if you combined the two parents income, one parent would still not "help" the dc stay in full time education - the CSA can't get money from NRP that don't want to pay, so how is the EMA going to get the same parent to financaly help their own dc stay on at school?

They will not be able to so therefore the dc can't stay on at school due to combined incomes being taken into account

i guess we're hoping people will be honest and disclose the financial commitment from their ex. and that we live in a happy smiley world where all NRPs pay what they should to fully contribute to the upkeep of their child.

hahahahahaha.

When two people seperate they then have to pay for two seperate homes and the NRP usually has to pay maintenance. Just because there are two incomes doesn't mean they are any better off overall. I would assume the EMA calculation takes into account all 'income' the RP receives, including child maintenace? I'm sure someone will correct me if that's wrong.

Assuming that to be the case then the NRP is contributing to the overall 'income' of the RP and therefore it wouldn't necessarily be fair to say look at both incomes in a seperated family and use that figure iyswim

Gilly

ivykaty44 - exactly my point. It's about the NRP not wanting to pay. Should it be about wanting? Surely when you have a child, you are taking on a responsibility to support them until adulthood? It all comes back to the issue which seems to be prevalent in society these days that people can ditch their responsibilities when it suits them. As I said, if DH and I were to split up, then why should one of us suddenly feel that we shouldnt have to support them financially to stay at school? Why does it suddenly become the job of the government, or to be more precise, other people's responsibility because they're the ones paying through their taxes. Gillybean - of course it will cost more to decide to run two homes than to live under one roof. I just don't see why that automatically becomes a problem that other people have to pay for. I'm not unsympathetic to the fact that some people find themselves in awful situations, and I'm not belittling people who have tried hard to keep a relationship going but truly can't. I just don't get this idea that responsibility towards our children can be ditched.

The idea that you should take responsability towards your own child is ditched by some NRP. Until it becomes sociably unacceptable to not pay towards the upkeep of your child then it will continue.

Any NRP worth there salt would want and be proud to pay towards their own childs upbringing.

I have never ever come across a free child

of course NRPs should pay for their children, but when they don't there is a moral obligation for government to step in. Why should children be written off because the NRP is a tightwad.

maintenance isn't taken into account regarding tax credits either-which just seems a bit daft - I could have my wages topped up by tax credits to the minimum that the government thinks i need to bring up three children, but I could be pocketing £1000 a month is maintenance as well (fat chance!) i don't know why it isn't taken into account... when tax credits seem to be a means tested benefit...

because practically no one would get a job, if you were no better off working than being on benefits. It's a move to get children out of poverty.

i typed the above, went away and thought, of course everyone would say they didn't get maintenance if it counted towards tax credits. I live in a fluffy little world where people are always honest!

This is a ludicrous statement. I'm on lone parent benefit here in Ireland and although it's relatively generous, I get ?245.80 a week (euro not pounds) it's enough to live on and no more. I'm broke and I have no car, no mortgage, no career. I have taken money from my dd's piggy bank to buy milk and bread!!

Other people who moan about single mothers receiving benefits and say that they too are broke miss the crucial point that they are broke in a different way. Their's is merely a stop gap kind of broke. They are broke with their foot on the property ladder, broke with a car in their drive, broke but with a career investment into their future.

The begrudgery I've read on various boards astounds me. Not this board, yet, but an Irish board rollercoaster.ie the nastiness and the begrudgery, from people who considered themselves good people left me chilled to the core. YOU have to harden yourself to the begrudgery around you. Refuse to acknowledge it. That's my take.

I hear what you say madameCh0let. But there are also many couples who can't afford a mortgage or a car.

But what's the point?! Would it help low-income couples to know that lone-parents were suffering even more, in several ways?

The point is that in financial terms, low income couples deserve support too. No one should find themselves penalised financially for staying together.

No relationship that is worth anything splits up for 30 quid a week. So if it's not a real relationship, ie, worth saving, then the people are genuinely single.

I feel compassion for any person who is struggling financially. In fact, I don't automatically identity solely with single mothers.

But for somebody who is, I think, in a relationship to come and start this thread on the lone parents board smacks of blame, begrudgery and general DailyMail lack of brainitus.

Well I'm not going to make any assumptions about the OP - I havent a clue whether they're in a relationship or not. I also agree that no genuine couple are going to split up for 30 quid a week. But I also think that there should be equity - couple should not be treated less favourably.

But the inference here is that single mothers should not be given benefits. There is more than one type of benefit. Lots of them are means-tested or the individual is assessed. Don't point waggling fingers at lone parents.