How do Men get away with it?

[2020Raquet]

Just been reading a sad thread about the Husband walking out on his wife and children.

The advice from mumsnet includes that the women finds out what benefits they are entitled to, as she cannot afford the rent/childcare etc etc on her own salary.

Mumsnet (and the media) is full of hate for single mother benefit claimants, but this just shows how easy it is to need benefits through not fault of your own, despite careful planning before having children.

My issue is why is it always up to the women. Surely the father and mother should continue each contributing, at least equally, to the child’s full housing costs/childcare/food/clothing and everything else. If, after paying for his children, HE cannot then afford his own living costs then HE should be claiming the benefits!

This is obviously fairly light hearted as it could probably never work in practice, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if, instead on the media being full of hapless single mother benefit claimant stories, it would be full of useless father benefit claimant stories!

Yes my friend was left high and dry by her cheating prick husband and for someone that has worked hard all her life, l think having to claim benefits really upset her
He meanwhile is living his best life, paying her the bare minimum while she has to watch every single penny.

My son split with his ex due to her violence and drunkenness. He has always paid more than the recommended amount (£400 monthly) and goes halves with school clothes, shoes, big presents like bikes etc., school trips. He has the children for half of every school holiday, plus 2 nights a week and every other weekend.

She rents a detached house for £1000 a month. She runs a new car (On finance). She goes out a lot. She works but claims some benefits as a top-up. He is struggling to pay £650 a month rent on a small flat. He can't afford a car, doesn't go out and doesn't buy clothes. Not all absent fathers are enjoying a carefree life.

"My issue is why is it always up to the women. Surely the father and mother should continue each contributing, at least equally, to the child’s full housing costs/childcare/food/clothing and everything else. If, after paying for his children, HE cannot then afford his own living costs then HE should be claiming the benefits!"

this is what would and does happen to a person who can't meet their costs.

is this a clumsy way of saying the person with more money should be liable for more costs?

My husband paid over £10k in legal bills to fight for contact with his kids. I've read the file, no mention of him being controlling or abusive, she just weaponised the kids and went for minimal contact so she could max maintenance.

He then paid maintenance +++. Clothes, shoes, tech kit, school uniforms etc paid for. Mobile phone contracts paid for. Ex wife worked part time until the point that the kids left school and told them all the whole that "we can't have nice things because your dad doesn't give me enough money" she even asked for my pay to be taken into account before I'd even moved in with him. She had a brand new car, a holiday home and an extension to her house in the past 10 years. My DH on the other hand was shopping for his clothes in charity shops when I met him.

So yes, there are some amazing stories out there but the media rarely picks up on them.

Not really, that should just be a given, and it probably was when the parents were together.

i just think both parents need to fully support their own children (temporary unemployment/sickness/disability excepted).

if 2 parents together didn’t require benefits, why are benefits required when they separate? It’s because the parent leaving can/will no longer contribute as much.

Therefore, it gets left to the tax payer to pick up the shortfall. This will generally be paid to the mother so she gets the bad, benefit claiming, rap. Whereas, it’s actually the father who is no longer contributing as much. So maybe he should claim the shortfall and get the bad rap!!

I know there will be many exceptions to the above and women may be the cause of the split, it was just a generalisation from reading another thread.

OP "if 2 parents together didn’t require benefits, why are benefits required when they separate? It’s because the parent leaving can/will no longer contribute as much."

isn't it usually because two homes are needed instead of one?

I understand that. But invariably, it’s the parent leaving that needs a second home and the parent left behind that needs to claim benefits!

so the tax payer ends up picking up the bill and the women gets the bad rap!

How would it all work though?
Newly single man earning 30K per year claims benefits to help him pay his rent and living costs because he's paying 25K a year maintenance?
Means tested benefits would be based on his income, not his outgoings, so he would be entitled to zero benefits, and wouldnt be able to afford to feed himself after paying 25K in maintenance.

Far better to remove the stigma attached to parents who need to claim UC, otherwise you would need to completely change the criteria to be eligible to claim benefits.

I did say it was light hearted and couldn’t work in practice.

Saying that, the benefits criteria could be changed to take into account income less maintenance paid, but as that would take the heat off of single mothers, then I’m sure there would be no willingness to change the current misogyny.

in your example above, the single parent could claim full benefits and then still receive £25k on top, as maintenance received does not effect benefits. Is that fair on the tax-payer?

I think all I was trying to point out, having read a post from a women in this situation, is why does the tax payer get screwed and single women get the bad rap.

I appreciate many, many fathers do the right thing by their children. But even then, the tax payer often still picks up the shortfall.

Yes exactly. The mum can get benefits and the child maintenance isn't counted or doesn't reduce the benefits at all as it's not deemed to be reliable. But often the non resident parent struggles hugely because they don't qualify for benefits and the child maintenance is nor considered at all, it is not counted that they have that amount less to live on , they will not get nay child elements on a UC claim because the children's don't live with them full time even though they may still be having to provide a home big enough for them to stay over a couple of nights a week.

Yes they do. Even when non resident parents pay reliably year after year it does not affect benefits. I have an ex work colleague - 2 kids by 2 well earning dads. gets a huge amount and still takes the benefits as she works very part time.

Why is your starting pointing that anyone receiving social security "benefits" deserves to be demonised at all?

The point of taxes is to look after our society. Whingeing when that is what happens is illogical.

Besides which, anyone who's ever bought a chocolate biscuit is a taxpayer. It's not a select club of superior beings.