Benefit rant- seems really unfair?

[Tralalalalaa24]

I know I will probably get a bashing for what I’m about to say. But for the record I’ve always worked full time until I had my children and then financially it made no sense to work full time and pay nursery fees to not see my child much so I dropped to part time hours and have remained part time as I’ve gone on to have 3 more children. I then became a single mum to those children and have no financial help whatsoever from the dad but have managed ok on my wages and UC top up. I’m now in the position of wanting to live with my partner but it means I will lose all my benefits due to his wages. He’s not a massive earner (around 40k) I get that’s what the system is but it seems really unfair that he will be held financially responsible for my children. He has two children of his own who he has 50% of the time and still pays child maintenance for. So ultimately it means we can’t afford to live together without it being a struggle which I don’t want for my kids, or for his. Not really sure what I’m after as there is no solution, we just won’t live together until I’m in a position where I go full time when my kids are a bit older. Just wondered if this is a common issue people have

Yes, basically. I guess the benefit system see's it as if a man/woman lives with you then they've taken on the whole household. Life isn't as black and white as that though. It doesn't take into account their other responsibilities.
However, I do think the system is there to help the most needy. It's so easy to get used to benefits and the thought of them being taken away is a bad feeling. I've been there.

If your partner has his kids 50% of the time why on earth is he still paying maintenance ? This is part of the problem surely ? You'll still get child benefit for your 3 or is it 4 kids.

Same here. My boyfriend is on £35k and if he moved in with me I would lose my UC and he would have to support me. £35k is not a great pay to support 2 adults.
So we live apart but there are other reasons we would not live together anyway.,
I agree though it seems really unfair.

@Tralalalalaa24 How many kids do you have and how much do you earn?

Have you worked out the maths exactly though all your housing, council tax, utilities, tv licence, streaming services etc would be shared as halved.

I suppose what's really unfair is that either the taxpayer or an unrelated man has to help support your DC because their dad has walked away from his responsibilities and the system lets him get away with it.

It has to be this way OP Benefits are a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

At the moment I, as a tax payer, am paying for your benefit. I'm happy with that, you are a single parent who needs support.

But the children's father should be paying.

I’m a big supporter of our welfare system and I’m really happy to pay my taxes knowing that our most vulnerable are looked after. I would not be happy to pay for you to keep getting UC in a household with in income of more than 40K.

Benefits are not to fund a lifestyle choice, you have a choice, if you want UC then follow the rules. If you want to choose the optional route of living with your partner, then you forfeit benefits, simple as. This is why benefits expenditure is so unaffordable for this country because people take benefits when they don't need the safety net.

Why don't you persue the father for proper support of his children?

Good luck with that! All you ever get is a message stating the CMS are aware of your missed payment. This can go on for years, even when you provide details of their address and employer. It’s an absolute farce.

Given that so many families now are complex like this the rules have to be rather simple. One household one claim. Otherwise there would be even more manipulation of the system to max out benefits income.
Hopefully no more children that you can’t afford to support now you have 6 between you.

Well the obvious answer is that the man who had 4 kids with you accepts some responsibility for supporting them financially. Not the tax payer and not the new bloke.

As a side note you need to be careful blending families, especially when finances are tight. Will everyone have their own rooms including his DC who are with him 50% of the time? Do the kids all get on well, do your DC like your new bloke? If he's going to be bankrolling your family you need to be sure about him.

The real issue is our shit system that allows anyone to walk away from responsibility to their kids. In other countries non payment or maintenance is a prison offence, here it’s all cool. I feel your pain. But sadly it is what it is for the time being

Yeah I’ve experienced this. I was working all was fine then my disabled child became too complex for school. LA refuses to find him a placement and so I had to quit work. My partner supported us for over a year while ds actual father pays pennies. My relationship broke down in the end because he was financially and emotionally supporting me and ds getting nothing back as caring for ds is exhausting.

so now the tax payers support me and it costs awful lot more than a school place would have.

I’ve lost most my friends too. The ones not driven away by the disabled child don’t want benifit friends.

all the while his actual father has moved on got new child and bought a big house. It disgusting

Benefits are a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.
You shouldn’t be looking at benefits as a long-term thing, which you clearly are.

They do it this way to stop people from trying to stay on them long term.

I’ve never claimed anything in my life and I agree, that is a stupid rule. Why does the state expect some random man to take on financial responsibility for you and your dc, whilst simultaneously allowing their actual Father to make zero contribution?

All these kids father should be supporting them financially not us tax payers 🙄. As the poster said the rule is there because benefits were intended to be a short term back up for periods of unemployment not a life style choice. No wonder my tax bill is so massive.

It’s not unfair, it just highlights how expensive four children is and how much free money you’re currently receiving.

It is probably better for all the children involved for you not to live together because there’s no way all six children would be happy with being forced into a blended family, so it is good that there’s a benefits rule to help prevent it.

If you were a teenager, mumsnetters would almost all be saying that the person who pays the bills makes the rules and that if you want a different lifestyle then you should earn the money to fund it.

Hardly anyone who is financially independent can afford to have 4 children, let alone a house big enough to house 6 of them. Even if your ex did pay his share, does he earn enough to pay for 4 children plus his own place to live?

I don’t understand why people have so many children they can’t afford to raise.

I agree and I don’t understand how this continues. It’s on a huge scale as well it should be something dealt with as a priority and taken from absent parents. If HMRC and Council tax departments can push to get their money then surely something effective for maintenance could be set up.

I think the crux of the matter is both parents should be financially responsible for their own children.
I don’t mean that parents should not receive financial help but that both mother and father should be held accountable for any children they have.
This doesn’t happen in lots of cases.
I also believe that a partner should not be accountable for another man or woman’s child.
What does happen though, is that a father ( or sometimes mother) waltzes off with someone new, then the state allows them to reduce their financial responsibility towards their own, biological children.
The nrp is allowed to reduce child maintenance. This is wrong.
If you can’t afford to support your existing children, then you should not be rewarded for having more children with other women or men. All parents should be held accountable for every child they bring into the world.
Again, I’m happy to support families but not second and third sometimes forth families. No, if you can’t afford it then stop.

To answer the op- no it isn’t fair. Parents living in two separate houses then expecting the tax payer to pay for their children.

We need a way of making it clear to men that they can’t support more DC. Neither their own, nor other people’s.

Blending families isn’t great for kids and doubles the trouble down the line when the relationship breaks up under all the competing pressures.

Sorry.