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

The system encourages the wrong people to have too many children.

Is it as simple as the new man being 'financially responsible for your children'?

Surely what this rule is considering is that it's cheaper to run one household than two - one rent/mortgage payment, one lot of utilities, one lot of wifi/tv licence/streaming/other entertainment expenses?

I accept you've done the maths and would still be worse off, but you can't expect to bring a second income into the house and still receive benefits as if that income didn't exist.

I am all in favour of a good benefits system because I think society should be judged on how well it supports the most vulnerable. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Of course a single mother should be supported children should never suffer because of their circumstances. But if your partner moves in you will not be a single mother there will be mother adult in the household, contributing to the bills, te heating, council tax, rent and food. It makes no difference that he is not your children's father he is still someone contributing to your household costs

WTF! UC on a joint income of 70K? I here on these threads all the time that someone earning 60, 70, 80K is loaded and shouldn't complain and suck up more tax rises and then I read this. Honestly no wonder this country is fucked.

It doesn’t sound a great idea to create a home which fifty percent of the time houses 8 people. Very stressful for everyone especially the children.

Its very easy to say that you should work more etc... (and then have your extra income taken up by childcare costs!)

But from a moral stance...
Is it right the benefit system ignores the fathers input (as child maintenance is disregarded from benefit calculations as its considered unreliable) but expects an unrelated man to reliably provide for the children?

As a society we need to stop making excufor deadbeat men.

I chose to have two children with my DH because I would want to give them a good, financially stable upbringing and also have time for them. If you go on to have 4 kids you should be a very high earner/partner high earner or be very happy to live frugally.

What I know is that many (I know of 3 mums in my DS primary) who claim they live alone with children in order to get housing provided + benefits. Two of those have the father living with them but not declared (the men have declared living with their mothers). One has got a partner living with her non declared. So they have benefitted from getting housing and benefits for being single mums but are in reality not single at all and have the partners income as well so have a better lifestyle than a classic family on low wages. I think it's disgusting.

It won't work to cheat the system with blended families though because children will need to be declared where they live.

This.

Does nobody ever think “if my partner left or died, how would I manage with all these children?” when deciding on having lots of kids?
I know it’s the man’s fault for leaving, but a bit of responsibility to begin with wouldn’t go amiss.
Theres lots of “it’s not OP’s fault that her partner left”, which I agree with, but OP should take some responsibility for the fact that she chose to have 4 children without thinking about how she might cope financially if she ever wound up on her own.

Does nobody ever think ahead?

Completely agree with this. I see many women and men who have children with several different partners having yet more children. They don’t live together so the taxpayer pays for them to keep breeding. Quite often neither of them work. Yet they keep on having more children with other random men/women.

So you expect to get benefits as a single mother plus have a second persons income plus the benefits of both only paying half the rent, Wi-Fi, council tax etc?

The reason you get benefit top ups is because you don’t have the second persons income.
Of course if you did, then you wouldn’t get those top ups.

IME a 2 parent household is always financially better off even if they rely on benefit top ups.

You will also need to work more hours once your kids get to a certain age.

I can’t see how having 6 kids and 2 adults in one home is going to work anyway.
I think it’s much better for everyone if you continue living separately and then rethink things in a few years.

What is the reason you want to move in?

But you have some wages. His income will help run the house and you can use your wages to support yourself and your (4!) children. I don't see how it can't be done.

Why do so many people have children they can't afford?

So between you, you'll have 6 children?

You went part time because you think it's not fair to see your child so much and the rest of us have to pay for it?

Get back to bloody work.

Has there ever been a campaign to make it an offence? That'd be a better idea to support women than some measures you hear from politicians.

But your outgoings will be fewer because you'd be sharing a house, bills etc. All of that which the benefits were there to help with when you were single.

Presumably you may be able to work more with a other adult around?

Your kid's father should be paying you, ultimately. That is where your issues stem from. The system is having to step in because he has avoided responsibility. Maybe follow that up and try to replace benefit money with his.

Your kids sound young enough to learn the 'wind your bobbin up, wind wind wind song.

I’ve just done an Advanced Search because I wasn’t sure about this one as it appeared the OP has lit the torch paper and buggered off. Anyhow, it would appear she currently has 3 children and is pregnant with her 4th which puts a different perspective on things imo.

I think it’s madness to be adding another child into this scenario. You already had 3 whose father didn’t support them, and now you’re going to choose to live apart from the father of your baby because you don’t want to lose your benefits.

6 children between them? Is that right ? Wow
yes that’s going to be financially challenging
no id don’t see why I should support you in what I see as irresponsible choices

I realise Child maintenance is disregarded as income due to the unreliability of those paying it, but I never understood why it couldn't be paid/underwritten by the state and reclaimed from the man.

So if someone is due £1000 a month from their partner, they receive that money from the government who then claims it back from the partner.

Yes, there's the extra overhead of not paying direct, but given how much additional support is being provided because maintenance is not guaranteed I'm sure that would be offset. And if it was the government missing out on money from an unreliable payer you can bet they'd certainly get a lot more efficient about enforcing maintenance payments

Mumsnet is full of case studies of what you’re proposing to do. Definitely a good idea to have a read.

There are so many challenges from the practical to the emotional.

Given your obviously modest incomes, can you, for example, afford a seven-bed home?

Those saying ‘OP presumed she was in a lasting relationship when she had 4 DC’, sure, but when women give up work/financial independence to have even one or two DC, it’s gotta be a consideration how they can manage it if all doesn’t go rosy, let alone having 4 DC. Jobs get lost, people get ill, marriages fail, useless men don’t fund their kids, and the safety net is there, but it’s not endlessly extendable. OP made her choices and now she has another choice to make. Raising 4 DC is hard and expensive and if she has to do that without living with her DP and his kids, so be it. Or she can move in and fund the huge family between them. TBH blending such a big group sounds like a bad move and if DP isn’t 100% willing and able to share the costs then it’s not gonna go well anyway. The issue isn’t the rules, those are necessary, it’s people wanting more than they can afford. Stick with the existing set up and work on building income so there are more options that don’t involve UC or DPs.

Ah well there we go, it’s not the ‘couldn’t have ever predicted this situation’, more ‘continues to make poor decisions’ and so it goes on.

Very interesting reading. Especially the posts where she says that she and her DP don't have separate finances and that the bio-parents (i.e., she and her ex-husband) share the costs of activities and school trips.

Can you not work part time as now part of home and getting more support. I'm on benefits for a health problem. To be honest benefits are so low if I was to move in with someone could most likely swing a small wage without the pressure of having to fund full bills. The hardest things for me is stepping into this kinda work when head of home is not possible I need a full time job. Which I can't do.

REMAINED part time and had 3 MORE kids you cannot afford? When did you have your children? Sounds like a long time ago? I think it’s really unfair you’ve been able to milk the system as you have, if you can’t afford children, don’t have them, if you can’t afford to live with your partner get a better job. I’m absolutely piss sick of these UC posts ‘why can’t the state bankroll my life fully?’.