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

I agree its a questionable decision to have a large family unless you are very wealthy - kids get more expensive the older they get.
We are pretty fortunate financially, but stopped at two because it was always at the back of my mind how I or dh would cope if we were left to manage on our own for any reason. But I guess if you have the mentality that the state can finance and raise your kids, no need to worry!

Retead the opening post people. It’s hardly genuine.

Even if child maintenance is paid it is disregarded for UC.

It has been carefully worded to tick every potential froth point.

But you’d save money by not running two houses?

As a benefits specialist I'm sitting here scratching my head as to how you managed that.......

Yeah, and I always fall for them! Half my 'I'm on' list is always deleted threads because they've been zapped!

But surely you don't get £40k in UC so household income still means better off. Feel like i am missing something here.

Surely though if he moved in with you it would all level out financially as you wouldn't be paying for two properties?

I think this highlights two huge problems;

• the sense of entitlement. People(like OP) now feel entitled to the benefits they receive. Instead of being a short term safety net and those in receipt working towards being financially independent, they are a long term choice. This must stop.
• Absent fathers are simply not being compelled to support their children.I guess there isn’t much the state can do if these feckless males have no means by which to do that BUT those that do, should be forced to.

That certainty seems like taking the piss to me.

Yes, another tiresome fake post. Op is never coming back.

Wind them up and Wath them go.

There was another thread the other day where the poster said her husband was on £72k and she got UC …

UC on £72k is certainly possible if they rent, pay childcare and possibly have someone with a disability in the household.

You need to go through the correct channels to get financial support for your children from their father.

I think you possibly have 4 children and if you partner has 2, if you did move in together that’s 6 children entering a blended family which is quite a lot under one roof. How old are the children? Maybe it would be better to wait until they are all a little older, you can work and things are less strained?

I’m a single mum on 35k and get a small UC top up. If I moved a partner in who was on a reasonable wage of course I would expect to lose that. Why wouldn’t I? My hypothetical partner would have to contribute to the household just like he would if he lived on his own.

Benefits are not there to support every situation and choice.

I’ve just had a 4 month battle with the CMS which has yet again concluded that my ex husband doesn’t have to pay any maintenance for his children. We, as a society, need to be focusing more on the flaws of the CMS and the lack of expectation on non resident parents to financially support their children. Not talking about the supposed flaws of the welfare system which we are lucky to have.

Does anyone? Does anyone every factor in eny life events? Cancer? Disability?

We make the choice based on the facts we have now. No one knows what the future holds.

So sounds the OP is very much having more children with the intention of taxpayers funding her. Not quite the stable relationship that went wrong and she’s now in an unfortunate position claims that posters have clung on to.

It's because as a single person with children its not enough to survive. Its only a good wage if a couple is earning that

I am in exactly the same situation OP. When I (we) decided to have four children I was married to a high earner and I went part time. Now we are divorced. He doesn’t pay me anything as custody is 50:50. I am working full time now but even so, as a paramedic I don’t earn nearly enough to support us without assistance. And if my partner moves in he is expected to take on financial responsibility for children that aren’t his. He earns similar in the NHS. I posted about this a while back and also got flamed. I understand it to an extent but in reality it means I cannot move on with my life while my ex can, because of the higher earning capacity I afforded him while married.

Presumably you didn’t go on to have more children you can’t afford with your new partner?

Of course you can’t predict that sort of stuff. But don’t bite off more than you might be able to chew if your situation changes. Surely that’s common sense?

Having 4 kids is a huge luxury and people who choose to have a large family should be very comfortable financially and have a back-up should the shit hit the fan. It's completely irresponsible to create such a big family without the financial security already in place, especially if you are also reducing one parents income long-term.

Single parents can be in a relationship up with whoever they want but when you become one blended family the state shouldn't shoulder the financial burden of half of that family when there is enough joint income between the two parents. OP has the option of being in a relationship without blending families, but she doesn't want that and she also doesn't want to work enough to support herself and her kids so instead she wants the tax payers to make her dream of a big blended family possible.

4 kids is a lot. I really think people shouldn’t have more kids than you can afford to fund on your own. I’m a higher rate tax payer. Why should I fund you to have 4 dc when I’ve only had 1. I only had one because I wanted to be able to provide a good standard of living for them and me.

She doesn’t have 4 kids, she has 3. She’s pregnant with her 4th. Are you coming back @Tralalalalaa24 to put everyone straight about why you chose to have another child when you can’t afford the 3 you already have?