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

You work. He works. Two wages. You pay for yourselves and the kids. That’s how it should work. The welfare system was only ever intended as a safety net. Now it’s being weighed up whether it’s a better choice than working. All wrong.

Perhaps get your finances and housing in order before having 4 bloody children. Where were you planning on living with your 4 and his (however many) kids? A mansion?

@oldFoolMeyes responsible people do factor in life events. I’ve seen two friends become single parents when their partner died suddenly. Luckily they had life insurance, critical illness and death in service benefits. Mortgage paid off and Financially the families will be ok, and both the mums already worked in these situations. 3 kids between both families. It would be so much harder is each family had 4 kids.

That’s why people should think about how many kids they can realistically afford. Very few people can afford to fully fund 4 kids with no benefits.

Benefits are there to help you through a tough time till you’re back on your feet, not to pay for a lifestyle that would change if you got with your partner! Lots of family’s live on a lot less than 40k a month! It makes me so mad. The whole benefits system needs a overhaul as this sort of thing can’t carry on!

Absolutely. Let’s face it it’s almost always the father who doesn’t pay for his children. How many single mothers need to claim benefits to provide the basics for their children? Thousands. We probably all know a single mother whose ex doesn’t meet their financial responsibilities and even find ways to ensure they are deemed to earn too little to pay. That’s without the arrears building up when they’re being irresponsible.

DWP for 35 years. Although this thread may well be AI it still raises important questions… and in my view the things that need changing are :

1. Much much more stringent CM system. With punitive and timely penalties for non payment.

Such as removal of driving licence and passport 6 weeks after Separation if no voluntary payment made. Abolishing the CMS and making HMRC responsible for collecting child maintenance via the tax system as they are already the ‘collection agency’ of government. So one child is xxx tax code , 2 children yyy tax code. It would also remove the condition that CM is only calculated on income and include capital. So absent parents can’t just stop work not pay and live on savings. The tax code would remain life long until paid up to date. So would still get paid via pensions and occupational pensions. Charges on an owned home which is not removed until paid fully. With interest compounded if non compliant .

2 . I would alter the UC. calculations that expect a new partner to be financially responsible for other parents children but would halve the child allowance on UC unless the absent parent is dead or severely disabled to the level of PIP high rate care and mobility.

I would withhold benefits for any children conceived whilst the parents are on benefits and not in work. (Unless there is rape, severe ill health by one or other parent during the pregnancy)

Rhe main thing though is to use HMRC who are set up with comprehensive enforcement methods already - as well as being relentless in their pursuit of unpaid taxes for the self employed contingent .

Beyond removing passport and or drivers licenses though - I have not got any ideas as to how to deal with the cash in hand contingent.

Then I would remove the right for absent parents to have their calculations reduced when they have new children with a different partner.

A lot of jealousy in this thread without any idea of the OP circumstances.

Women are still the ones sacrificing their careers to enable the father to earn more by working part fime to support a family.

The same husbands who are out cheating and abusing women, but don't leave the bastard unless you have enough money to go entirely alone without any support.

Its so easy for a man to walk away, hide hos wealth, go self employed and dodge child support through many means.

Dont get cancer or god forbid one of your children is born disabled and you can't work full time.

I'm very much pro choice, even if it that pro choice is the 4th child who the mother cannot afford. Choice works both ways !

@Fishingboatbobbingnight I like your thinking. Although it isn’t meant to, the current system does allow for absent fathers to be deliberately and recklessly irresponsible. Whatever happens between the parents, children are both innocent and dependent. Their needs should be front and centre.

Similar here @Tralalalalaa24 although I live in Ireland and I get a small amount of benefits (less than €50 a week) as I earn 50k but I also have an element of extra tax credits so my pay is a little more than If I wasn’t single so I think the difference is about €40per week.
I have moved in with my DP (not dc’s dad) and so because of this I will loose about €90 per week. At the time I thought it was slightly unfair although I understood the reasoning.

My DP takes homes over 70k so we are paying pretty much half of everything except a few bills which he will pay so it evens out.

I can see the reasons entirely but it’s a hard decision to make in someone circumstances. My DP doesn’t have children either so I suppose it’s easier that way.

can you go back to work full time to make up the difference?

I would withhold benefits for any children conceived whilst the parents are on benefits and not in work. (Unless there is rape, severe ill health by one or other parent during the pregnancy)

Nice idea but we all know will be pointless because people will say those circumstances apply to them.

I know MN never believes that these people exist, although I'm sure that @Fishingboatbobbingnight will be able to list copious examples, but I have a relative by marriage where the couple have eight children between them and run two households because they 'can't live together' and neither partner has barely worked a day in their lives because they've always been a parent of a young child, have 'mental health'. Predictably also a couple of the DC in each household has ADHD, which I know is a real disability, but it seems rather convenient in their case. But despite their terribly stressful lives and health issues, they keep producing children, which keeps the benefits coming in.

So the op had 3 kids and is now pregnant with 4 And planning not to live with her partner because that’s how she can maximise benefits?

Why cannot you go back to work full-time and earn proper salary? Why do you really have to rely on benefits? Benefits always should be the last resort, if you are in some way disabled or similar and unable to work. They should not support a lazy lifestyle.

This ^^

Even my self-defined ‘perfect dad’ (ha ha) ExH, who was in a PAYE public sector job so never going to be able to not pay, had to be (a) investigated, and (b) threatened by CMS with involving his employer (which really challenged his ego) before he’d pay up.

But he did pay up.

He stopped paying at the stroke of midnight as the kids turned 18, despite them continuing in education. In fact the last payment for my DS was something like £29.65 short of the usual month’s child support because he’d calculated it to the exact day and hour.

I did not.

That is quite the claim.

Any evidence to back that up?

One post by the OP. It’s quite contentious..

Just spend some time on this site.

This is the crux of it, the taxpayer picking up the bill for feckless men who shirk the responsibility of paying for their children. It should be a criminal offence to not pay towards children that you've abandoned.

I'd like to see men like that publicly shamed on lists available to everyone.

@RubieChewsDay Surely BOTH parents share an equal responsibility to financially support any children they have?

‘Financially it made no sense to work full time, pay nursery fees, and not see my kids much’

Financially for you - not for the rest of us.

I'm not a benefits basher - they are so necessary, for so many - especially the rent part. But it does get my back up when people choose to drop hours and are happy to let everyone else pick up the bill! I don’t necessarily blame the individuals - the system is so flawed!

But the same amount of benefits are still paid whether the non resident parent pays Cm or not ! So how would it save money ? the only way it could save money is possibly in situation's like op's where if her ex paid for her kids she may be able to be less reliant on the new partner.

So no, you don’t.

Is there a reason why you can’t work full time? I’d love to work part time but I’d lose too much money so have worked full time since maternity leave. It’s a luxury to not have to work.

I also agree that absent parents should be made to pay but my experience with CMS was they made very little effort.

It makes me angry that someone like me (childfree, working and therefore low carbon footprint and a net contributer) is funding someone elses lifestyle choice.