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

Think of it another way. If you moved in with this man, lost your house and benefits, and this relationship also broke down, you'd be in a far worse situation.

Agree with pp's, keep things as they are.

Same here. No children through choice, but work full time to fund myself.
Ive got absolutely no problem with benefits for those unable to work due to health, or circumstances that mean they temporarily need them, but they should not be a long term thing for people capable of working. Don’t have kids without thinking what might happen if you get left on your own with them.

I’d like to see benefits for genuinely disabled people who cannot work, increased. But people choosing it as a way of staying part time should not be allowed to do this.

It’s not PC to say it, but it’s true!

I agree with this.

Im happy to support op while she needs it, and also agree that her dc father should be picking up his share.

I can understand where your coming from but I do feel your being unreasonable to suggest moving in with your new partner shouldn't mean losing your benefits.
Currently I would assume that you have a comfortable life, your income is topped up so you can afford to look after your children as well as work, not sure if you rent but you would get help with that, which is exactly what the system is there for. It is looking after you and your children.
Moving in with your partner is optional but factually you would have a larger income as a couple and you would pay less rent due to it being split. It's not really anyone's fault that your combined wage isn't enough to live on without benefits or that your ex doesn't page CMS (I mean it is your exe fault) but its not your fault either. It might feel hopeless but one day it will all come together.

yes. Both fathers. The father of the dc she’s pregnant with and planning not to move in with as well as the father of the other 3 kids who she says pays 50/50 according to another thread? As per pp on this thread?

So you can't afford your lifestyle but are pregnant again?

This is why people are judgemental of people on benefits.

Exactly this. Why has the tax payer had to step in because the father refuses to pay for his kids? Have you taken him to court?

The OP hasn’t stated she is pregnant again…

He isn't some random man though, he's a man who loves the woman and her children.
I am some random woman, and yet, I am the one currently bankrolling her and her many children. That, to me, is the stupid rule.

I also lost most of my benefits when I married DH - I wasn't working so it was almost all of my income (I claimed PIP and DLA and Carer's Allowance too which still continues to be paid as DH's salary doesn't affect those). It was a big loss as I had extra disabled child elements paid, and we don't get child benefit as DH is over the threshold. But I accepted it was fair as we had become a single household with a high income, and DH and I agreed to treat all household income as family money. DH has always paid for DS (my son, not DH's child) as a child of the family, which is how he is regarded in benefits law, and not treated him differently from our joint dcs. I didn't get CM for DS as his father died.

We did wait 5 years before getting married, as I needed to be sure it would be a lasting relationship, and that meant DS was a teenager by then, and within a few years he was able to claim UC in his own right. We didn't want to move in together without being married as I wanted the financial security of marriage.

I think in your situation, where the wages would mean a drop in living standards, I wouldn't move in together but try to move to be closer together and share lives but in different houses. You can still do family dinners and movie nights, just going home in your own beds at the end. It would be hard to house all your dcs with your joint income.

Is it really more of a struggle to live in one house, with one set of bills, council tax etc on his wage plus yours, than for you to live in separate houses with your UC top up?

Not on this thread, no. However, people have found her other threads where she has shared being pregnant.

Funny that.....

.... but yet she is

Oh dear…😅

Oh dear…😅

Absolutely this!
We budgeted and went without things at times to raise our own children and, while I am happy to pay my share to support those needing a short term safety net, why should we pay for your lifestyle choices?

Light the touchpaper.

Stand well back…

Why did you have so many children with an irresponsible man?
And, sorry, but why as a tax payer should I fund that decision?

That's missing the point entirely. Sure no one knows the future. But many people factor in the risks when making decisions like whether to have 2 kids or 4 kids. The facts the OP had with one kid included having to give up work as she couldn't afford childcare, so most people would have made more conservative family planning and career choices beyond the first couple of kids. It's hardly an unforeseeable outcome.

I agree.

Someone said upthread that they’re on a joint income on £70k and still get UC, whilst I earn less than half of that and aren’t entitled to anything and I’m a single parent.

That poster could have been lying but my sister and friend are both in relationships getting more household income than me and both are also eligible for UC.

The benefits system absolutely needs an overhaul and help the people who actually need help.

I can hardly believe she is pregnant

They do, but let's not ignore that the absent parent who is most likely not paying for their children is usually a man.

The issue is that their father isn't providing for them (why haven't you gone through CMS?) and that your partner is paying maintenance he doesn't need to pay.

If you're living as a family it makes more sense for your partner to pay than the tax payer, instead of funding another household whilst your ex pays nothing.

You could say it incentivises them. Meanwhile those who are net tax contributors favour fewer children, due to busy careers but also cost - since they expect to bankroll their own family members. Sadly Labour backed away from the real conversation around benefits, child poverty levels make it impossible for them (or any government) to crack down on lazy benefits lifestyle parents.