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

If you were married though, you should have left the marriage with at least half of the assets. You could use some of this to retrain to a better paying career; as you have 50% of your time child-free you have plenty of time to work and study. If you had a decent solicitor you’d have got most of the house funds so you should be in a good housing situation. If you choose to be in a relationship with a low earner, that’s an informed choice. It’s not the same as OP’s position at all.

People like you make my blood boil OP. Five kids between you, reliant on benefits and part-time work, not even living together, and having a baby… This kind of behaviour is why benefits must be cut.

Leaving the woman contributing 100% of her income towards her children’s homes/lives, while the absent man tries to evade his (max) CMS contribution of 15-25% NET.

I’ve gone on to have 3 more children

The word 'more' here suggests that she has at least 4 children.

While the amount nrp's pay (and evade) can be dismal, its not true that the rp is contributing 100% of her income towards her children. If the children didn't exist she would still need to pay for rent, food, electricity, transport etc for herself. The cost to the rp is the additional they have to pay (e.g. rent between a 1 bed and 2 bed, food kids eat etc) plus opportunity cost (e.g. not being able to work fulltime) less any benefits the children entitle the rp to.
The reality can be grim enough, there is no need to exaggerate it.

According to another thread she’s got 3 boys and is pregnant with her 4th.

I think the percentages should be amended. If a NRP has any overnights it should be far lower than someone who has none. Providing a home and bedrooms is the bulk of the cost of children, whether they’re in sleeping there or not.

The OP has not be careful enough with her choice of man to have numerous kids with. She has now found another man and is whinging that she will lose benefits.

You really couldnt make it up.

What is “really unfair” OP is that you had children that you couldn’t afford.

But you're expecting then for other people aka the wider tax payer to pay for that couple's life choices and that's not particularly fair either.

There are plenty of families that live apart for welfare -

Parents have more babies still together and live apart.

OP isn’t the only one playing the system.

The rest of us mugs get married and share raising kids.

If we want more money we have to earn it - you want more, you have another baby.

Yeah to the new boyfriend.

it’s just beyond me why you’d do that to yourself. She made out like the four kids were all with her ex on this post too which isn’t really honest.

I think the main problem is that the father is not being made accountable, this happens so often. There should be some way men like this have money deducted and paid to the mother.
In a dv situation then surely it can be deducted and paid without him being given any information.

What is with these sorts of daft questions?

Like it might never have occurred to the OP to seek maintenance from the father of her 3 children 🙄

Jesus

Interestingly, a previous post by the OP seems to suggest she and her partner share finances anyway

Just not for benefit purpose it seems

Like it might never have occurred to the OP to seek maintenance from the father of her 3 children

Personally I would change the law.

We know the average child costs 250K to raise - let’s half that - deduct housing and bills.

If 1 parents defaults then they get an automatic loan per child and that has to be paid back from either working or assets.

They could then spread to cost over 30 years like a mortgage. Any default results in an automatic fine being added.

Resident parent gets paid from the loan weekly or monthly.

Any additional payments like uniforms or shoes will also result in half being added to the loan.

Might stop people having children they can’t afford - in this case the father.

Spot on.

Of course fathers should be financially responsible but the number of women making appalling choices and then expect the tax payer to bail them out is atrocious. Nothing short of being irresponsible and then begging. No doubt someone will be along to say they 'make ideal parents' Really, I beg to differ. The system enables rubbish parenting, setting no example.

The sooner their benefits are cut the better!

Yeah, that’s how it works for everyone.

I was a single mum who worked but also got some help from benefits. Both me and my partner knew that when we moved in together, I’d lose all my benefits and all the little extras that come with UC. We decided we loved each other enough to go for it and make it work. He’s never had a problem taking on the extra responsibility of raising my DD — emotionally and financially. He knew he was getting both a partner and a daughter, and I wouldn’t have been with him if he didn’t see it that way. My DD’s dad isn’t in her life (not dead, just walked away), so maybe our situation’s a bit different.

But before, I was paying rent while he had a mortgage, and we were both paying separate council tax and bills etc, so there have actually been a few financial positives to living together. I never wanted to be on benefits forever anyway — I always saw them as something to help while I got back on my feet after I found myself in a tough situation.

The only bit that did annoy me slightly was losing the disabled child element. That money really helped cover some of my daughter’s medical costs, and it felt unfair to lose that when it was for her. But the rest of it? The only fair way to do it is based on collective family income.

You've had FOUR children you can't afford. FOUR. Why?! It's absolutely absurd that you expect taxpayers like me - who chose to stop at two children, despite wanting more, because of finances - to fund them and you long term, and now think we should continue to do so despite you moving in with someone earning £40k.

Wow! £70k and you get UC. How does that work ?

@tramtracks We're on about £48 k pa jointly and get no UC or benefits (we have a 5 yo) so no idea?!!! We also privately rent so no help with that.

This, also as a couple you may still be able to claim UC even if your partner works full time and you work part time.

You are going to get those world’s smallest violins playing with this

I'm sure these types of posts are plant. Surely no one thinks like this in real life? Focus on getting the kids dad to pay his share, not how you can wangle more cash from the rest of us.

It's the benefits gravy train. Choo, choo, the benefit train comes a calling.