Sorry, but as long as this rule exists, feminism is not working.

[marantha]

I am fortunate enough not to be personally affected by this rule, but a friend of mine has now had a bit of a shock because of it. The rule of which I write is the 'Cohabitation Rule', she lives with her partner and because he earns too much, SHE is not entitled to any benefits in her own right.

Now had she been living with a male friend (as opposed to partner) she could receive the benefit (s). So let's get this straight, in the 21st Century, whether or not people receive monies is dependent on whether they are having sex?!
Now I can sort of understand if they were married, why this may be acceptable-after all, they would have then held themselves out as a formal couple.

Or am I even wrong on this? After all, plenty of reason here for an abusive husband to deny his wife funds, isn't there? Should she be unfortunate enough to not be able to work any more.

I don't know; just seems totally screwed up to me.

It seems to me that UNTIL women are seen as individuals in own right, feminism has not worked.

I know that asking for people to be seen as individuals would destroy concept of marriage in a legal/financial sense- if everybody only got out financially into marriage what they put into a marriage when broken down, but somehow this seems far more 'feminist' to me.

Any thoughts?

Surely this works both ways though - a man who's (female) partner is earning enough to keep the household isn't entitled to benefits.

If you choose to live as a unit, you support each other when times are tough. The government can't do it all.

But it would be the same if a man wasn't working but living with a woman who earned 'too much'.

And they ARE a formal couple - they are living together.

It would be better to be married, and then you would actually have a right to your H's earnings.

I don't see how it is 'feminist' to say that people should only get out financially what they put in to a marriage - you're contradicting yourself. That would mean a SAHM wouldn't be entitled to much money upon separation.

But if a woman is working and her male partner loses his job, he wouldn't be entitled to benefits either. It's based on household income isn't it?

Does it work the other way around?
If a low income male is living with and having sex with a high income female, is he not entitled to claim benefits in his own right?

Slow posting, thank you for the answers.

I'm not sure it is a feminist issue. It's about household income. Why should someone who is part of a couple or a family get benefits when the family income is above the benefits threshold?

It is a male/female issue as men still earn far more than women. But not sure the answer is to award benefits to well-off families.

I believe it does work the other way around- sorry, going to have to abandon thread for now, got to go to work. But not done a thread 'hit and run'.

No, the Co-habitation rule works no matter which party is the unemployed one.

If she were working and he weren't, he wouldn't get the benefits.

She still gets NI stamps, as would he if it were him.

It's not to do with if you're having sex, it's to do with "living together as if you were married" - ie, having responsibility for each other, financially.
If she were just flat-sharing, she wouldn't give two hoots whether that other person were fine, as long as they could pay their way.
when you're co-habitting, you have a vested interest whether they get chucked out (esp if you have kids).

I useed t olive with a girl (house-share) and I had to be interviewed in my home to prove that she wasn't my live-in girlfriend.

I think you've completely misunderstood it, marantha.

I agree with whatagradeA. It's not really a feminist issue because the rule applies to people of either sex. Although I must concede that in reality, this often does mean the woman, because men are more frequently the breadwinners.

It's not about whether they are having sex - it's about being part of a committed relationship, in which resources are shared.

Yes. This may affect more women than men, but when dh lost his job he was entitled to 6 months contributions based JSA and then nothing after that as my income was too high.

iirc, when retiredgoth moved in with his new partner he lost his benefits entitlement because their combined income was too high, so it's not really about women is it? Except that women tend to be the lower earning partner (thought not in my personal case).

I don't think there's a gender issue here, as others have said.

But there are potential inequalities. If you are living together without marriage or civil partnership, then the law does not recognise you as a couple in some ways (division of property at split up, and intestacy laws), but does in others (household income for benefits).

I would not want to see cohabitation treated as equal to marriage/CP, because it removes the choice to live without the legal status. But logically, at should also mean completely separate status - so benefits should be assessed as if you were simply flatmates. [Obvious current snag - affordability].

This is a feminist issue because it vastly disproportionatly effects women.

It is a major component of the 'poverty trap'.

Men and women living together are assumed to be financially supporting each other (almost always male-to-female).

I can see that they do it to save money but in principle it's wrong.

AFAIK in Sweden it's different.

darlene, surely the problem lies in the reason why it affects women disproportionately and not in this particular effect. If this does not happen to men as often as it does to women, it is not in how the rule is constructed but is caused by other factors - it's those other factors that should be the target of any action.

It's not unreasonable for a couple living together (as opposed to friends sharing a home) to be expected to pool their resources. If the (higher) earner does not pull his or her weight, the onus is on the non- or lower earner to decide what to do about it. It's not up to the state in the first instance to compensate the lower earner for their partner's shortcomings.

I agree with the OP. Where couples are assessed together for benefits more women end up poorer.

I think there would be uproar if it was suggested that women should have to file their taxes jointly with their partners but at the other end of the scale is seems to widely accepted that benefits should be claimed as a couple. I don't see why taxes and benefits follow different principles.

I pay my own taxes and NI, independently of my husband, and should I need to claim I should be treated independently of him then too.

It's creeping in for tax too - HRT tax payers are set to have CB clawed back via tax system if they are in a household with a CB recipient.

I can't see the state ever being prepared/able to give full state benefits to SAHPs whose partners are earning 6 figures, and it would be a cold day in hell before they'd give such a huge financial incentive not to marry.
Actually I think there is a moral case for giving jobseekers' allowance to a person who is actively seeking work and has paid their NI regardless of household income, but I don't even know what the rules are there.

Dilys: you can claim contributions based JSA for 6 months, regardless of household income and savings. After that you can still sign on for the NI credit, but will not receive the money if household income/savings are too high.

My mum did that when she left work.

I agree that it is a feminist issue.

I moved in with my boyfriend when he was a student and I was working term-time only. Our finances were totally separate - his parents paid his half of the rent, he was living off a student loan. I had a job and paid all the council tax, we split the other bills 50/50.

In the summer hols, he got a bar job to save for the following year's studies, and I was jobless so applied for benefits - the bloody arsing bloke comes round unannounced, I was in alone, and he challenged my application, asking me to show him where we both slept, implying that we were a couple as we slept together. He then told me that because my boyfriend had an income (obviously only for the summer) he should support me and that my claim was to be rejected.

I ended up taking out a loan to pay my rent

Thanks onimolap, knowledge is always good. Those particular rules sound fairly reasonable actually, pretty much what I'd put in place if I were queen.

phooey - your anecdote does not make it a feminist issue. If you had been the one with a summer job and your boyfriend had tried to claim benefits, the same thing would've happened.

I agree because of the disproportionate impact on women that it's a feminist issue.

But benefits are about wealth redistribution and ensuring people are able to survive when things get tough. While I'm sure there are individual situations where the current rules seem unfair, I don't see that it would be fair in most situations to be giving public money to people who would generally expect to be enjoying wealth available to their household.

I'm also somewhat against moves that push us to be more individualistic and less household/family oriented. Over all I don't think that will benefit women. I think we have too few cultural expectations to financially support those close to us.