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.

Gender/sex not taken into account at all with this rule, it is 100% fair.

(if two women or two men are living as a couple then I believe they are also counted as a couple for benefits)

If you live as a coupleyou are financially dependant on each other.
Not so with housemates.

Can't see why you view this as a feminist issue.

Would it not be counter-productive to the feminist cause? It would put a defined (low) value on child raising and diminish the argument that a SAH parent provides an equal contribution to a relationship, albeit one that is not quantified in monetary terms.

Not all benefits take a partner's income into account. Benefits such as disability living allowance, carers allowance, and contributory benefits such as maternity allowance, contributions-based employment and support allowance and contributions-based jobseeker's allowance can be paid regardless of your partner's earnings. Other benefits such as housing benefit and tax credits are based on joint income.

I think that the balance is about right at the moment, but the forthcoming cuts in tax credits and child benefit are going to disadvantage women. On the other hand, if your partner doesn't do their fair share of the housework you wouldn't expect the government to pay for a cleaner to make up the shortfall.

Witholding money from a non-earning partner is very common in abusive relationships. The only way I can see round this is if a couple is found not eligible for child tax credits an/or CB, an equivalent sum to CB and minimum tax credits is paid from the earner's wage into the non-earner's account (usually a woman).

The other alternative is for councils to make it much easier for people to leave an abusive relationship.

M, I think the remark about a cleaner is a bit inappropriate. Living in an untidy house is not equivalent to not being able to get a medical prescription, travel anywhere, buy food for your children or tampons for yourself because you have absolutely no income of your own whatsoever.

I think seriously abusive relationships are a separate issue though. If a woman is in a relationship which is so abusive that she can't get medicine, tampons or food, then councils/voluntary organisations/friends/relatives should be supporting her to LEAVE that relationship. Giving her more money while she stays in that abusive situation won't make things all right - the abuser could presumably take that money too and keep it for himself.

I appreciate that it would also apply to men as well as women (a male gay couple would be affected by same rules), but I suppose it boils down to how feminism is defined: is feminism about issues that only affect women or is it about something which tends to affect women disproprortionately? To me it is the latter.

It does surprise me that the presumption here (which has not been challenged by anyone) is that if people are in a couple, they should automatically be expected to support one another financially.
That is, sexual and intimate relationship= must equal financial support. Women are prostitutes, that is the message I am getting from this.
And as for the argument that a decision must take into account a number of factors, clearly this is nonsense because if a platonic couple lived in same way as Phooey but without sex the decision would have been that she was single.
Sex is the difference.

The argument that it would place too much burden on the state is a red herring;
it is the principle that I disagree with- the cost is another matter.

Maranth, the rule isn't that a sexual and intimate relationship must equal financial support. If you are living apart from someone who you have a sexual and intimate relationship with then the the state does not have the same expectation of financial support. It's the keeping of a household together that changes this. And you can do this without having sex (as quite a few couples in long term relationships seem to).

DWP rules on cohabitation ("living together as husband and wife or civil partners")

The law in this area is quite clear that no one factor is conclusive in deciding whether two people are a couple. "Evidence of a sexual relationship does not, on its own, mean that two people should be thought of as LTAHAW or LTACP. Similarly two people may be LTAHAW or LTACP without having a sexual relationship."

So, if two people have a sexual relationship but don't regard themselves as being a couple, are largely independent and they keep their finances separate then they shouldn't be regarded as a couple under this rule.

Being a couple is about a lot more than just sex; it's about commitment and caring for each other. In particular, if you are married or civil partners then you have clearly made a commitment to support each other and that should include financial support. Is it realistic to expect taxpayers to fund non-earning partners of high-earning people, in every case? Factors such as disability or caring responsibilities may mean that it's fair for the non-earning partner to get some benefits (which they can, under the current system), but I don't think it would be fair for every non-earning person with a partner to get the same level of benefits that they would need if they were single. If a SAHM married to a husband on 60k is assessed on an individual basis and gets the same level of benefits as a single parent with no other income, that means a much greater burden on a taxpayer and a reduction in benefit rates all round.

So commitment and caring for each other=the other person must support you financially?

I have read the rules and thank you for putting them up, melpomene, but the rules, as they stand, are deeply subjective, and, frankly, can mean whatever the benefits assessor (don't know if this is correct term) want them to mean.
Unless, of course, actually married where you either are or are not.

It does disgust me that 'being in a relationship' is seen as a criteria to deem whether or not someone is entitled to get money to feed themselves (especially as people pay tax as INDIVIDUALS (!)).
And there is no doubt that cohabitees get treated like dirt by the tax/benefits system- single when suits (i.e. cannot claim widows pension) and 'married' when it suits (cannot claim single person benefits).
I would like to see someone defend this as being in any way shape or form as being fair.
If altering the system meant that the downside would be that every person was deemed to be an individual in their own right when it came to divorce/separation (and therefore people only took out what they could prove they've contributed financially to relationship) so be it.
Better that than be seen as an appendage of another person.

marantha, your proposed divorce rules are intriguing. What if, after both parties have provided proof of what they contributed, there is something left over? That is to say, what if some of a couple's assets could not be proved to have been the sole contribution of one or other partner? Who gets the balance?

Perhaps you have a point about cohabitees and entitlement to benefits but then could that be the price a couple pays for the uncertainty that goes with cohabiting? If a couple lives together but has not in any way formalised their partnership by marrying (or by becoming civil partners), how does the state tell the difference between a committed partnership and a temporary hookup?

That aside, even if cohabitees are treated unfairly, as long as the sexes are treated equally unfairly it is not a matter of discrimination against women.

I do agree that it is very unfair that cohabitees cannot claim bereavement benefits, even if they were regarded as a couple for benefits purposes while alive. That sort of inconsistency is not defensible (especially if there are children from the relationship, meaning that the parent who died would have had a legal duty to financially maintain those children if they hadn't died.)

However, are you really saying that each partner in a couple should get the same level of means-tested benefits as they would if were single? This would mean that people with partners on 50k, 100k or more could claim hundreds of pounds each week in benefits. What public services should be cut to pay for this?

Means-tested benefits are intended as a safety net for people who otherwise wouldn't have enough to live on. They should be targeted at those most in need, which doesn't include people who are financially supported by high-income partners. Hard cases make bad law, and it wouldn't be right to base the rules on the minority of cases where higher-income partners refuse to share any of their income with the non-earning partner. Other mechanisms and funding should be in place to help people in financially abusive relationships.

MsHighwater, if you look at the link I posted above it gives guidance on the difference between a committed partnership and a temporary hookup. It's a very interesting area of law.

marantha, you seem to be arguing that "being in a relationship" should not imply any responsiblity of one partner towards the other but isn't that exactly what is implied by commitment?

Anyone who came on MN with a tale of a partner who could not be relied on to provide support in time of need would be told in no uncertain terms to end the relationship. The expectation of sharing resources one way or another is part of what we understand about committed relationships, isn't it? Just like the benefit rules state, it is one of the ways in which we can recognise a couple from two people who are not a couple.

I agree that it's a feminist issue.

phooey that is shocking, that your benefits were dependant on whether or not you were having sex or not.

scrap one of those 'or nots'

Although, I also agree with Thistledew "Would it not be counter-productive to the feminist cause? It would put a defined (low) value on child raising and diminish the argument that a SAH parent provides an equal contribution to a relationship, albeit one that is not quantified in monetary terms."

OTOH, this struck a chord with me marantha
"It does disgust me that 'being in a relationship' is seen as a criteria to deem whether or not someone is entitled to get money to feed themselves (especially as people pay tax as INDIVIDUALS (!)).
And there is no doubt that cohabitees get treated like dirt by the tax/benefits system- single when suits (i.e. cannot claim widows pension) and 'married' when it suits (cannot claim single person benefits).
I would like to see someone defend this as being in any way shape or form as being fair."

The system is stacked against women. I started a thread on here a while back about social workers who are obligated to remove the children from the mother if the father is abusing her ; and yet nobody is under any obligation to take the abuser out of the home-- despite the fact that if there is enough evidence to remove the children, then there's certainly enough to remove the abuser.
BUt then, if a mother leaves an abusive partner, often she is obgligated law by to allow her children to see him. THe law does an about turn when it suits it, just like in your above example.

See this is where I think we should be able to file tax returns as a couple....

If you live as a couple, share financial responsibility, have joint accounts, file taxes as a couple etc then you should be treated as one for the purpose of benefits. Otherwise it seems the way of deciding is a little off.

However I have absolutely nothing against the rule in principle that if you are part of a financially interdependent unit such as a married/CPd/common law couple (or you've declared yourselves to be such by filing a joint tax return) you should be assessed on income as a whole because it goes for men and women. The fact that women are disproportionately affected is the issue, as many people have said. Giving women benefits isn't going to solve that.

MsHighwater, I suppose most 'big' assets e.g. house (s) would have the owner shown clearly on documents. So if the couple divorced, the person who owned the house would get it- and if the other spouse could prove they contributed to mortgage, they may be able to claim a share.
In other words, I would like married spouses who divorce to be no different from cohabitees that split up and marriage to become a lifestyle choice rather than something the govt can use to deny people certain rights.

I know there might be a pot of money left- but they could go to the small claims court to fight over this.

I would also respectfully ask the people who have posted here dismissing this as NOT being a feminist issue because it affects both sexes if they've refrained from commenting on threads here about prostitution and stay at home parenting. After all, MEN can be prostitutes and stay at home parents, too.

swallowedafly, the cohabitation rule has nothing to do with financial support in the event of a split.
There is no such thing as common-law-marriage, an unmarried man CAN throw a woman out after 20 years cohabitation if she has not (or cannot prove) that she has contributed to house financially.
THAT is another reason why cohabitees get a rough deal!

And although I disagree with cohabitation having any legal standing (that's what marriage is for) I must say that the people who argue for 'cohabitee rights' have a valid point when they say that such a couple are 'married' when suits (i.e. benefit system).