web analytics

WHY BREAKING UP AIN’T HARD TO DO…….

By ATWadmin On November 26th, 2006

wedding rings.jpgWhen Neil Sedaka wrote "that breaking up is hard to do"....he failed to appreciate that socialists take a radically different view on such matters! It has been clear ever since the NuLabour rabble came to power that it has pursued a vindictive approach to the institution of marriage. This is manifest in this story in which a newly wed couple reveals how they were told by a Government welfare official: "You’d get more money if you split up."

Janet and Mark Fensome were advised by their local Job Centre that if they wanted extra money in handouts, the best thing to do was to get divorced because under existing rules, couples who live apart get more.  if the Fensomes had split up they would get an extra £25 a week – or £1,250 a year.

There are other handouts where couples can claim more by breaking up. Divorced couples can claim two portions of housing benefit and council tax rebate. Single parents get a £22.20 housing benefit premium. The unemployed can also claim more in income support and job seekers’ allowance. In both cases a couple who split up can claim an additional £25 a week. A single person gets £57.45 a week in income support. A couple who are both claiming receive a total of £90.10, or £45.05 each. The difference for two people is £24.80 a week or £1,289.60 a year. A total of £200million of income support was claimed fraudulently last year – £130million going to people claiming to be lone parents.

When did you last hear an MSM story attacking alleged "lone parents" for being the biggest contributors to Benefit Fraud? The truth is that Government and its media allies view marriage with contempt and the fact that it has now become financially advantageous to split up speaks volumes for NuLabour’s "commitment" to the family.

14 Responses to “WHY BREAKING UP AIN’T HARD TO DO…….”

  1. "under existing rules, couples who live apart get more."

    Couples who live apart spend more. I doubt that they would be better off when you nett it all out.

  2. What about if you divorce but still live together?

  3. >>What about if you divorce but still live together?<<

    I don’t think that’s possible, Aileen.

  4. It is surely possible, whether you still get treated as a couple for tax/benefit purposes is another matter.

  5. >>It is surely possible, <<

    No, it isn’t.
    A couple can’t get a divorce if they still live together, at least not without breaking the law.

    UK divorce law insists that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and that one of the parties to the marriage has behaved in such an unreasonable manner that the other finds it intolerable to live with her!

  6. cunningham

    Surely you only need irretreval breakdown or unreasonable behavour not both.

    They could still lie about it. If one "moves out" until they can get divorced, They could move back together. I can’t imagine that there is anything that stops a divorced couple from cohabiting.

    It would probably cost more than they would save.

  7. Re: irretreval breakdown or unreasonable behavour

    I think the law requires both, although both overlap to an extent, as unreasonable behaviour is defined in that one party can’t reasonably be expected to continue living with the other due to her behaviour.

    If they lied they would be breaking the law; apart from the penalties, they’d then also miss the tax breaks, which was the point of the fraud in the first place.

    They could probably move back together after some time,
    There is a suprisingly high number of couples who remarry after divorcing, BTW.
    I read once of a couple who married and divorced a total of 4 times!

  8. I’m not suprised about divorcees marrying. I suppose if something was there at one time, it has the potential to be rekindled, especially when the tensions of the divorce are done with and they are not oblidged to be together.

    " one party can’t reasonably be expected to continue living with the other due to HER behaviour"

    oh yeah ;o)

  9. If a couple divorce but continue to live together, they will either lie through their back teeth, something that will come naturally, or will be regarded as lodger & landlord. The latter will result in reduced benefits for the landlord so I guess they’ll just lie.

  10. >>oh yeah ;o)<<

    I was suprised you’d missed it in my first post!

    >>it has now become financially advantageous to split up speaks volumes for NuLabour’s "commitment" to the family<<

    I’m sure it has not "now" become more advantageous. Two single people obviously require more support in total than two living together and this has been recognised for a long time, since well before New Labour.

  11. I’ll be on the alert!

  12. I can remember years ago people complaining that it was cheaper to "live in sin" tax wise.

    Even in the Darling Buds of May, Charlie advised the Larkins that they were better off mot married.

  13. David,
    you would love the Irish constitution’s protection for the family and the institution of marriage so.

    It’s unconstitutional in the Republic for a married couple to be disadvantaged in the ways you bring up. Cases have been taken because of this and tax laws have had to be changed.

    It is seen as an attack on the family and the institution of marriage.

    How can you promote family and marriage when it makes economic sense to live apart from your partner or not marry at all?

    Maybe you could campaign for similar protections in the UK.

  14. Garfield,

    There are several features to life in the Republic which are to be admired. (Still doesn’t mean I want to be part of it though 😉 )