cohabiting couple-social welfare entitlement?

P

percy pig

Guest
Myself and my boyfriend got back from a year traveling a few months ago, He was able to take a career break for the year out and luckily went straight back into his job when we got home. We had saved up some money before we went away to put towards getting a house and when we got back we both moved back into our separate family homes and planned to save like crazy to get the full down payment together. I however could not find a job and eventually decided I should sign on the dole. . . 6 months later still no job and unfortunately I am still getting the jobseekers allowance. However my boyfriend surprisingly has been able to get a mortgage based on his wage alone and last week we decided to put a deposit on a place that had dropped by 100,000. My boyfriend has put the mortgage in his name and we plan to solicit the house into both of our names. We are worried that once we are living together I will not be able to get the full jobseekers allowance amount that I have been receiving and we have calculated that without this we will not be able to make ends meet. Does anyone have any advice on this situation? Thanks.
 
If you cant afford to buy without 204 euro per week JA then you cant handle any rate increases on your mortgage...Therefore you cant aford to buy...
How would you cope if/when mortgage rates go back up by at least another 3% to the rate they were in July 08?
 
You will find it difficult to have a mortgage in one name and deeds in two, works the other way around alright but not so well that way, doubt if very many banks would agree to that.
 
ivannomonet said:
If you cant afford to buy without 204 euro per week JA then you cant handle any rate increases on your mortgage...Therefore you cant aford to buy...
How would you cope if/when mortgage rates go back up by at least another 3% to the rate they were in July 08?
Click to expand...

we had planned to fix the mortgage for 3 years so a rate increase wont be a problem for us, but apart from the mortgage repayments, if i was to lose €204 a week we would struggle with other living expenses. I have found out that i will have to inform the social welfare of a change in circumstances and they will means test me again as a cohabiting person and will probably decrease my allowance by half or maybe completely take it away, the thing that doesnt make sense is that my boyfriend will still be getting taxed as a single person.
 
agapanthus said:
You will find it difficult to have a mortgage in one name and deeds in two, works the other way around alright but not so well that way, doubt if very many banks would agree to that.
Click to expand...

The bank has no problem with this, they told us we should get the deeds in both names and at a later date we can put my name on the mortgage.
 
percy,

In answer to your query re continuing to qualify for Jobseeker's, you will be means-tested on your partner's income, so depending on his wages, you may qualify for less (or no) JA.
 
Do you know the cut off amount for a JA when means tested against a partners salary. Have looked on a website but find it quite hard to work out. I know you take your partners weekly gross minus expenses then minus €60 and then take 60%. This will give you a figure but how do you then know if this figure is too much??
What do I compare it too?
 
Sorry I can't be of help but just had to say this is something that really bugs me.

I just don't understand how it can be fine to take into account a partners income for SW and not be entitled on the other side to the tax credits. Baffling!!
 
summer00 said:
Do you know the cut off amount for a JA when means tested against a partners salary. Have looked on a website but find it quite hard to work out. I know you take your partners weekly gross minus expenses then minus €60 and then take 60%. This will give you a figure but how do you then know if this figure is too much??
What do I compare it too?
Click to expand...

You subtract the means amount from the JA which would be paid for your family size if there were no means assessed.

The full JA rate for a couple is €339.90 and there is an additional €26 for each child.
 
BaileyMc said:
I just don't understand how it can be fine to take into account a partners income for SW and not be entitled on the other side to the tax credits. Baffling!!
Click to expand...

Here, here! I'm suprised not more people are complaining about this. It is so unjust. I've no problem with declaring cohabitation for sw purposes. I do feel cheated though not to be able to share tax credits - with the public sector levy and other increases my partner and I will soon be better off if we were both on the dole. It's one I'll be putting to the politicians when they come knocking.
 
BaileyMc said:
I just don't understand how it can be fine to take into account a partners income for SW and not be entitled on the other side to the tax credits. Baffling!!
Click to expand...

Constitutionally they have to take the partner's income into consideration for social welfare purposes. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare) on the basis that treating unmarried cohabitees as if they were single, for social welfare purposes, would put them in a better position than married couples which is prohibited under Article 41.3.

The tax credits policy is also derived from a Supreme Court ruling (Murphy v AG) which found that married couples could not receive less favourable treatment than unmarried couples. I'm not entirely clear on why that means cohabitees couldn't avail of the same tax credits, but anyway that's the basis of the government's explanation of this anomaly.
 
gipimann said:
You subtract the means amount from the JA which would be paid for your family size if there were no means assessed.

The full JA rate for a couple is €339.90 and there is an additional €26 for each child.
Click to expand...


So this means if your partners means (60%) is more that €339.90 per week you will get no JA?? This totally does not seem fair esp. when you are trying your hardest to get a job and just can't get one!!!!
 
Brooklyn said:
Constitutionally they have to take the partner's income into consideration for social welfare purposes. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare) on the basis that treating unmarried cohabitees as if they were single, for social welfare purposes, would put them in a better position than married couples which is prohibited under Article 41.3.

The tax credits policy is also derived from a Supreme Court ruling (Murphy v AG) which found that married couples could not receive less favourable treatment than unmarried couples. I'm not entirely clear on why that means cohabitees couldn't avail of the same tax credits, but anyway that's the basis of the government's explanation of this anomaly.
Click to expand...

The point on cohabitees is completely my reason for annoyance. The SW policy means that co-habiting couples are treated in the same way as married couples, which to my mind makes sense. However, the tax credits point comes down to a discrimination of couples who for whatever reason are not married as we do not recognise any legal partnership. Not only are they discriminated against for tax credits but also asset transfers, rights on the death of one of the parties under intestacy etc.

I know the whole debate of legalising such partnerships has many complex issues. One of the main obstacles is the whole "family" issue in the constitution but in todays society with families taking all sorts of shapes and sizes it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Apologies to the OP as I know this is completely off topic!
 
tell me about it, I am currently complaining to a local TD about this whole set up. Hes going away to ask why there is such discrimination.......not sure whether to believe it or not but he said that it is the first time anyone has aksed him this question.....
I was giving out that my partner is being meanstested for JA against my income yet I can't claim his tax credits.....
Apologies for hijacking as well, I'll let you know if I get any response from the TD (though the case law above could be the reason...........)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top