anyone else find this weird?

my husband financially abandoned me though he does pay child support. i had no option but to apply for child and work tax benefits - for which, don't get me wrong i am very grateful and hope will only be an interim thing - but the bit i find weird is this. why does the state seem so happy to pick up his tab? i understand that the point of these benefits is so that the children would not be put in any jeopardy (something my husband didn't mind doing) but it also seems that these benefits will now be used to lower his spousal contribution and i really don't get that. while our children are still too young for school and my earning capacity is somewhat limited, i really feel my ex should be picking up the tab for the family he made and left. there doesn't even seem to be an option to forgo state support in preference of spousal.
anyone else find this weird?

CTC CB and Working Tax credit are not 'the state'. They are tax credits that are given back to you in the form of cash rather than being taxed less up front.
So in a way he is contributing, you are just seeing it as a rebate rather than a surplus at the beginning.
If he is paying CM at the appropriate amount then these tax credits are just a top up rather than SUPPORT for you.
The reality is there are now two households to run and one income normally doesnt cut the mustard. If it does ie he is a high earner, then you should be applying for a CM variation from the courts as teh CSA only has jurisdiction over the first £1000 a week. (I think, the figure could be out but check the website to be sure).
Your argument only goes so far..would you stop claiming these credits if you started receiving SM? Because SM/CM is not counted as income when benefits are assessed so in essence you could have both and LOTS of PWC do.

thanks eyes!

I'm still not sure i properly understand the situation though - or the full implications of it. i agreed to be my husband's dependent and give up my career and look after our children while he worked away from home for long stretches of time. he then cast me aside at a time when i simply cannot get back into the work force at the earning level i was at before. i now find myself the dependent of someone else but if CTC CB and Working Tax credit are not 'the state' who are they then? i earn a pittance - the credits are far more - and i don't pay tax . who is paying for this if not the state? If as you say, 'They are tax credits that are given back to you in the form of cash rather than being taxed less up front' does that mean i will be paying this money back in the form of future taxes?
And i really have no idea what this means -
'So in a way he is contributing, you are just seeing it as a rebate rather than a surplus at the beginning'. i'm not being awkward - i just really don't understand it. How is he contributing?
with regards to the rest of my argument - YES! i absolutely would give up benefits if the SM made up the difference. i think this is fairer on the tax-payer and less shameful for me - and brings me back full circle to finding it weird that it looks like my benefits are going to be taken into account to reduce my husband's spousal contribution. More money for him then - as a direct result of the state subsiding me and his children. He entered an agreement with me as to how we would raise our family and support ourselves - then walked away - and the State (or someone else - the Exchequer then?) is all geared up to make up his deficit. and believe me he could pay it - but it does not look like he is going to be asked to - and i still find it weird.

an interesting argument - no?

X Sam

An interesting question.

I'm afraid, though, I can't help feeling that your view of life has been influenced by your own experiences. Don't get me wrong here. Your husband was quite wrong to leave you, and many people would say that, if he wants his freedom, he should pay for it.

It has been held for a very long time that it is not an excuse for not paying spousal maintenance that benefits such as income support/JSA, housing and council tax benefit, would provide for the needs of the dependent spouse if the former spouse did not.

What happens is that any maintenance received by the dependent spouse is deducted pound for pound from benefits and in theory therefore the position is neutral ; there is no maintenance disregard, at least to my knowledge.

So it's surprising, perhaps, that jilted wives can have their cake and eat it when it comes to tax credits. A little bit odd that the State should apply different rules for different benefits. But from the point of view of people like yourself, it means more money, so from that point of view, why fight it ?

Tax credits are basically designed to make it worth people's while to take low paid jobs, as opposed to remaining on the dole. There is no shame or moral censure in claiming benefits and tax allowances which are openly available under the relevant statutory provisions. Whether SM should be deducted from tax credits is a matter for Parliament.

Can I ask you this, then. I can absolutely assure you that there are wives who do to their husbands exactly what your husband did to you.

Do you believe, then, that the liability of such jilted husbands should be limited to maintaining their children ?

LMM

littlemrmike - when you say 'Do you believe, then, that the liability of such jilted husbands should be limited to maintaining their children ?'

are you asking me do i think that wives who leave husbands to raise the children should be expected to support the husband as well as the children? if so, then absolutely YES! If the husband is left with very young children and his earning capacity is limited while hers is not as a result of being a single parent, then of course she should support the spouse she has left - not because he is her spouse but because he is raising their children at inevitable financial cost to him. i don't see this as a gender issue - though of course it is nearly always seen as one because it is nearly always the female left in the more precarious position.

it's not that i'm fighting the chances that i may end up with a bit more money after being awarded SM (it won't be much) - but i think the underlying governmental position is 'weird.' In our case - my husband left us - contributing very little to our household - is now renting a 4 bedroom house to himself (!) (his children and i are in a 2 bed flat) and is far better off now than he ever was and is really living up his 'freedom'. His SM contributions will be negligible after my benefits are taken into account and it is almost as if he is being rewarded for taking his freedom, certainly he's not being asked to pay for the cost of it. i suppose i think i'm saying that SM should be deducted from working and child tax benefits (to some degree). i do think if the higher earner walks away - they should have to pay for their freedom (to some degree). no doubt, this makes me sound bitter - and of course a part of me is - his life is delightful now and mine has become extremely difficult - but it's not the personal issues i find questionable (I'll get over it)- it's the governmental stance.

here's something for the mix -

i bet if more married people knew how easy it actually is thanks to benefits to walk away from your spouse (either gender) and children and financial responsibilites - that in fact you could actually even be better off financially in some cases - a lot more people would be doing it!

now tell me that's not weird....

I think LMMs question probably relates to a position where the husband is evicted but the mother remains as the PWC

LB