- Posts: 736
A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce
Can someone explain to me how a welfare state deals with a presumed 50/50 split of care when parents separate? I struggle to understand how we would fund it.
A simple example as follows:
2 parents working full time on minimum wage. 2 children, split between the pair of them on a 50/50 basis - simple decision to split the child benefit between them and each side gets the same tax credit top up on their minimum salaries. All very fair until you realise that instead of one parent being eligible for housing benefit/council housing to house themselves and two children (2 beds, potentially 3 if children of different sexes and of an age where they are deemed unsuitable to share), you end up with two parents with that same eligibility at a cost to the tax payer. If both children lived with one parent, you would get a 2/3 bed eligibility and a 1 bed eligibility at less cost to the tax payer.
How is a judge going to deal with the financial side of a split where the children need equal housing with both parents and there isn't enough money to go around to house them even with one?
What happens when the nursing assistant marries the consultant doctor and a 50/50 split of care is assumed upon divorce? how does the nursing assistant keep a roof over their children's head 50% of the time if they're not eligible for full housing allowances, tax credits etc.?
I get the need for a presumed 50/50 of care. But I find it so hard to visualise (not sure that's the right word?) how that works in practise when it is usually one parent who has given up work/gone part time/taken a hit in terms of career development, when one parent earns considerably more than the other, where the tax payer if funding a welfare state, where despite legislation preventing it women still earn less for doing the same job as men etc.etc.etc. Surely with an overhaul of how it works legally, there would need to be a corresponding overhaul of how welfare works? or by suggesting 50/50 as default, are we really saying the person who earns most 'wins' the children?