Tax credits for non married individuals

jamesbondings

I cannot find anything online that gives tax credits for a dependent for me. I am a non married parent (not a single parent) I Co habit our house (rented) with my child's mother.

Is there nothing out there for us or am I blind?

Thanks in advance

relax carry on

jamesbondings wrote: »

I cannot find anything online that gives tax credits for a dependent for me. I am a non married parent (not a single parent) I Co habit our house (rented) with my child's mother.

Is there nothing out there for us or am I blind?

Thanks in advance

No. Joint assessment only applies to married and civil partnership cases.

jamesbondings

relax carry on wrote: »

No. Joint assessment only applies to married and civil partnership cases.

I actually hate this backwards catholic country.

Thanks though much appreciated

Mrs OBumble

jamesbondings wrote: »

I actually hate this backwards catholic country.

Thanks though much appreciated

It gets worse: if you become unemployed then your partners income counts even if you're not working.

But for tax, it counts for naught.

jamesbondings

jamesbondings wrote: »

I actually hate this backwards catholic country.

Thanks though much appreciated

I would imagine it's the same anywhere in the world. Why do you think you should get any special tax treatment when you have no official or legal ties to the person you want to be jointly assessed with? You need to be married for these things for very good reason.

jamesbondings

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

I would imagine it's the same anywhere in the world. Why do you think you should get any special tax treatment when you have no official or legal ties to the person you want to be jointly assessed with? You need to be married for these things for very good reason.

Because in this country everything Costs an arm and a leg. Wages don't match the cost of living so that wedding we need to have in order to avail of tax credits for our son will cost a fortune. I am paying huge rents, huge car insurance, huge tax (on everything) and get very little in return. I don't know what the tax credits would be but imagine the cost of a wedding would be a lot more than what it is worth. I know you will say just go down and have a wedding in the registry office, I would! My partner won't.
The point is we will get married eventually. Not in this country I wouldn't imagine.
In fact if I could talk her into leaving our family and our friends and support system, I would be booking flights right now.

There are tax credits for everyone else BUT cohabiting families. We are not the type of people to claim lone parents family benefit. But I can see why some do. I can't even bring my son to the doctor as we are awaiting his registration on some system.
(obviously I would if he needs to go but rang Dr to find out if he needs to go what has to happen and without his card you have to pay the 65 quid)

Backwards country with no common sense at all. The child is always going to be mine and even if we were married could get divorced so I don't get why this is exclusively for married people.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Its not about being catholic its about telling the state that you and someone else are a permanent team and should be treated together for tax purposes.

jamesbondings

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Its not about being catholic its about telling the state that you and someone else are a permanent team and should be treated together for tax purposes.

I get that, but does living together (for over 5 years) having a kid together etc not suffice

Deagol

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

I would imagine it's the same anywhere in the world. Why do you think you should get any special tax treatment when you have no official or legal ties to the person you want to be jointly assessed with? You need to be married for these things for very good reason.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just genuinely not able to understand a rational argument?

It's fine that cohabiting people cannot get claim any tax reliefs etc but when it comes to claiming social welfare that they pay tax to receive in the first place, suddenly they are assessed on the basis they cohabit?? Talk about having your cake and eating it.....

CIARAN_BOYLE

jamesbondings wrote: »

I get that, but does living together (for over 5 years) having a kid together etc not suffice

no, you have not done anything to tell the state that you are a team. a marriage does that. You dont have to have a catholic wedding or a party, your partner wants one. a registry office is sufficient. if you want the tax credits of your partner you go to a government office and sign the form. YOU and YOUR PARTNER have chosen not to.

jamesbondings

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

no, you have not done anything to tell the state that you are a team. a marriage does that. You dont have to have a catholic wedding or a party, your partner wants one. a registry office is sufficient. if you want the tax credits of your partner you go to a government office and sign the form. YOU and YOUR PARTNER have chosen not to.

The point I am making is that we shouldn't have to. Like the previous poster mentioned they will tax us as a couple if I was to apply for social welfare! So they do know or will know we are a couple and will tax us accordingly then.

Colser

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Its not about being catholic its about telling the state that you and someone else are a permanent team and should be treated together for tax purposes.

Yet they consider people a permanent team when one partner becomes unemployed...it amazes me that this hasn't been challenged as it must affect a large amount of people...I too can see why lone parents allowance is claimed by some in this situation..the rest of us are being totally screwed.

CIARAN_BOYLE

jamesbondings wrote: »

The point I am making is that we shouldn't have to. Like the previous poster mentioned they will tax us as a couple if I was to apply for social welfare! So they do know or will know we are a couple and will tax us accordingly then.

You have to take the step if you want any benefits, otherwise the state will assume the worst situation for you.

jamesbondings

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

You have to take the step if you want any benefits, otherwise the state will assume the worst situation for you.

I do appreciate your input I genuinely do. I would love to know if YOU personally believe the situation is fair.

Deagol

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

You have to take the step if you want any benefits, otherwise the state will assume the worst situation for you.

Can you expand on the above? I have no idea what you mean by that. I suspect the cogent argument presented opposing your view is too good to be defeated by rational means. So you have switched to making strange comments you hope look intelligent enough that you think no one will question the meaning of??

Colser

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

You have to take the step if you want any benefits, otherwise the state will assume the worst situation for you.

So they assume that a couple with children and a mortgage are only playing house....this subject actually makes my blood boil..it's a total injustice and should be addressed asap..

ted1

jamesbondings wrote: »

Because in this country everything Costs an arm and a leg. Wages don't match the cost of living so that wedding we need to have in order to avail of tax credits for our son will cost a fortune. I am paying huge rents, huge car insurance, huge tax (on everything) and get very little in return. I don't know what the tax credits would be but imagine the cost of a wedding would be a lot more than what it is worth. I know you will say just go down and have a wedding in the registry office, I would! My partner won't.
The point is we will get married eventually. Not in this country I wouldn't imagine.
In fact if I could talk her into leaving our family and our friends and support system, I would be booking flights right now.

There are tax credits for everyone else BUT cohabiting families. We are not the type of people to claim lone parents family benefit. But I can see why some do. I can't even bring my son to the doctor as we are awaiting his registration on some system.
(obviously I would if he needs to go but rang Dr to find out if he needs to go what has to happen and without his card you have to pay the 65 quid)

Backwards country with no common sense at all. The child is always going to be mine and even if we were married could get divorced so I don't get why this is exclusively for married people.

A wedding costs €150. That's all. If you chose to spend more then that's your choice,
I'd be more worried about the rights of an unmarried father, than lack of tax credits which are only really useful when there's just the one income

Turtle_

jamesbondings wrote: »

I do appreciate your input I genuinely do. I would love to know if YOU personally believe the situation is fair.

You know, it is inherently unfair that you are separate for tax, but joint for trying to get any state support. It would possibly make a decent case, at least that if cohabiting couples are jointly assessed for social welfare claims due to one partner becoming unemployed, the "supporting" partner should get an additional tax credit in the year they support their partner.

However, that's not the situation as it stands, and your wife's refusal to sign a form is costing you a lot of money. Work out how much your non-married status has cost since your son arrived, how much you expect it to cost you every single year until you expect to be able to afford the wedding she wants and present her with those numbers. Make her see how real the loss is.

Tbh it sounds like your OH needs to grow up. Get married in an office, have a nice meal with family, and put all your tax savings towards a 5 year vow renewal with big wedding bash that she wants. It's win-win.

jamesbondings

Turtle_ wrote: »

You know, it is inherently unfair that you are separate for tax, but joint for trying to get any state support. It would possibly make a decent case, at least that if cohabiting couples are jointly assessed for social welfare claims due to one partner becoming unemployed, the "supporting" partner should get an additional tax credit in the year they support their partner.

However, that's not the situation as it stands, and your wife's refusal to sign a form is costing you a lot of money. Work out how much your non-married status has cost since your son arrived, how much you expect it to cost you every single year until you expect to be able to afford the wedding she wants and present her with those numbers. Make her see how real the loss is.

Tbh it sounds like your OH needs to grow up. Get married in an office, have a nice meal with family, and put all your tax savings towards a 5 year vow renewal with big wedding bash that she wants. It's win-win.

Let's get married for financial reasons? I see why she wants the traditional wedding and in many ways I do too. I certainly won't be getting married to gain financial benefits or to appease the state

_Kaiser_

It is a ridiculous situation - especially in a country that made such a big deal about SSM and "Equality" recently...

- Live together, both working, but not married?... tough! Pay for everything but get f&ck all in return for your taxes.
- One of you becomes unemployed?.. Now you're a couple alright and will be assessed accordingly for benefit entitlement
- Living together a few years and break-up?... One of you may be able to claim support from the other if you were "dependent" - just as if you were married
- Not to mention the other issues like next of kin, inheritance etc
- Then there's the issue of Father's rights to the children.. practically none unless married

It is pure nonsense that people who are cohabiting in committed relationships should be forced into marriage to be treated equally with other couples in the same circumstances. A marriage is no more stable than such a relationship in reality.
It is indeed yet another legacy from the Church's influence on this State but also one which our Revenue system benefits handsomely from so it's not surprising that given both, our old-guard of politicians and civil servants are in no rush to change it.

myshirt

jamesbondings wrote: »

I get that, but does living together (for over 5 years) having a kid together etc not suffice

And to make things even more worse, having cohabited for that long, and having a kid, if you leave that girl or the relationship breaks down you are effectively now classified as have been married when it comes to the issues of splitting assets and paying maintenance for the girl and for the kid.

The old joke was she'd walk up the aisle with a bunch of flowers and back down with half your farm. She doesn't even need to get off her arse now.

Fine with me, but inconsistent from the state.

Also has huge implications if you had any wealth, houses, land, a farm etc as if you came to me (former solicitor, now accountant) I'd much prefer you were actually married so I could tax plan and help you the best way I could. For example, interspousal transfers are exempt from CGT, but unmarried that lady is a stranger.

CIARAN_BOYLE

jamesbondings wrote: »

I do appreciate your input I genuinely do. I would love to know if YOU personally believe the situation is fair.

I do actually. Its the same the world over not just an Irish thing.

If you want to be taxed as a married person get married. IE you need to opt in to get any benefits. However when you want something from the state you should not get the opportunity to choose whether being assessed together or separately is better for you.

Also a lot of people would dodge the means test in jsb by giving their savings to their cohabitant partner if social welfare assessed together. It would be too expensive to police for fraud.

myshirt

No means test in jsb.

myshirt

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I do actually. Its the same the world over not just an Irish thing.

If you want to be taxed as a married person get married. IE you need to opt in to get any benefits. However when you want something from the state you should not get the opportunity to choose whether being assessed together or separately is better for you.

Also a lot of people would dodge the means test in jsb by giving their savings to their cohabitant partner if social welfare assessed together. It would be too expensive to police for fraud.

Well if you are with a girl, no kids, is it right that on the breakdown of the relationship you have to pay her 25% of whatever your net pay is, for 10 years.

Especially if you didn't marry her, and you maybe moved on with your life and had a kid elsewhere. It's crippling.

Is it fair that she can get civil aid solicitors, and you have to pay privately (bar representing yourself and getting eaten alive) for what would outside a family court be regarded as frivolous and vexatious actions with costs being the penalty against you. Significant nuisance value there for a women with the paw out for more money, i.e you'll part with the cash somehow.

myshirt

ted1 wrote: »

A wedding costs €150. That's all. If you chose to spend more then that's your choice,
I'd be more worried about the rights of an unmarried father, than lack of tax credits which are only really useful when there's just the one income

I agree with this. Op, get away from the dick measuring contests that goes on here. You are a young man. You don't need to sink 10k+ into one day and play along with this fantasy dream that young girls have from the first time they seen a Disney princess cartoon. Get down to the registry office, and out for a meal. Back to the house to seal the deal. In, out, and put the kettle on. Job done and put your money towards a deposit for a house.

Colser

myshirt wrote: »

I agree with this. Op, get away from the dick measuring contests that goes on here. You are a young man. You don't need to sink 10k+ into one day and play along with this fantasy dream that young girls have from the first time they seen a Disney princess cartoon. Get down to the registry office, and out for a meal. Back to the house to seal the deal. In, out, and put the kettle on. Job done and put your money towards a deposit for a house.

But why should they have to do this?if they are jointly assessed when unemployed why shouldn't the same apply when working?

jamesbondings

Colser wrote: »

But why should they have to do this?if they are jointly assessed when unemployed why shouldn't the same apply when working?

This.... I would like to have the nice wedding. But would happily have the registry job. But if I'm going to be regarded as in a relationship when it suits them then why not when it suits me

Hopeful2016

jamesbondings wrote: »

Because in this country everything Costs an arm and a leg. Wages don't match the cost of living so that wedding we need to have in order to avail of tax credits for our son will cost a fortune.

There are tax credits for everyone else BUT cohabiting families.

What tax credits are you talking about? There are no special tax credits for married people or for having kids. The only difference is when married you can transfer between spouses but they're the same tax credits you and your partner are entitled to regardless of marital status.

What tax credits do you think you'll receive once you're married?

Colser

jamesbondings wrote: »

This.... I would like to have the nice wedding. But would happily have the registry job. But if I'm going to be regarded as in a relationship when it suits them then why not when it suits me

Could it be argued that children of parents who don't marry are being penalised due to less money coming into the home because of this ridiculous law.

The whole system is farcical tbh...we are not entitled to anything if partners die yet people who haven't seen ex husbands in decades receive Widows pension...we've paid way more into the pot but get f all out...as I said this subject gives me blood pressureðŸ˜

Hopeful2016

Colser wrote: »

Could it be argued that children of parents who don't marry are being penalised due to less money coming into the home because of this ridiculous law. ˜

There is no difference between married or single if both parents are working and earning over the standard rate cut off. There isn't less money coming in to every house of non married families.

Colser

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

There is no difference between married or single if both parents are working and earning over the standard rate cut off. There isn't less money coming in to every house of non married families.

Lots of couples could gain if credits could be transferred..

Hopeful2016

Colser wrote: »

Lots of couples could gain if credits could be transferred..

I never said otherwise but it would make no difference to many others.

Also, I haven't seen where the op has indicated that this is the case for him and his partner. Is his partner not working or low income? Because if they are neither of these, their martial status will have zero impact on their tax credits.

missblondie89

The whole social welfare thing is a joke I've just become fully employed in last 2 months while my partner (cohabiting) has been cut to €29 a week as the dole say that I have enough to cover rent, bills, car and can financially look after him as well, I get paid monthly and am finding hard to make whatever money is left last for 4 weeks, yet I cannot claim any tax as we are not married??

jamesbondings

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

I never said otherwise but it would make no difference to many others.

Also, I haven't seen where the op has indicated that this is the case for him and his partner. Is his partner not working or low income? Because if they are neither of these, their martial status will have zero impact on their tax credits.

Partner is currently on maternity benefit. Little lad is only 6 weeks old.

Hopeful2016

myshirt wrote: »

And to make things even more worse, having cohabited for that long, and having a kid, if you leave that girl or the relationship breaks down you are effectively now classified as have been married when it comes to the issues of splitting assets and paying maintenance for the girl and for the kid.

The old joke was she'd walk up the aisle with a bunch of flowers and back down with half your farm. She doesn't even need to get off her arse now.

Fine with me, but inconsistent from the state.

Also has huge implications if you had any wealth, houses, land, a farm etc as if you came to me (former solicitor, now accountant) I'd much prefer you were actually married so I could tax plan and help you the best way I could. For example, interspousal transfers are exempt from CGT, but unmarried that lady is a stranger.

myshirt wrote: »

Well if you are with a girl, no kids, is it right that on the breakdown of the relationship you have to pay her 25% of whatever your net pay is, for 10 years.

Especially if you didn't marry her, and you maybe moved on with your life and had a kid elsewhere. It's crippling.

Is it fair that she can get civil aid solicitors, and you have to pay privately (bar representing yourself and getting eaten alive) for what would outside a family court be regarded as frivolous and vexatious actions with costs being the penalty against you. Significant nuisance value there for a women with the paw out for more money, i.e you'll part with the cash somehow.

Is all this specific to women? I believe it works both ways, it's not just women who can benefit from the situation.

jamesbondings wrote: »

Partner is currently on maternity benefit. Little lad is only 6 weeks old.

State only MB or topped up by employer? All this is info relevant to your question but only disclosed 3 pages in. If she is getting MB then she must have been in employment prior to having the baby and would have been using her own tax credits up to this point. Also MB is taxable so not all of her tax credits would be available for you even if they were transferable.

jamesbondings

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

Is all this specific to women? I believe it works both ways, it's not just women who can benefit from the situation.



State only MB or topped up by employer? All this is info relevant to your question but only disclosed 3 pages in. If she is getting MB then she must have been in employment prior to having the baby and would have been using her own tax credits up to this point. Also MB is taxable so not all of her tax credits would be available for you even if they were transferable.

Your a bit of an arse aren't ya? How am I to know what's needed. The main point of this post was to ask if there was anything out there. A fact finding post if you will. She was in employment right up to 3 weeks before giving birth. Good aul boards. Brings the naysayers and trolls to the fore.

Hopeful2016

jamesbondings wrote: »

Your a bit of an arse aren't ya? How am I to know what's needed. The main point of this post was to ask if there was anything out there. A fact finding post if you will. She was in employment right up to 3 weeks before giving birth. Good aul boards. Brings the naysayers and trolls to the fore.

How are people going to advise you of what might be out there if you don't give them the full details?
Just because you may not be entitled to something doesn't make some one a troll for stating that.

You sound like a lovely guy. Hope you get everything it's looks like you're entitled to

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It is pure nonsense that people who are cohabiting in committed relationships should be forced into marriage to be treated equally with other couples in the same circumstances. A marriage is no more stable than such a relationship in reality.
It is indeed yet another legacy from the Church's influence on this State but also one which our Revenue system benefits handsomely from so it's not surprising that given both, our old-guard of politicians and civil servants are in no rush to change it.

Why do people think this is unique to Ireland, it's the same everywhere.

There is no way that two people with no legal connection to each other should be allows avail of benefits such as joint assessment, it would be so open to abuse it would be crazy. There needs to be legal agreements and official documentation in place before these sorts of benefits can be opened up to people, they need to be tied to each other legally and that's what marriage is. Also as a state we should be encouraging people into marriage not offering ways to do it half arsed as it makes for a less stable family unit etc.

The jointly assessed thing for social welfare is irrelavent imo. If yiu are living at home you also would have a reduction in soclal welfare and in other living situations too it's not just a couple scenario.

jamesbondings

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

How are people going to advise you of what might be out there if you don't give them the full details?
Just because you may not be entitled to something doesn't make some one a troll for stating that.

You sound like a lovely guy. Hope you get everything it's looks like you're entitled to

That was meant tongue in cheek! Read it back and it reads bad. Sorry! Not intended in an offensive way.

TheThpoint I was trying to make is I don't know what info I should be including as I am only enquiring.

jamesbondings

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

Why do people think this is unique to Ireland, it's the same everywhere.

There is no way that two people with no legal connection to each other should be allows avail of benefits such as joint assessment, it would be so open to abuse it would be crazy. There needs to be legal agreements and official documentation in place before these sorts of benefits can be opened up to people, they need to be tied to each other legally and that's what marriage is. Also as a state we should be encouraging people into marriage not offering ways to do it half arsed as it makes for a less stable family unit etc.

The jointly assessed thing for social welfare is irrelavent imo. If yiu are living at home you also would have a reduction in soclal welfare and in other living situations too it's not just a couple scenario.

I do understand this whole point. But surely having a dependent and being on the same lease for 5 years could suffice as evidence that we are together.

CIARAN_BOYLE

jamesbondings wrote: »

I do understand this whole point. But surely having a dependent and being on the same lease for 5 years could suffice as evidence that we are together.

Except you have not chosen to sign the form that tells them you choose to be together.

_Kaiser_

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

Why do people think this is unique to Ireland, it's the same everywhere.

There is no way that two people with no legal connection to each other should be allows avail of benefits such as joint assessment, it would be so open to abuse it would be crazy. There needs to be legal agreements and official documentation in place before these sorts of benefits can be opened up to people, they need to be tied to each other legally and that's what marriage is. Also as a state we should be encouraging people into marriage not offering ways to do it half arsed as it makes for a less stable family unit etc.

The jointly assessed thing for social welfare is irrelavent imo. If yiu are living at home you also would have a reduction in soclal welfare and in other living situations too it's not just a couple scenario.

The issue is the double-standard.. if you say it's only right that people shouldn't have access to the (financial) benefits of being married without actually being married, then nor should they be penalised or expected to "carry" a partner they have no legal or "permanent" tie to if that person loses their job, and they certainly shouldn't be potentially liable for maintenance payments to that adult if they split up.

Can't have it both ways.. yet that's exactly the current situation!

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The issue is the double-standard.. if you say it's only right that people shouldn't have access to the (financial) benefits of being married without actually being married, then nor should they be penalised or expected to "carry" a partner they have no legal or "permanent" tie to if that person loses their job, and they certainly shouldn't be potentially liable for maintenance payments to that adult if they split up.

Can't have it both ways.. yet that's exactly the current situation!

But that's not unique to couples, there are many other scenarios where the household is assessed for social welfare purposes. It's a totally different thing to the tax treatment of married couples, cohabiting has nothing at all to do with it nor does having children.

Mrs OBumble

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Also a lot of people would dodge the means test in jsb by giving their savings to their cohabitant partner if social welfare assessed together. It would be too expensive to police for fraud.

But welfare DO assess cohabitants together, irrespective of whether they are married.

Mrs OBumble

Alaric Fierce Supernova wrote: »

But that's not unique to couples, there are many other scenarios where the household is assessed for social welfare purposes. It's a totally different thing to the tax treatment of married couples, cohabiting has nothing at all to do with it nor does having children.

Can you name some, where adults are concerned? If you're over 25, then unemployment benefit certainly is not one of them.

Charles Babbage

jamesbondings wrote: »

relax carry on wrote: »

No. Joint assessment only applies to married and civil partnership cases.

I actually hate this backwards catholic country.

Thanks though much appreciated

This is neither backward nor anything to do with Catholics. The law provides a legal framework for people to come together and if they do so it offers them certain legal privileges. Why should be rest of us be subsidising you if these provisions are in place and you do not avail of them?

missblondie89

People should get married because they want to make a commitment to each other, that is supposed to be the purpose?

Yet I was advised by somebody to get married to my partner to get jointly assessed for tax credits which is not at all right

I knew my income was going to be assessed by social welfare, who said I have enough money each month to look after everything and my partner is now dependent on me until he is back in work, that is fair enough.

But why the hell are we not allowed to be jointly assessed for tax credits unless we are married! I'm sorry but I don't believe that is right at all when I'm paying taxes and yet I cannot claim anything back as we are only cohabiting, it is an outdated piece of legislation because not all couples are married nowadays?

_Kaiser_

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is neither backward nor anything to do with Catholics. The law provides a legal framework for people to come together and if they do so it offers them certain legal privileges. Why should be rest of us be subsidising you if these provisions are in place and you do not avail of them?

Again.. missing the point!

That's all well and good, but explain then why cohabiting but unmarried couples ARE assessed jointly for any welfare entitlements, or why one may have to make maintenance payments to the other in the event of a break-up

If they are viewed as 2 separate individuals for tax purposes, why not then in the cases above? Or if you prefer.. why is it that they are treated as a married couple would be in those instances?

missblondie89

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Again.. missing the point!

That's all well and good, but explain then why cohabiting but unmarried couples ARE assessed jointly for any welfare entitlements, or why one may have to make maintenance payments to the other in the event of a break-up

If they are viewed as 2 separate individuals for tax purposes, why not then in the cases above? Or if you prefer.. why is it that they are treated as a married couple would be in those instances?

I totally agree with you, I would love to know why as well

CIARAN_BOYLE

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But welfare DO assess cohabitants together, irrespective of whether they are married.

exactly my point. if they didnt a cohabitant couple could easily massage the means test by transferring assets to their cohabitant.

mansize

Deagol wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just genuinely not able to understand a rational argument?

It's fine that cohabiting people cannot get claim any tax reliefs etc but when it comes to claiming social welfare that they pay tax to receive in the first place, suddenly they are assessed on the basis they cohabit?? Talk about having your cake and eating it.....

If you are on Jobseekers Benefits- it's based on your contributions and NOT means tested