Spanners and Pigeonholes
Nov. 29th, 2010 05:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gemfyreMatt went to Centerlink last week. Apparently they managed to lose any records that I have been working for almost 2 years and subsequently have been overpaying Matt (despite the fact that he's been struggling on the "too much" they've been giving him). He should be getting a lot less (try around $300 per fortnight - his share of the rent alone is $245). He is going to appeal this because they certainly were given my details, but he will probably have to pay them BACK money out of the pittance he's now recieving.
Now, we started declaring ourselves as de-facto a few years back becuase it seemed like the right thing to do. But now I'm really not so sure. Due to the pittance he's being paid I'm being lumped with 2 thirds of the rent while he pays off his credit card and then I may get a bit from him when he can afford it. Just at the time where I'm organising my budget to organise my epic road trip and quit my job - two things I NEED to do for my own wellbeing, and Centerlink throws another damn spanner in the works.
We have always kept our finances separate. Food and rent is split equally (even now with me paying more rent, Matt is going to keep track of it and maybe pay me back someday when he wins lotto or something - doesn't really help as I really need that money for early next year). Every large item in the home either belongs to him or me (most is mine, because I have the job). Apparently we're considered de-facto though and I'm damn expected to support him because we sleep in the same bedroom.
- a lot of the time he sleeps on the couch anyway.
- we hardly ever have sex anyway, we're both fine with that. And if we did, what the fuck does that have to do with finances? Isn't that akin to prostitution?
- The bed is 100% mine. I paid for it - but again, I don't see what this has to do with finances.
What if we were in a poly relationship?
What if he or I were with Alison and the other of us was single?
What about people who sleep with other people all the time - are those other people expected to support them? No.
If we wanted to be in a 'marriage-like' relationship, we'd get married!
I'm encouraging Matt to tell C-wank that we are no longer a couple. It seems Centerlink just assumes that people of the opposite sex living together MUST be financially melded couples, and I have serious issues with this. They can talk to me, if they ask why we've broken up I'll cite "financial issues". Really, they're not fostering good relationships by financially screwing couples over.
And then of course, it's because you must fit in their little pigeonhole. Oh, you sleep in the same bed and have done so for multiple years.
You MUST be a couple - therefore
The working half MUST be financially supporting the half on DSP
They probably also assume that the natural outcome of the relationship is kids which means we MUST be financially supporting each other etc.
It's complete logic fail and the mentality of a government that still assumed all families are tidy little nuclear groups.
Urgh!! It pisses me off so much. Why do we both have to suffer because I work? What about when I quit my job? Can he tell them I'm financially abusing him by not supporting him - what help will they give him then? Surely there is some recourse here because their reasoning is ridiculous. I work for my money, why should I be forced to support someone else when I don't want to?
I don't care if I'm living in the gutter after I quit this job and go on my trip - I am sick of all these fucking spanners being thrown in my works whenever I plan something for ME. So I'm going to do it anyway and damn the consequences.
No wonder people go into Centerlink offices with baseball bats and smash the computers, but I'd just like to write a letter to a higher up - and have them DO something about it, which of course won't happen.
Grrraarrrggh!
Now, we started declaring ourselves as de-facto a few years back becuase it seemed like the right thing to do. But now I'm really not so sure. Due to the pittance he's being paid I'm being lumped with 2 thirds of the rent while he pays off his credit card and then I may get a bit from him when he can afford it. Just at the time where I'm organising my budget to organise my epic road trip and quit my job - two things I NEED to do for my own wellbeing, and Centerlink throws another damn spanner in the works.
We have always kept our finances separate. Food and rent is split equally (even now with me paying more rent, Matt is going to keep track of it and maybe pay me back someday when he wins lotto or something - doesn't really help as I really need that money for early next year). Every large item in the home either belongs to him or me (most is mine, because I have the job). Apparently we're considered de-facto though and I'm damn expected to support him because we sleep in the same bedroom.
- a lot of the time he sleeps on the couch anyway.
- we hardly ever have sex anyway, we're both fine with that. And if we did, what the fuck does that have to do with finances? Isn't that akin to prostitution?
- The bed is 100% mine. I paid for it - but again, I don't see what this has to do with finances.
What if we were in a poly relationship?
What if he or I were with Alison and the other of us was single?
What about people who sleep with other people all the time - are those other people expected to support them? No.
If we wanted to be in a 'marriage-like' relationship, we'd get married!
I'm encouraging Matt to tell C-wank that we are no longer a couple. It seems Centerlink just assumes that people of the opposite sex living together MUST be financially melded couples, and I have serious issues with this. They can talk to me, if they ask why we've broken up I'll cite "financial issues". Really, they're not fostering good relationships by financially screwing couples over.
And then of course, it's because you must fit in their little pigeonhole. Oh, you sleep in the same bed and have done so for multiple years.
You MUST be a couple - therefore
The working half MUST be financially supporting the half on DSP
They probably also assume that the natural outcome of the relationship is kids which means we MUST be financially supporting each other etc.
It's complete logic fail and the mentality of a government that still assumed all families are tidy little nuclear groups.
Urgh!! It pisses me off so much. Why do we both have to suffer because I work? What about when I quit my job? Can he tell them I'm financially abusing him by not supporting him - what help will they give him then? Surely there is some recourse here because their reasoning is ridiculous. I work for my money, why should I be forced to support someone else when I don't want to?
I don't care if I'm living in the gutter after I quit this job and go on my trip - I am sick of all these fucking spanners being thrown in my works whenever I plan something for ME. So I'm going to do it anyway and damn the consequences.
No wonder people go into Centerlink offices with baseball bats and smash the computers, but I'd just like to write a letter to a higher up - and have them DO something about it, which of course won't happen.
Grrraarrrggh!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 08:58 pm (UTC)I lived with three members of the opposite sex when I was a student and getting some centrelink support and a health care card (which was very useful as someone on regular medication). I had to fill out a form to say I wasn't defacto with any of them (and have each of them counter sign it).
I know of a couple who had to fill out a mountain of paperwork showing they split the bills 50/50 etc and just because they were having regular sex (or at least wrote, "what business is that of yours" on the form where they asked how often they fucked!) were deemed "marriage-like" by centrelink.
In short- much sympathy for you having to deal with this shitty system.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 10:46 pm (UTC)So it IS possible to get it through their thick heads that you can have a couple of financially independent individuals? I must look further into this.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 10:34 pm (UTC)(note: defacto comes up as a spelling error and the first match is defaecate, even putting in the hyphen, the 'de' is still a spelling error... hmm and Narrogin, thats an error in more than just spelling)
get matt to 'move out' for a month or( perhaps with jared seeing he is moving out in january anyways) then come back and the time as nondefacto (2 years) starts again. w00t. Matt will still have to pay back the money, but atleast he will have more money to pay it back with.
then every 23 months you and matt can 'break up'
the other option is if you have a spare room, set matt up in there and become 'separated under the same roof' or set mat up in the loungroom with the linen closet his wardrobe and tell centrelink you are separated, get them to come out and look and they have to pass it. a friend of mine lived with her husband like that for about a year until he moved to SA and they eventually divorced.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 03:16 am (UTC)If my husband was out of work they'd base his payment on my wage even though we keep our money separate. They just assume you have enough money to support the other person if you have to. Then there's people like my drug addict cousin who can't work getting max benefits even though he bought his situation on himself.