working tax credits

DX2

shell_542 wrote: »

That's where we can agree to disagree then.

as you wish

speedster

as harry hill would say, there's only one way to settle this...........................




FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

DX2

No fight required I think it should work both ways, the same for a PWC and their husband/wife. As I said I'm old fashioned like that.

shell_542

speedster wrote: »

as harry hill would say, there's only one way to settle this...........................




Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt!!!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm not one for fighting.

:A

tattycath

But unfortunately it doesn't seem to work like that does it? the pwc get a cut of nrp 'household pot' regardless of pwc and new partners 'houshold pot' even though nrp's household pot (from which the maintenance money comes), comprises of money from nrp and nrpp-so it's not a level playing field at all really is it? and whilst I agree totally that nrp's should pay for their kids, the cards are all in the hand of the pwc-or they appear to be as far as i can see.
I am a pwc but my ex and i agree that the kids are paramount and did not feel the need to go to the csa to sort out child support-just a shame my OHs ex felt/feels the need to fight tooth and nail to try and stop/limit access and to try and get as much as possible out of nrp financially through the csa-nrp was paying maintenance before csa intervention-my being old fashioned to the point of 'if it isn't broke why try and fix it!!!' 'confused!!!

kelloggs36

But in the case where the NRP has step children, the PWC gets less money because the NRP gets a reduction for the cost of bringing them up, and in addition that household could be receiving child support themselves.

shell_542

There are no step children living in my house. My children are my husband's (the NRP).

The children in the NRP's house are not always their stepchildren.

I just think that claiming they only use the NRP's income as assessable and then using all tax credits is not only using the NRP's income. It is a joint benefit and so should be shared between the NRP and their partner.

kelloggs36

But it is offset with the reduction, so it isn't as bad as it could be. There is no point in feeling aggrieved about it, as it is as it is. Your energies are best spent on loving the children and ensuring that you are paying the correct amount and not mistake figures!

shell_542

Not as bad as it could be? That doesn't really make it OK though does it?

Just because someone has an opinion on something doesn't mean it's affecting them in that kind of way. :think: All the children in our family are loved.

LizzieS_2

shell_542 wrote: »

There are no step children living in my house. My children are my husband's (the NRP).

The children in the NRP's house are not always their stepchildren.

I just think that claiming they only use the NRP's income as assessable and then using all tax credits is not only using the NRP's income. It is a joint benefit and so should be shared between the NRP and their partner.

True there are not always step children involved.

The csa system is aimed at giving a fair amount overall across the country, individually some on either side do not fall into an exact fair figure in that they either lose more or gain more.

No point worrying over it though as it doesn't change anything.