your views?

kelloggs36

We can disagree Mr GG.

I do indeed believe that the new family of step children should get no reduction as they already have 2 parents who should be paying towards their upkeep, they don't need 3 but they get 3 if the NRP in that family is paying. The new partner cannot expect their children to become a priority for the NRP, the NRP's priority is their OWN children - so I am not suggesting no reduction for new children, just step children. It is always a choice to get together with a person who has already got financial obligations, you must fit in with them, not expect everything to change because of you and your children; if you want to ensure that your children don't go without, then you need to ensure that your ex supports them as you do.

kelloggs36

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

She might not think she's saying it, but in fact she is saying exactly that. Which is a shame because it diminishes her, and she is generally pretty sound.

Sorry K, but as far as I'm concerned, you are totally wrong over this.

Yes that is what I am saying. It is unfortunate that he doesn't get to see the children, criminal even, but that doesn't negate his financial obligation towards them. It is a damned shame that some PWCs are so cruel and selfish, but it is the children that are being supported financially not the ex (regardless of all arguments about the ex spending the maintenance on booze and fags - the children don't go without save for a few who should be in care as they would be deemed as being abused). You have an ex who can support your children so you have the opportunity of recouping some of your 'losses' although it is as I have already said, your choice to enter into a relationship with somebody who has children who they must support.

stressed_eric_4

I do indeed believe that the new family of step children should get no reduction as they already have 2 parents who should be paying towards their upkeep, they don't need 3 but they get 3 if the NRP in that family is paying. The new partner cannot expect their children to become a priority for the NRP, the NRP's priority is their OWN children

kellogs, you are forgetting that the nrps new partner will most likely be receeving child tax credit/working tax credit for her children, which will not only be reduced due to the income of the nrp (at the full amount when really the gets £ less due to paying csa) but also that this is taken into account into the new calculation for csa. why should the pwc receive any money that is meant for other children they get their own! I appreciate where you're coming from but which ever way it's done someone will not be happy, for me personally the old rules was a fairer way, i pay a lot more under csa2 but the opposite is a fairer way for others.

i think both families incomes should be added together and allowances made for the people in each family as i/s, just because the pwc has the child benefit does not make them worse off, if both families incomes and expenditures were taken into account for each person in the house hold, then allowances as i/s you would be left with "spare money" the i/s rates per child could be used and each parent pay towards this money. eg the pwc is left with £5 the nrp with £50, say the child allowance is £30, then the pwc pays £5 and in the nrp pays £25, then both parents are having an equal contribution.

Now with the new rules that csa is not taken into account as income for h/ben and ctc/wtc the pwc gets in effect more money each week,

stressed_eric_4

meant a contribution, it wont' be equal but would be fairer. it could also work the other way round where the pwc pays £25 and the nrp £5

sarflee

I would have no problem in NO reduction for step-children if, as stressed eric says, when claiming CTC the step-parents income was also NOT taken into consideration.

Also, any tax credits received are included in the CSA2 so it all but cancels itself out.

tigstheterror

Which when you look at it is CSA langauge speaky all over, if the CSA did their job as per their job descriptions in the first place then all of this wouldn't be hitting NRP's now would it? The CSA response is typical, " we want all of the debt and we want it now" not that it goes to the child/ren , bear this in mind, it is owed to the secretary of state not the child/ren, therefore the government want you all to be paying what you owe now.However, they do not take into account maladministration and lies and corruptness by the CSA staff do they? All of this has increased ten fold because they want all arrears in by 2010 when Mr Purnell has said he wants the new CMEC IT system to be fully implemented into the offices. Problem being is that what are they doing chasing debts that they have caused? so the staff make clear breaches in legislation etc, make major mistakes on accounts and the IT systems yet the NRP's are having to pay for it because they say in the majority of cases it's owed to that nice guy, the SOS!!!!!!!!
Yeah right, nice to see you haven't deserted the CSA Kelloggs and are still giving out the vital CSA advice
Tigs x

kelloggs36

I agree that tax credits should not be taken into account also!

Mr_Green_Genes

tigstheterror wrote: »

All of this has increased ten fold because they want all arrears in by 2010 when Mr Purnell has said he wants the new CMEC IT system to be fully implemented into the offices.

Hahahaha. The "new" C-MESS IT system you say??? According to an answer given in Parliament a while ago, they will be using the CS2 IT system. You know, the pile of ... manure ... for which EDS conned the DWP into paying £450m and which still doesn't work. Let's face it, it'll never work and the incompetence and corruption endemic in the CSA will be just a rife in C-MESS, mainly because of that but also because the staff are the same and you can bet any amount of Mandelson's pension you like that their training for C-Mess will be no better than that for the CSA.

_Kelloggs36 wrote:

I agree that tax credits should not be taken into account also!

The new White Paper said they wouldn't be in the brave new world - the legislation left that bit to regulations that have (as far as I can tell) yet to be published. It seems likely that they will be excluded though, as to include them when assessments are to be made on the previous years gross earnings would turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.

Oh hang on a minute, if it's a bureaucratic nightmare that probably means they'll do it :eek: :eek: