Child Tax Credit - how much can they take?

kelloggs36

Agreed, that there are likely to be both groups - but the NRP children shouldn't go without because the PWC in that household can't get child support - the CSA should be ensuring that they ALL get it!

shell_542

I mean sometimes there is no ex to claim child support off of because not all children in the NRPs household are stepchildren to the NRP. They are children they have fatherred/mothered with a different partner.

Just looking at the 'theres not always 3 incomes coming in" in the above there's still onlt two, they just are expected to spread their money further.

LizzieS_2

shell_542 wrote: »

I mean sometimes there is no ex to claim child support off of because not all children in the NRPs household are stepchildren to the NRP. They are children they have fatherred/mothered with a different partner.

Just looking at the 'theres not always 3 incomes coming in" in the above there's still onlt two, they just are expected to spread their money further.

In a normal world there would be a begining of child support - nrp lives alone and pays towards child, pwc lives alone and pays towards child.

Moving on (and assuming no further children), pwc may get a partner. Nrp pays for child, pwc pays for child, pwpc chooses whether ot not to pay for child. Nrp pay get a partner, nrp pays for child, pwc pays for child, nrrp pays for own housing costs (on csa1 only) resulting in nrp having more free income.

As above but assuming other children - pwcp either lives with other children or pays towards their upkeep, nrp either chooses to support other children in thier household or leaves it to those childrens natural parents.

Alternative both move in with new partners and go on to have further children. For both, it is a matter of affordability (both already know the costs and may get further benefits) - if either cannot afford further children, then they really shouldn't be putting their own desires above reality (or at least not complaining over a decision they chose to make).

helpmehelpme

Are you serious Lizzie??

Are you saying that I as the NRPP, should not have ANY children because my husband of 15 years got trapped by his ex at 18 (which in CSA eyes is still a child lol), and then she went off with someone else and will not allow him to see the kids. AND so is it okay for her to go on to have extra children, oh well I suppose it must be as that is only beneficial to her claim as will reduce her assessed income and she can claim more benefits!!!

I agree that a man should support his children, that said I mean all children not just the ones from the PWC.

So in essence superstressed, while you have to pay your gas, elec etc from YOUR child tax credit (basically your kids are paying for you), the pwc gets to keep all of theirs on top of your maintenance (as maintenance is not calculated as income for them). Sucks I know, in a pretty similar situation ourselves!!!

kelloggs36

But what many NRPPs complain about is that they resent the impact that the costs to the PWC entails which means their families suffer. Well, the solution to that is to decide whether or not you a) love your partner enough to take the sacrifices that come with being a step parent are and b) whether you can truely afford to have children yourselves. It is a stark reality of getting together with a person who already has children and hard choices have to be made. If you want to have children, then nobody is stopping you, but you cannot expect the children who already exist to have to suffer because of it - they have already suffered with the breakup and the fact that they only have limited contact (even half and half is limited) with both parents. In the PWC household, the new partner is already taking on the financial responsibility automatically - no NRPP seems to care about that, they normally see it as being a reason to reduce their support! The children are the PWC's and the NRP's and therefore they should continue to support their children from birth until whatever age is deemed necessary - at the moment it is 19. If the PWC doesn't work then the new partner will be paying her share, but that doesn't negate the NRP's responsibility in any way.

helpmehelpme

Hi Kelloggs

I agree with paying for his children to his ex, and would never want them to go without, I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE NRP NOT PAYING ANYTHING, but what I was trying to say is I don't want people to say I shouldn't have any children. Of course I love him otherwise I wouldn't have stuck up with pratically living on the breadline for the last 15 years. Also I would like to add he wanted custody of the children but guess what paid lots of money to fight it and the mother got it, not all men want to run away, yet I know there are some out there that think they can just forget their responsibilities and move on. I would like to say WE (including myself) are not one of those NRP, but we should not be made an easy scapegoat for the csa to keep harassing and interogating because it is an easy target (public sector worker). And leave anything my child is entitled to ALONE this I thought the government meant for my child not for his other children, they already get theirs.

I also wonder how many cases the csa see from nrpp's because they can no longer take the financial and emotional strain? If I left I would receive more tax credits, housing benefit, free school dinners, dentists etc etc, also I would be entitled to csa on top and my husband would be no worse off financially. I can not believe the government want people to have to do this. Where are the benefits for being married and sticking it out through thick and thin? Unfortunately you can not live on love.... it doesn't pay the bills!!

Soubrette

helpmehelpme wrote: »

Hi Kelloggs

I agree with paying for his children to his ex, and would never want them to go without, I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE NRP NOT PAYING ANYTHING, but what I was trying to say is I don't want people to say I shouldn't have any children. Of course I love him otherwise I wouldn't have stuck up with pratically living on the breadline for the last 15 years. Also I would like to add he wanted custody of the children but guess what paid lots of money to fight it and the mother got it, not all men want to run away, yet I know there are some out there that think they can just forget their responsibilities and move on. I would like to say WE (including myself) are not one of those NRP, but we should not be made an easy scapegoat for the csa to keep harassing and interogating because it is an easy target (public sector worker). And leave anything my child is entitled to ALONE this I thought the government meant for my child not for his other children, they already get theirs.

I think the problem is that people can only comment on their own cases or in general. Kelloggs and Lizzie are commenting on general cases - if child maintenance is really that cripplingly high then a second family should think long and hard before having children of their own. In the same way that if a family has two children and are complaining how much they cost - should they have a third? It's a personal choice but will involve either increasing income or cutting expenditure.

As to the first children getting their ctc - not if the household income is above a certain limit (obviously reducing on a sliding scale) so again, the PWCP who is not supposed to be liable for the expense of the children, may actually cause a reduction in ctc or wtc depending on their own income. It is a situation that works both ways.

Sou

kelloggs36

helpmehelpme wrote: »

Hi Kelloggs

I agree with paying for his children to his ex, and would never want them to go without, I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE NRP NOT PAYING ANYTHING, but what I was trying to say is I don't want people to say I shouldn't have any children. Nobody is saying you can't but you need to factor in the existing costs, and sadly in some cases the result may be that you have to wait longer than you planned, change your plans for children altogether, or worse still, consider whether this is the person with whom you spend your life - it depends on your priorities. Of course I love him otherwise I wouldn't have stuck up with pratically living on the breadline for the last 15 years. Also I would like to add he wanted custody of the children but guess what paid lots of money to fight it and the mother got it, not all men want to run away, yet I know there are some out there that think they can just forget their responsibilities and move on. I would like to say WE (including myself) are not one of those NRP, but we should not be made an easy scapegoat for the csa to keep harassing and interogating because it is an easy target (public sector worker). And leave anything my child is entitled to ALONE this I thought the government meant for my child not for his other children, they already get theirs. But you also benefit from paying less as his income is first disregarded by the relevant % because you have children - so even adding in the tax credits, doesn't make you any worse off overall. It is still the child from the previous relationship who ends up with less. I agree not to take tax credits into account, but I also think that there should be no discount for new children because the existing ones are the ones who always lose out.

I also wonder how many cases the csa see from nrpp's because they can no longer take the financial and emotional strain? If I left I would receive more tax credits, housing benefit, free school dinners, dentists etc etc, also I would be entitled to csa on top and my husband would be no worse off financially. I can not believe the government want people to have to do this. Where are the benefits for being married and sticking it out through thick and thin? Unfortunately you can not live on love.... it doesn't pay the bills!!

No it doesn't but at the end of the day, your husband already had children for whom he knew he had to support, and despite this you chose to have more. Having children is expensive anyway which you are finding to your cost.

Dancing_Shoes

This is an interesting debate;)
Our pwc is better off financially now they are divorced than she was when they were together due to the fact that my husband earns alot more money and the money she gets is more than the income she had before. She has chosen not to work as she has quite happily told us that she will not work until our money stops:rolleyes:, this is of no interest to me as I choose to have more income for the benefit of my children which I have earned myself (nothing to do with nrp). When I got together with my husband I was very honest in saying that I would always help with their children emotionally but as I wanted children of my own I would not be helping financially and he was fully supportive of this as he said that quite rightly their children are not my children
I agree that when you get together with someone that has children this is a consideration but I don't see why it should effect anyone's decision when having children as long as they (nrpp) have their money
Our pwc has ensured that their children lose out because they have no contact with their father where our children have a fantastic relationship with their dad but this was her choice not ours:mad:

Dancing_Shoes

kelloggs36 wrote: »

But what many NRPPs complain about is that they resent the impact that the costs to the PWC entails which means their families suffer

.

I would never complain about the money she gets as to be honest she will never enjoy the lifestyle we have;)

If the PWC doesn't work then the new partner will be paying her share, but that doesn't negate the NRP's responsibility in any way.

Or the state:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: