i have posted this on reply to other thread but please read

shell_542

I'm sorry I don't understand your post Lizzie.

A lot of people can only survive (strong word, but you know what I mean) because of the tax credits they receive. I know if we didn't receive our tax credits we would be screwed.

Tax credits are paid for the children. It is a benefit. A benefit the child with the PWC is receiving themselves. I really do not see why it is included. If tax credits are included, then why not just go the whole hog and include child benefit of the NRP's as well ...

There has been a lot of talk in the press recently about children living in poverty and trying to get them out of poverty. It's one of the reasons CSA was supposedly set up, to help children from split families. If you look at the government's definition of poverty when it comes to income, I know we are hovering around it. With one parent working all the hours under the sun to keep his family housed (whilst paying child support) and the CSA can deem a figure (including tax credits) that would then take us BELOW the poverty line. But it's OK, because we're the NRP family.

It doesn't make sense to me.

I do not begrudge paying child support. I just think it is stupid to ask for an amount a person cannot afford. Where are they supposed to magic this money up from? Thin air?

kelloggs36

Can you not work at all and help the household income?

postmanpat68

this thread has just persuaded me NOT to apply for tax credits now. im sure the tax credits are for low income families to top up wages and then they get taken straight away by the csa. nice one government... not.

Soubrette

Just to add to the discussion - child tax and working tax credits are worked out on the household income for the PWC too - that means that the income of the PWCP is also taken into account and credits are awarded on the total household income.

This means that the PWCP is also assumed to be supporting the children as well as the NRPP.

As a PWC I happen to agree with this - I come as a package and my partner and I work as a team, I would not like to be with a person who kept their finances separate.

However technically the PWCP should not be responsible for the upkeep of my children and I and therefore the children lose a few thousand in child tax credits every year because of his income.

I don't agree that 100% of child tax credits should be taken from one family and given to another but on the other hand I do see why it is logical to treat both PWC and NRP tax credit as family income.

Sou

LizzieS_2

shell_542 wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't understand your post Lizzie.

A lot of people can only survive (strong word, but you know what I mean) because of the tax credits they receive. I know if we didn't receive our tax credits we would be screwed.

Tax credits are paid for the children. It is a benefit. A benefit the child with the PWC is receiving themselves. I really do not see why it is included. If tax credits are included, then why not just go the whole hog and include child benefit of the NRP's as well ...

There has been a lot of talk in the press recently about children living in poverty and trying to get them out of poverty. It's one of the reasons CSA was supposedly set up, to help children from split families. If you look at the government's definition of poverty when it comes to income, I know we are hovering around it. With one parent working all the hours under the sun to keep his family housed (whilst paying child support) and the CSA can deem a figure (including tax credits) that would then take us BELOW the poverty line. But it's OK, because we're the NRP family.

It doesn't make sense to me.

I do not begrudge paying child support. I just think it is stupid to ask for an amount a person cannot afford. Where are they supposed to magic this money up from? Thin air?

My point is you can change the amount of tax credits received if you really do not want in the the csa calculation.

Why do people see the tax credits as essential? Goodness knows how those not used to the lack of extra Government help (before the 2003 tax credit introduction) coped - people just had to cope then.

Tax credits are not paid for the children, unless you are both unemployed. Tax credits top up household income and include a large amount for being employed - the top-ups are not putting you at minimum income levels.

Child poverty is assessed as having an income of below 60% of median income, it is actually relative child poverty, not true poverty. Also note, it is the word income, not outgoings.

When I first became a pwc I worked full-time and with the help of childcare costs could just scrape by. When I first became a nrrp, like many I didn't do the maths. Due to a redundancy (no redundancy pay) our income after adding/deducting maintenance (both were not csa), deducting housing costs was in todays terms a whopping £120 less than the benefit handouts (ignored the £20 csa allowance at that). Yes it crippled us and we had high contact costs too. We just worked through it, taking extra hours until life was better, though still technically on poverty line.

mrsnem

personally speaking i think the whole system isrubbish and for those sorry if i have it all wrongx

my husband works full time in a well known supermarket tax credits we do need i have 6 children i do not claim csa of him as he isnot capable to do so hs sees his chilren regulaly and thats all i ask of him he is a wonderful dad but he is looking after one of my sons 1 of my children is from my husband we manage with the help of tax credits theres plenty of ppl wth kids that dont work i worked up until a year ago part time to but had to give my job up for medical reasons

now because of all of thi csa rubbish we are now 40 pound a week worse off my kids are now going to be so much worse off we did ask her if shed cancel the claim and wed give her 164 a month which they said it was prior to gviing the csa information te day before she said no i mean its not as if she struggles far from it a new husband family holidays an imaculate
house
everythhing they want now due to this my hubby ca no longer afford to go visit his children as they live 150 miles away so as well as my children loosing out his kids are to he loves his children dearly persoally speaking she could have accepted this money we offered have his kids got everything they need well not now they need ther dad

what is going to be next we are in the process due to claim dla for my disabled daughter im tinking twice about doing that i mean she has a disability s will they take this next

im livid my husband does nt begrudge paying his chilren money far from it he just says why should my wifes children ie me and my kids why should they suffer
we get childtax credits to top upour income that 40 pund a week is 160a month imagine how far thatwould go on 6 children clothes shoes all extras that children need bus fares for school running basically mans that the money i get for 2 of my kids i dont get now

we both no that she was always a money grabbing so and so she doest care about my kids going without i suppose 288 monthly makes her life a damn site easier hey afew more family holidays or getting hr hair done or hey designer clothes for her kids i mean why dont they go the whole hog and just have everything i persnally if my ex was in my postiing and met someone with a few kids id never ever see his step kid go without its a damn discrace we dont go on holiday we would have to save silly to now take the kids on a vry rare day out

its the kids that suffer both mine and his whats good about that nothing nothing nothing arrrghhhh!!!

LizzieS_2

mrsnem wrote: »

personally speaking i think the whole system isrubbish and for those sorry if i have it all wrongx

my husband works full time in a well known supermarket tax credits we do need i have 6 children i do not claim csa of him as he isnot capable to do so hs sees his chilren regulaly and thats all i ask of him he is a wonderful dad but he is looking after one of my sons 1 of my children is from my husband we manage with the help of tax credits theres plenty of ppl wth kids that dont work i worked up until a year ago part time to but had to give my job up for medical reasons

now because of all of thi csa rubbish we are now 40 pound a week worse off my kids are now going to be so much worse off we did ask her if shed cancel the claim and wed give her 164 a month which they said it was prior to gviing the csa information te day before she said no i mean its not as if she struggles far from it a new husband family holidays an imaculate
house
everythhing they want now due to this my hubby ca no longer afford to go visit his children as they live 150 miles away so as well as my children loosing out his kids are to he loves his children dearly persoally speaking she could have accepted this money we offered have his kids got everything they need well not now they need ther dad

what is going to be next we are in the process due to claim dla for my disabled daughter im tinking twice about doing that i mean she has a disability s will they take this next

im livid my husband does nt begrudge paying his chilren money far from it he just says why should my wifes children ie me and my kids why should they suffer
we get childtax credits to top upour income that 40 pund a week is 160a month imagine how far thatwould go on 6 children clothes shoes all extras that children need bus fares for school running basically mans that the money i get for 2 of my kids i dont get now

we both no that she was always a money grabbing so and so she doest care about my kids going without i suppose 288 monthly makes her life a damn site easier hey afew more family holidays or getting hr hair done or hey designer clothes for her kids i mean why dont they go the whole hog and just have everything i persnally if my ex was in my postiing and met someone with a few kids id never ever see his step kid go without its a damn discrace we dont go on holiday we would have to save silly to now take the kids on a vry rare day out

its the kids that suffer both mine and his whats good about that nothing nothing nothing arrrghhhh!!!

Her income is what she earns (or new hubby) and shouldn't be used to subsidise your now husbands responsibility to his existing children.

You say you offered the amount it was previously - is this the same figure based on his earnings and the WTC element with no reduction for his step-children?

Refusal may be greed, it can also be down to the childrens needs still being more financed in the pwc household irrespective of what your husband pays.

Personally I worked through it, it took a good 2 years to improve our income by changing jobs etc.

kelloggs36

postmanpat68 wrote: »

this thread has just persuaded me NOT to apply for tax credits now. im sure the tax credits are for low income families to top up wages and then they get taken straight away by the csa. nice one government... not.

So you would rather lose out by 75% - 85% of tax credits just to spite the PWC getting the 15 - 25%? You get most, so you still stand to gain - it doesn't make sense to me.

kelloggs36

You get £40 tax credits per week, so you get to keep at least £30 of that - so your children are getting £120 per month benefit from that. Also, your hubby pays less than he would if you didn't have any children because his net income is reduced by 15%, 20% or 25% depending on how many children you have - even if they aren't his, is that fair???? Eg if he earned £400 per week he would normally pay £80 for 2 children; if he earns £400 per week, and you have 2 children, and he got £40 tax credits per week (unlikely on that income, but just for demonstration purposes) he would pay £70 per week for 2 children. So, your children have gained more out of this and the PWC children have lost £10 per week from their father because of YOUR children, which are nothing to do with him. I would suggest that if you want to have more money in your household, that you may work - your tax credits would go down and you get to keep all your earnings. The PWC will then stand to lose even more as the tax credits will be disregarded, and the amount would reduce to £64 per week.

Blob

I suggest that you are missing the point compleatly, posibly on purpose! Why should money that is paid for children of a former relationship be taken into account in the first place. Surely the purpose of the Tax Credit in the first instance is to help with the children of the NRPPs first relationship. It must follow if this money is taken by the CSA then they are making the children of someone that has no legal, or biological link to teh other children pay for them.

Per chance a different turn on the meaning of Child Support, perhaps it means that children support other children. With the attitude of the CSA at this time, this meaning would not supprise me in the slightest.