Benefits total disregard - hooray

kelloggs36

Although there was the child maintenance bonus.

kelloggs36

speedster wrote: »

that's my point.

they've just skirted the problem by moving the goal posts.

watch the new breed of vicky pollard/wanynetta slob "career pwc's" numbers dramatically increase.

the scummy mummy's christmas' have all come at once.

more kids by more fathers=more money.

simplezzzzz

I absolutely agree with you Speedster! I wonder if they will realise what the impact is and reverse the decision in the name of the deficit? Oh look there is a pig up there......

sulkisu

The downside of this new policy is that it removes any incentive for PWC to get off benefits and work. My neighbour, who as a single mother worked part-time as it was the only way that she could get all of the CM collected from her ex, has now given up her job because of the change in policy and she has decided that she is 'tired' and needs a break. In addition to this I manage a team of 50 staff members. We have three (part-time) team members who are leaving in the coming weeks (two have resigned, one is taking a five year career break). They are all single PWC and each has admitted that the change in policy means that they no longer need to work in order to receive the full CM payment. In the case of one woman (four children-three biological fathers), her cs payments total £1900 per month. So, as I understand the new rules she will get her rent paid, council tax paid, free school meals, free school uniforms, prescriptions, glasses, dentist, income support payments on top and £1900 to play with. It seems that once again the powers that be have shot themselves in the foot (and the rest of us, in the back). It's ridiculous. I realise that they are those who absolutely cannot work - I understand that. But it also means that those who can work ( and have been working), can simply stop without consequence.

Edit: Apart from the usual vague wishy-washy statements about a fair society, has anyone else noticed that all of the main political parties are strangely silent on the issue of welfare and benefits at the moment?

Loopy_Girl

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Although there was the child maintenance bonus.

Which was scrapped and you had to be off IS in the proceeding 12 months or you lost any monies (if any) that had built up.

Loopy_Girl

sulkisu wrote: »

The downside of this new policy is that it removes any incentive for PWC to get off benefits and work.

Absolutely spot on. This was said ages ago.

It seems that the CSA have went from one extreme to another.

Personally I'm surprised that this seems to have been implemented fairly quietly with no ripples. I was expecting to have it splashed all over the Sun and more than likely tarring PWC with the same brush.

Mind you, on the flip side, at least the CSA can't be accused of being an organsation put in place to generate revenue.

kelloggs36

Spot on Sulkisu - my husband commented on that issue! I'm sure that the Tories would not agree with this policy - I wonder if it will change if they get in?

Dissillusioned

I am absolutely staggered and a little bit angry by this new rule,who actually sits down and thinks this c**p up ? Presumably they are on a lot of money themselves as well!
Whats the mentality??? Removing the incentive to work,want more money,just pump out another kid!
Is there an upper limit on cash collected by the CSA?
I mean,to give an extreme example,if a council estate WAG wannabe snares a footballer on 100k a week,and has his kid,surely she cannot claim 15% of £40000.00 =60k every month??? Surely not???

Can I just add,I am not a mean minded bad spirited miser,generally I say good luck to people getting on,but this kind of feather bedding sends out totally the wrong message IMO,so much for trying to cut teen pregnancies for example.What is CMEC/CSA rationale for doing the benefit disregard,any one know??

AsknAnswer2

I disagree with the new policy completely. It leads to an unjust society. Income Support is supposed to be a means tested benefit.

One lone parent of income support of £65.45 per week whose ex is in a low paid job, gets £20 per week on top in child support.

Another lone parent on income support of £65.45 per week, whose ex is in a well paid job gets an additional £150 a week on top. Doesn't lose any IS, doesn't lose any HB/CTB because disregards are applied to their handed out income, whether or not it is above the threshold.

Working lone parent who gets £20 a week from ex in low paid job. working parent has to pay rent and council tax, no disregards because they have an earned income above the threshold. Working parent and child are worse off than parent on benefit after considering the outgoings the benefit parent doesn't have to pay.

This is sheer idiocy at its worst.

I'm a working parent - I wouldn't take the option because a) My ex flits about so I don't dare place my trust in CS and when I do I get £16 a week - wow!! and b) I have some self respect and want my kids to learn the value of working for what you get. But I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are plenty P'sWC who will go down the route of packing in their jobs to go to a life on benefit with unlimited income from CS payments on top. Sheer madness. The goverment are trying to save money. Not trying very hard, are they?

It also encourages irresponsible behaviour and bad attitudes. For years P'sWC (myself included) have fought against the concensus that they go all out to get themselves up the duff to reap the rewards of CS.

Now a lot of women/young girls will go out and get themselves pregnant irresponsibly and it will increase the bad attitude society has in general towards single parents. With one exception - this time society will be correct in the majority of cases rather than misguided by the Daily fail.

sulkisu

Dissillusioned wrote: »

Is there an upper limit on cash collected by the CSA?
I mean,to give an extreme example,if a council estate WAG wannabe snares a footballer on 100k a week,and has his kid,surely she cannot claim 15% of £40000.00 =60k every month??? Surely not???

I'm not sure if there is a cap. Although to be honest, somebody getting £4k a week in child support (if the fathers earnings warrant it) doesn't bother me - it's the fact that they can claim full benefits at the same time that !!!!es me off.

Dissillusioned

sulkisu wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is a cap. Although to be honest, somebody getting £4k a week in child support (if the fathers earnings warrant it) doesn't bother me - it's the fact that they can claim full benefits at the same time that !!!!es me off.

15% of four hundred grand is 60 thousand ? Although,as stated,this is the extreme!