Benefits total disregard - hooray

bdt1

There is an upper limit on CSA monies collected for PWC, my ex is a very high earner and on CS1 pays nowhere near 20% of his wage for 2 children, I could have closed case and reopened on CS2, but it was never my intention to take him to the cleaners, I just don't believe in that type of behaviour.

If I had wanted to, I could have applied to the Courts for a top-up on the child maintenance,but again, why, when he is paying a reasonable sum regularly, I do not agree with greedy, bitter PWC's. Just to add, I have never been on benefits, and at one point had 3 jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food/clothing available, I have never been afraid of hard work, and do not believe the NRP should be seen as a cash machine, although regular CM should be paid for all children

AnxiousMum

I know it's a different country.....but......in Canada, if a single parent is on benefits, ALL child support is payable to the Social Services who pay out the single parent welfare payments. It's not up to the pwc and nrp to make arrangements - the guidelines that are set in stone are put into place, and the government will make sure that they get the child support from the nrp, be them male or female. The nrp also cannot just up and quit their job in order to get out of payments.....they don't buy that carp there. No child support paid, passports get seized, drivers licenses cancelled......they get it in the end. But in the meantime, the pwc and children are being provided for.

It does mean that those who created the child are the ones financially supporting him/her, and not every other working couple out there who can't afford to provide for other people's kids

Loopy_Girl

I like reading the stuff you post about the Canadian way of child support AM - makes very interesting reading.

Also makes you think that if Canada and Australia can get results and ensure both parents have an equal say in upbringing - if desired - then why can't the bloody UK?!!:mad:

Loopy_Girl

AsknAnswer2 wrote: »

Now a lot of women/young girls will go out and get themselves pregnant irresponsibly

Personally I would say 'may' as oppose to 'will'...at the end of the day, a baby is a 24/7 thing so it's not an easy option - not my any stretch of the imagination particularly if a lone parent.

And lets not forget the the CSA aren't failsafe. There are plenty NRP's out there who should be paying but don't/can't.

I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to get the inception rates for IS in about 6 months time and do a comparable on last year and 5 years for example to see if there is a sharp spike.

crazycrazy

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Not really.

The simple answer to stop these women trying to 'trap' men for money would be for the man to take responsibility (instead of believing her) and wearing a condom.

Takes 2 to make a baby but only one to stop it and for a moment there I thought there was a neanderthal thinking that it was only a female that was in charge of birth control.

No man has to say they got 'trapped'. Ever

i usually agree with what you write but this is just not true!
for every 8,000ish... acts of intercourse using a condom 2 women will become pregnant, yeah i know that seems like massive odds but the point is it can happen and if you think maybe at this moment there are 80,000 people having sex with a condom that means 20 women will wake up tomorrow pregnant.

This new rule is the stupidist thing ever.... as i posted in another thread the effect of this and its unfairness, but then the CSA is about unfairness, is illustrated with what happens in my case....

my ex gets near £280 pw in benefits plus then she will get approx £50ish from me for my daughter thats £330 pw....ish + free dental, free prescriptions


I take home £320 pw minus my £50 ish to my ex leaves me with £270 pw. I have to pay dental and script charges. OH and our son lives with me!!!! so I also provide for him too.

RedSky

According to our Government.....

"By introducing a full child maintenance disregard, the Government are demonstrating their commitment to abolishing the revenue recovery function of the child maintenance system and instead focusing it on parental responsibility and tackling child poverty.

A full disregard will encourage both parents to set up an effective maintenance arrangement and the non-resident parent to pay maintenance because all of the money will go to the children rather than the state. It is important that both parents arrange maintenance agreements that provide reliable financial support for their children."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-03-23a.34WS.1

Bluetube

So I might have this wrong but... If I leave my wife, she will be able to claim benefits for herself and our 4 children, I have just had a look at a benefits calculator which as a loose estimate suggests that she may receive 430 pounds a week (inc housing allowance) we currently live on about 310. My current very high assessment and for one (other) child will be split between all my children with the added benefit of my assessment shifting to CS2.
So put basically my family is significantly better off without me?? My determination to work hard to support my family is a mistake I am actually making my family poorer??
Well if the governments aim is to alienate working parents, encourage women to have more babies (and not work), and to break marriages up then they are doing a great job.

RedSky

Bluetube wrote: »

My determination to work hard to support my family is a mistake I am actually making my family poorer??

Not sure I would call it a mistake to work and provide for your family but I would regard it a mistake to think other taxpayers are responsible to support your family, regardless of which method brings in the most money.

RedSky

crazycrazy wrote: »

for every 8,000ish... acts of intercourse using a condom 2 women will become pregnant

I was under the impression condoms had a success rate of 98%, so 2 in 100 acts will result in pregnancy.

Loopy_Girl

crazycrazy wrote: »

i usually agree with what you write but this is just not true!
for every 8,000ish... acts of intercourse using a condom 2 women will become pregnant, yeah i know that seems like massive odds but the point is it can happen and if you think maybe at this moment there are 80,000 people having sex with a condom that means 20 women will wake up tomorrow pregnant.

This new rule is the stupidist thing ever.... as i posted in another thread the effect of this and its unfairness, but then the CSA is about unfairness, is illustrated with what happens in my case....

my ex gets near £280 pw in benefits plus then she will get approx £50ish from me for my daughter thats £330 pw....ish + free dental, free prescriptions


I take home £320 pw minus my £50 ish to my ex leaves me with £270 pw. I have to pay dental and script charges. OH and our son lives with me!!!! so I also provide for him too.

Ahh...what I meant was a man saying that he was 'trapped' and then you find out that there was no condom used...I know that no contraception is 100% effective and that genuine accidents happen. My accident is 8 years old!!

And I wholeheartedly agree with it being a stupid idea...I have yet to speak to a person who thinks it IS a good idea!

When I was on IS the main drive to get back to work was financial...I could have lots of nice things again...but in the example you give for your ex (and many others) then where is the incentive to get back to work? Absolutely fook all...normally you sit with a lone parent advisor and they show you how much better off you will be when working but I would guess there will be tons that are better sitting at home.

It's a mad mad mad idea:cool: