Benefits total disregard - hooray

skibadee

So NRPS's who work and pay maintenance are now in some cases going to be much worse off than a PWC on benefits.....mmmm PWC on benefits and getting CM still gets HB and CTB....but the NRP who may be struggling can not get either of these as their wage before paying CM is considered in calculations.
All I an see is a flip back to the 70's/80's.....no incentive for anyone to work.
Its about time we had a government that looked favourably on those that help themselves.

bdt1

skibadee wrote: »

So NRPS's who work and pay maintenance are now in some cases going to be much worse off than a PWC on benefits.....mmmm PWC on benefits and getting CM still gets HB and CTB....but the NRP who may be struggling can not get either of these as their wage before paying CM is considered in calculations.
All I an see is a flip back to the 70's/80's.....no incentive for anyone to work.
Its about time we had a government that looked favourably on those that help themselves.

I totally agree, how many NRP's will have their houses reposessed and force of sale, as they struggle, but unemployed PWC get best of both worlds!!!!! All fit and able bodied persons should be made to work - no work, no money, this work ethic I fear is becoming a thing of the past, it's far easier to sponge off the likes of us tax payers, take the benefits and enjoy stay at home tv, how many viewers does Jeremy Kyle have on an average day - I suspect his viewings are set to increase :mad:

PlayingHardball

RedSky wrote: »

Perhaps the taxpayer of the future will appreciate certain pains experienced by some NRPs of the past. CM assessments are percentage based on an NRPs income so if a child resides in a high income household the CM rules from the CSA will increase that income further, to beyond what some may view as reasonable, at a painful cost to both the NRP and taxpayer. I can't understand or agree with any NRP who views paying child support as a 'painful cost', but I'm aware many do. I do agree that as a tax payer, I find it a very painful cost!

From the CSA facts and figures page, for every £1 received by a PWC it will now cost the NRP £1 and the taxpayer more than 50p to administer.

In an ideal world, NRP and PWC would agree to support their children financially. I would think that the 50p administration cost from the CSA isn't the day to day costs involved in the simple compliant cases involving the agency. Can you hyperlink that facts and figures page?

Costs to the tax payers go on and on....for example, who pays for the thousands of tribunals held each year? If only parents could work this out amongst themselves, but then again.....that would be just too simple.

RedSky

In reference to 'painful cost' I did only state some situations and was referring to NRP households who can only afford basic living costs while paying CM to high income PWC households in a far more fortunate position.

http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/about/facts-and-figures.asp
Latest quarter stats for collected/arranged maintenance is £285.9m in Dec 2009 while the latest reported net operating costs is £601.4m for the financial year 2008/2009.

jen_br

Im from Canada originally my sister is a single mom the father requested DNA etc.. it was his he has had his licence taken away because he decided to dodge the govt.. His passport is the next to be seized..

See in canada you go to re-new your licence every year (your plate for your car) and when you go there.. they say " you have X owing in fines (ould be parking CSA etc ) if you dont pay them today you dont get the sticker for your car" you dont have this sticker you are illegal and it snowballs from there.

Also in canada judges hear these cases so money = access to child or no access if NRP doesn't want it.. but the judge looks at ALL bills ALL income and makes a ruling.

PlayingHardball

RedSky wrote: »

In reference to 'painful cost' I did only state some situations and was referring to NRP households who can only afford basic living costs while paying CM to high income PWC households in a far more fortunate position.

Maybe some NRP shouldn't have had a child then? Kids cost. I'm a PWC who can only afford said basic living costs (NRP does not contribute and I am not in receipt of benefits) I think there would be very few 'high income' PWC who are on income support, but I agree, it happens, especially with the new disregard as CM as a type of means tested income. Crazy!

AnxiousMum

jen_br wrote: »

Im from Canada originally my sister is a single mom the father requested DNA etc.. it was his he has had his licence taken away because he decided to dodge the govt.. His passport is the next to be seized..

See in canada you go to re-new your licence every year (your plate for your car) and when you go there.. they say " you have X owing in fines (ould be parking CSA etc ) if you dont pay them today you dont get the sticker for your car" you dont have this sticker you are illegal and it snowballs from there.

Also in canada judges hear these cases so money = access to child or no access if NRP doesn't want it.. but the judge looks at ALL bills ALL income and makes a ruling.

Income is looked at to determine the amount to be paid under the CS Guidelines for each province. Expenses are ONLY looked at to determine ability for each household to contribute to any extracurricular activities/costs - high access costs etc. There is a basic household standard of living test - and depending on the outcome, can determine that one parent or another is more capable of paying the cost.

But when it comes to the normal child support, they do NOT take into account any additional children you might have had after the ones that you have to pay child support for - quite simply, if you can't afford more, don't have them. Because it is dealt with by the courts though, the judges also ensure before granting a divorce, that all child support and access is at a level that the CHILD/REN are entitled to - not what parents feel they are entitled to.

I was floored when we moved here, and heard how easy it is for PWC's to be able to stop the NRP from seeing their children......and that JOINT custody is not the common practice here.