Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller on child support changes

LovesDennys

DX2 wrote: »

So let me get this correct you want say for example my situation a NRP who has had not one itoa of contact with the child since the day he was born (15 years) be able to collect child tax credits, just because he is a father?

Yes, and those tax credits are paid to the PWC.

Orson_Cart_2

Thats a great idea, not thought of it like that.

Only fair since other parents claim tax credits, so roll it out to all working parents.

kelloggs36

LovesDennys wrote: »

Yes, and those tax credits are paid to the PWC.

But you want them to be split between the NRP and the PWC even though the NRP wants nothing to do with their children? I certainly don't agree with this idea.

Orson_Cart_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

But you want them to be split between the NRP and the PWC

No. I said those tax credits are paid to the PWC.

Jmum85

I have some questions for Mrs Miller.

Let's work on the basis that the average monthly child support payment is £200.00. ( I read that stat in a newspaper)

Let's also assume that at least 49% of carer parents currently using the CSA will still need to use it as they cannot reach an amicable agreement (that stat is in the Gvnt green paper).

Let's bear in mind the context - that VAT has gone up, that childcare costs have gone up, that the Gvnt has cut child tax credit for some families, that the Gvnt has reduced the childcare element of Working tax credit for all families, that the Gvnt has scrapped the Child Trust Fund for all families, that children support services are being cut eg Sure Start centres- so in summary families have a lot less money and are suffering the most in the current climate.

With the above points in mind, why does Ms Miller think it is fair to reduce the child maintenance payment by up to 12%, equivalent to £24.00 each month?

Families are stretched as it is and single parent families even more so. I imagine Mrs Miller, on her salary of £60k plus would not miss £24.00 each month but for me personally, and for every other parent, this is money that goes directly towards the costs of bringing up our kids, this is food and clothing, and we cannot afford to lose this money. This is a tax on children and its not fair.

I note someone's comment that the tax payer should not have to pay to sort out marital problems??

Should the taxpayer pay to ensure that children receive the financial support that they need? I would have thought the answer was yes.

Please bear in mind that your taxes are currently being spent on MP's expenses, on rubbish collections, on running prisons. Why shouldn't taxes also be spent on children's services? is that not a worthy enough cause?

I work full time, I pay taxes, I would rather my taxes helped a struggling family than go towards an MP's second home allowance.

I cannot post links but i have just started a petition in protest of this charge on child support payments. You can just google "say no to a tax on child support" and you should find the link. Please encourage others to sign the petition too!

g-sharp_major

LovesDennys wrote: »

Yes, and those tax credits are paid to the PWC.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

But you want them to be split between the NRP

...The Following User Says Thank You to kelloggs36 For This Useful Post: Show me >> mrsspendalot (Today)

Orson_Cart wrote: »

No. I said those tax credits are paid to the PWC.

...pure CSA classic!



This only stresses the importance of introducing this suggestion to prevent the CSA from distorting fact into fiction.

Matt_Fry wrote: »

4) Can you train CSA caseworkers to use actual evidence and not rely on PWC hearsay when making a decision that will require an NRP to makeover a greater money transfer than he would otherwise make?

DX2

LovesDennys wrote: »

I think the intention is the applicant pays the fee and NRPs arent known for applying for child maintenance. Otherwise there may be a conflict with Section 1 of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971.

So in other words a PWC being penalised by a vindictaive NRP.

Edit to add:
27. To ensure fairness within the system, charges must be placed on both parents where a case is in the statutory scheme’s full collection service2. Therefore [FONT=Arial,Arial]a collection surcharge on the non-resident parent [/FONT]will be introduced as a contribution towards the cost of the service. The surcharge will be applied as a percentage of the maintenance amount to be paid.

LovesDennys wrote: »

The same rules as for state benefits.

You will have to inform me of these rules becasue so far I haven't heard of these rules.

LovesDennys wrote: »

Yes, and those tax credits are paid to the PWC.

Did you read the post I was quoting, the op wanted tax credits to be paid to all working parents, and I gave an example of how this wouldn't be appropriate.

DX2

g-sharp_major wrote: »

...pure CSA classic!
This only stresses the importance of introducing this suggestion to prevent the CSA from distorting fact into fiction.

Seems some people could do with going to Specsavers.

DX2

Jmum85 wrote: »

I cannot post links but i have just started a petition in protest of this charge on child support payments. You can just google "say no to a tax on child support" and you should find the link. Please encourage others to sign the petition too!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/taxingkids/

hop25scotch

Suggestion for the strengthening families and saving money green paper.

Introduce an amnesty for unrecoverable NRP's to return to the workplace.

The CSA has created a culture where NRPs have joined the hidden economy, become permanently unemployed or left the UK for friendlier jurisdictions. They leave behind a multi-billion CSA debt mountain having no prospect of ever being collected and ensures those working the hidden economy or claiming benefits remain so for as long as a liability exists. This is also costing the government further uncountable billions in lost tax revenues and losses for local authorities in lost council tax income.