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

Watta_4Cup

Anothermum wrote: »

Why is the PWCs ability to pay not also taken into consideration?

Good point.

kelloggs36

Because the PWC is already paying for the children by default - it is working out what the contribution of the NRP is that is the key point - the more they earn, the more they pay as it would be if they were actually living with the children.

Anothermum

If I am paying say £400 per month and the PWC also receives £80 child benefit, how is the PWC contributing a penny towards the childs upkeep? The incremental costs of having a child is not £480 per month! Very nice tax free earner though if the PWC also has a household income of £80k+!

I realise this is an extreme example (in my case true!) but it does show how the child support system can be abused.

Watta_4Cup

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Because the PWC is already paying for the children by default - it is working out what the contribution of the NRP is that is the key point - the more they earn, the more they pay as it would be if they were actually living with the children.

But they are not living with the children.

The NRP pays according to his income so anything above the government rate for income support is paying PWCs unemployment benefit so is not paying anything by default.

clearingout

Benefits (Income Support) plus Tax Credit are a Government set MINIMUM amount required to live when you have a child/children. No way on earth does it cover more than the very basics of food, clothing, and heating for a child. You don't see mums on benefits at paid soft play areas or sending their children to football/swimming/Beavers etc. etc. etc. every week.

I beg to differ that the incremental costs of having a child can't equal £480 a month. Many of us pay more than that in childcare/afterschool clubs/holiday clubs so we can work to keep our heads above water. And it is the PWC who is charged with trying to keep a roof over children's heads in decent school catchment areas so their children stand a chance in life and there's a cost to that, more so in the south of the country. Without our children, I could live just about anywhere and do just about anything, surely?

We have a debate here of the PWC vs. NRP and have gone way off the original topic, I think.

manglesey25

Dam good suggestions so far. Heres a quesiton for the Rt Hon friend Maria Miller.

Can we scrap the CSA completely?

There has never been a government organisation that has so much hatred towards men.

Introduce a simplified system borrowed from the French and ditch that expensive warehouse of bureaucrats called the Child Support Agency. The name Child "Support" Agency is misnomic because as pointed out in point 1 of post 5, its nothing to do with paying money to support children. Regulations requiring that money to be spent on the children are dubiously absent. Under the old court system, a mum had to explain why she needed so much money and how she will be spending it.

The comments in Post 5 are excellent, include them and create a new system that is three-tier.

Tier 1 - for couples that self-agree on maintenance.

Tier 2 - for those who cant agree, Mediation stage. Like the telephone based one run by the HM Court Service for settling small claims.

Tier 3 - Mediation fails - Adjudication Service. Like the National Parking Appeals Service where both PWC and NRP can make representation. Currently its faceless CSA civil servants dictating terms behind closed doors depending on what mood they are in that day.

Non compliance with the above then create rules for enforcement and recovery based on Sections 32-58 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

DX2

clearingout wrote: »

We have a debate here of the PWC vs. NRP and have gone way off the original topic, I think.

Some things never change. That's why it's easier to put your suggestions/questions via the link on page 1. Rather than get venomous replies.

Dee_Tails

My question.

Why are PWCs allowed to receive cCM on top of benefits?


Surely if anyone else on JSA received other income its benefit fraud, and further, their JSA includes money their dependants?

DX2

Dee_Tails wrote: »

My question.

Why are PWCs allowed to receive cCM on top of benefits?


Surely if anyone else on JSA received other income its benefit fraud, and further, their JSA includes money their dependants?

No it doesn't.

kelloggs36

Dee_Tails wrote: »

My question.

Why are PWCs allowed to receive cCM on top of benefits? to reduce child poverty apparently - I totally disagree with it, as as a PWC you get money for the children in the form of benefits.


Surely if anyone else on JSA received other income its benefit fraud, and further, their JSA includes money their dependants?

...............................................................