We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Q&A with Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller on child support changes
Comments
-
Oh yes it does...kelloggs36 wrote: »as as a PWC you get money for the children in the form of benefits.0
-
hop25scotch wrote: »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.
Who ever wrote the Child Support Act was very naive.
I do think the idea of an amnesty is very good. It could repair much of the damage caused to the economy by the Child Support Act, however there must be a clause for CSA accounts dead and inactive for three years or more can enable an NRP to return to the economy provided the arrears are written off first and provides immunity from prosecution (if discovered) for living or working in the hidden economy.0 -
There has been some interesting cross examination on my list of questions so Ill do my best to answer them.
Point 9 is all about sharing the tax burden. Currently the NRP carries all the tax liabilities but he cannot claim tax credits against it because in the eyes of the law, he has no children and thus cannot claim CTC. I think this should be changed so the tax liability passes to the PWC seeing as its her(?) income and she can claim the tax credits.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?
If one parent claims Child support from the other and the NRP did not choose to be one, then custody is offered to the NRP but if he declines then he becomes an absent parent. The idea here is to stop abuse of the system where a PWC deprives the children of the other parent for monetary gain or to aquire a property.How does one prove a single parent is self-inflicted?
Kelloggs36 has since answered the question for you.How do you claim child support from the state?How will the new system work if a NRP has say for example two PWC's?
Will the NRP have to pay the fee twice
Im not 100% sure how fees are planned, but post #1 suggests it will follow other statutory fees such as those charged by the small claims court which are paid by each applicant (claimant). I dont think there will be any BOGOF deals just because the 'defendent' NRP is named on more than one claim or application. Post #1 also indicates the applicant PWC pays the application fee and NRP pays enforcement fees. My concern is that charging NRPs fees forces them out of the UK economy and nobody wins (except the NRP whose income is now tax free). The original CSA charged fees and we all know where that went.
It is also open to abuse by PWC. I would say the PWC is more often the applicant for child maintenance. I cant imagine many NRPs (if any) approaching the CSA to open a new case. This is why the green paper.So in other words a PWC being penalised by a vindictaive NRP.clearingout wrote: »how many of us can hold our hands up and say the first thing we did was 'put the children first' when our relationships broke down?
I would say more than you think, but they are looking for a solution that is affordable and reasonable. The CSA disregards the well being and security of the NRP, it can even prevent him travelling to work or paying his own medical prescriptions - hence why he turns to benefits (no TTW required & prescriptions are free). The CSA can even force an NRP to sell up and move into squalor, so again, they turn to social housing. No such conditions are imposed on PWCs.0 -
Thanks Matt.There has been some interesting cross examination on my list of questions so Ill do my best to answer them.
Much better explained rather than all parents being able to claim CTC.Point 9 is all about sharing the tax burden. Currently the NRP carries all the tax liabilities but he cannot claim tax credits against it because in the eyes of the law, he has no children and thus cannot claim CTC. I think this should be changed so the tax liability passes to the PWC seeing as its her(?) income and she can claim the tax credits.
Assuming of course that any violence/abuse is taken into the equation.If one parent claims Child support from the other and the NRP did not choose to be one, then custody is offered to the NRP but if he declines then he becomes an absent parent. The idea here is to stop abuse of the system where a PWC deprives the children of the other parent for monetary gain or to aquire a property.
So I don't need to to panic then
as the NRP was asked to help and said if he had his way then he would put child in care.
So you get dependant benefits, just aswell as some of us actually don't get child support.Kelloggs36 has since answered the question for you.
Did they?Im not 100% sure how fees are planned, but post #1 suggests it will follow other statutory fees such as those charged by the small claims court which are paid by each applicant (claimant). I dont think there will be any BOGOF deals just because the 'defendent' NRP is named on more than one claim or application. Post #1 also indicates the applicant PWC pays the application fee and NRP pays enforcement fees. My concern is that charging NRPs fees forces them out of the UK economy and nobody wins (except the NRP whose income is now tax free). The original CSA charged fees and we all know where that went..
Nearly 16 years since I have been entwined within the CSA and I have never heard the CSA charged fees, maybe you would be so kind to link me to something along the lines that the CSA did in fact charge a fee.
^^^It is also open to abuse by PWC. I would say the PWC is more often the applicant for child maintenance. I cant imagine many NRPs (if any) approaching the CSA to open a new case. This is why the green paper.PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »You'd be surprised at the number of NRP applications - generally when they have had a court order telling them how much maintenance they should pay, they find out that it is double the amount they'd be paying through the CSA, so then put in a claim of their own to pay maintenance. CSA involvement cancels the court order.*SIGH*0 -
so what happens if a parent who is 'offered custody' says yes, please, I'd like custody of the children where the other parent also wants custody of the children? who is going to decide who gets this 'custody'? what criteria are you going to use to decide whether a parent wanting 'custody' is doing it to avoid having to make payments or hold onto his/her home rather than actually wanting 'custody' for the true benefit of the children? how are you going to impose a shared 'custody' arrangement on two parents who can't work together? who is going to tell parents who have shared residency what their individual responsiblities are (so, who cares for children during school holidays? who picks up the tab for childcare - bearing in mind that both parents can now claim CTC?) what system are you going to put in place for parents to be able to air their greivances and make a claim that shared residence isn't working (so, when one parent goes on holiday for 3 weeks at 3 days notice, expecting the other parent to find childcare and pick up the cost of that so they can continue to work?)
In an ideal world, parents would act as adults and sort this out amongst themselves. But I can assure you that my professional, well-educated ex-husband isn't able to get past his own carp to be able to work together with me for the benefit of our children. You allow him shared residence automatically and half the tax credit liability with it and our children would lose the roof over their heads and be pushed from pillar to post with a father ridiculing their mother at every turn. You are essentially suggesting that the State presides over parenting and brings up our children for us. It's not workable. The cost to the tax payer is huge and I'm not personally convinced that the numbers for which it would 'work' (because I acknowledge there are those for whom this system would ensure children grow up with both parents active in their lives) would give enough cost-benefit to justify it (if you get me!).
And for every NRP living in a crappy bedsit, unable to work 'cos the CSA takes too much money from them, there's a PWC and children living in poverty, not necessarily because the CSA fails to secure child maintenance payments from the NRP, but because it is generally the PWC who has given up work so ruined career prospects, or works in the lower-paid (usually 'caring') professions on a part-time basis to try and juggle work with children. What is this system going to do for them?0 -
Anothermum wrote: »Why is the PWCs ability to pay not also taken into consideration?
When my ex and I separated, we earned the same salary. I decided to continue working full-time when I became a single mum despite my kids being 18 months and 3 yo. It was tough, but a choice I made to be financially better off. I benefited from salary increases and now, 7 years later, I earn a good salary. He in the meantime made a lot of professional errors, got sacked a few times, accumulated debts. He then decided to extend his family with his new girlfriend who doesn't work.
Why should it be that because I earn a good salary through dedication the nrp should have to pay less towards our children because of the choices he has made? In the end, children lifestyle should represent what both parents can offer just like it is when their parents are not separated.
What I think is not right is that the nrp can't ask what his maintenance pays towards. If the pwc earns well and maintenance is above average, I would expect to see the kids benefiting accordingly, ie. various activities, nice clothes, good equipment, nice holidays etc... I would have no problem telling my ex how the money is spent, that is of course if I got a penny from him, but then his views is why should he pay anything when I earn enough to support them myself.0 -
Did they?
Nearly 16 years since I have been entwined within the CSA and I have never heard the CSA charged fees, maybe you would be so kind to link me to something along the lines that the CSA did in fact charge a fee.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/48/section/47/enacted0
So you were wrong. 
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards