CSA and tax credits

mrsspendalot

noodle84 wrote: »

I'm a nrpp and i've briefly posted about this on another thread, my oh has just had his assessment through from csa for his dd with ex, they didn't ask for ctc on the form they sent only wtc which i thought was fair enough, its only when Kelloggs seemed adamant that the ctc should be included as well that i have phoned csa and got oh to phone to check this as we didnt want them saying we had lied and backdating money that should have been used, 3 phonecalls to csa, twice been told they dont use ctc once been told they do?! i think it is ridiculous that the ctc that we receive for our ds is used in the calculation for oh's dd when oh's ex gets ctc for their dd anyway (and more than we get for ds)....neither I nor my partner have any problem with him paying maintenance for his dd at all but i think they way the csa work things out is stupid....

So are they counting the CTC now or have they left your calculation alone?

mrsspendalot

kelloggs36 wrote: »

However, much is offset by the fact that the NRP pays less of a % if they have other children in their household - even if they aren't theirs - that isn't fair either, is it?

I think that when you compare the % reduction in some households compared to the amount of 'extra' maintenance the PWC will receive with CTC, WTC and Childcare Element counted - the effect of the extra tax credits having to leave the NRPs household far outweighs the reduction they get for any other children living in it.

FBaby

I was going to post the same Kelloggs, but I seem to do so everytime the issue of tax credits is mentioned and felt like a broken record!

I don't think the two are separate issues at all. The thread is about the unfairness of money that should belong to one child goes to another. It is therefore very similar. Why should the children of the pwc/nrp do with less because of the nrp choice to share his life with a nnrp who already has children? It has nothing to do with them and they shouldn't be penalised. In regards to the new children of the nrp, one could argue that if he can't afford to pay as it is for his first children, he shouldn't be contemplating having more, but I do see the point as in reality, even if families which hasn't separated, many children do have to do with less because of siblings being born.

mrsspendalot

FBaby wrote: »

Why should the children of the pwc/nrp do with less because of the nrp choice to share his life with a nnrp who already has children? It has nothing to do with them and they shouldn't be penalised.

Conversely, why should any money paid towards the support of NRPP children (whether it is for childcare, or just the CTC) be used to 'bump up' the maintenance payment to a PWC, when those children have nothing to do with the NRP/PWC?

kelloggs36

why should children of an NRPP reduce the money due to the children of the NRP and PWC? Swings and roundabouts.

mrsspendalot

kelloggs36 wrote: »

why should children of an NRPP reduce the money due to the children of the NRP and PWC? Swings and roundabouts.

Well in our case, the amount of reduction applied for my children is going to be more than cancelled out once my OH starts working again after uni, and they take CTC, WTC and childcare into the equation. I would rather have no reduction and him pay the full 15% from his wage, and have the tax credits ignored! The PWC in our case will certainly profit from my children, and that is wrong.

FBaby

My point is that both is wrong and neither should apply, but I don't think it is right to cry outrage at one without mentioning the other one.

fannyanna

I guess child maintenance is one of those issues that will always cause offence and will always be deemed unfair when you look at it from different angles.

Everyone will always have different opinions but things heat up a bit as there's children and money involved (and in some cases a whole history of bad feelings).

Fission

fannyanna wrote: »

PWC gets tax credit for child and maintenance payment from NRP (which includes an element of tax credit for another child ...) If the above is the case it seems really wrong that child 1 benefits from two lots of tax credit ...

The logic is that net income = gross minus tax minus nat ins minus pension payments. Tax credits are a form of tax rebate from the inland revenue so the effect is that the person concerned is paying less tax. Less tax means more net income.