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.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

is child mantenance disregarded from all benefits...?

2

Comments

  • Jowo_2
    Jowo_2 Posts: 8,308 Forumite
    zagfles wrote: »
    This was the last govt playing politics. It was a silly, unaffordable and unfair increase in benefit spending but they thought they were going to lose the election so they set a few traps for the Tories.

    If the new govt reverse this, then Labour can accuse them of "having a go at single mothers - same old Tories etc etc". And unfortunately some people are stupid enough to swallow this sort of rubbish :(

    Is this being changed in the move to the Universal Credit system or not?

    That's a plausible explanation. I often wondered about the U turn on this, how the state seemed happy to pay the same amount of state benefits to parents with children whether or not the non resident parent paid towards child support.

    I, too, believe the tiger is out of the cage and it would be electorial suicide to reintroduce means testing.

    Around a quarter of households are headed by lone parents (approx 2 million) and while just over half work, I think it is probably mainly in part time employment, plus there is no obligation to enter employment until the youngest child reaches 7 (used to be a lot higher). This I would think leaves the majority of lone parents dependent on benefits so that's a whole lot of voters to alienate if they think their standard of living will be compromised by the reintroduction of means testing.

    Only around 40% of non resident parents pay anything though, but the principle might be enough to cause widespread resentment.
  • Zoetoes
    Zoetoes Posts: 2,496 Forumite
    Sixer wrote: »
    Isn't it because NRPs have a nasty habit of not sticking to their payments regularly, so the income is too often not certain?

    Not if it's through the CSA?
    If you're going to stalk me, while you're at it can you cut the grass, feed the dog & make sure I've got bread & milk in :D
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,276 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    edited 27 March 2011 pm31 12:15PM
    Sixer wrote: »
    Isn't it because NRPs have a nasty habit of not sticking to their payments regularly, so the income is too often not certain?

    Personally I'd go for a system where instead of means tested benefits being reduced because of child support payments, CTC is. One of the understandable complaints with the old system was that the NRP's money often ended up supporting the PWC plus often the PWC's new partner! As their IS/JSA(IB) was reduced or eliminated because of "child maintenance" payments! But CTC wasn't! This often created resentment, understandably. Also the withdrawal rate was 100% over the disregard, so there was little advantage to the PWC.

    If instead the PWC had to declare child maintenance payments received to TCO and they used this to reduce CTC only (maybe using the same withdrawal rate in tax credits ie 41%), but not WTC or any means tested benefits, then the system would be much fairer, child maintenance from the NRP would reduce state support for the children as it should, but they'd benefit from most of it, but would not affect any support for the PWC or PWCP. And it would cope with variable/unreliable NRPs in the same way as the tax credits system copes with variable income.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,276 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    Jowo wrote: »
    Is this being changed in the move to the Universal Credit system or not?

    That's a plausible explanation. I often wondered about the U turn on this, how the state seemed happy to pay the same amount of state benefits to parents with children whether or not the non resident parent paid towards child support.

    I, too, believe the tiger is out of the cage and it would be electorial suicide to reintroduce means testing.

    Around a quarter of households are headed by lone parents (approx 2 million) and while just over half work, I think it is probably mainly in part time employment, plus there is no obligation to enter employment until the youngest child reaches 7 (used to be a lot higher). This I would think leaves the majority of lone parents dependent on benefits so that's a whole lot of voters to alienate if they think their standard of living will be compromised by the reintroduction of means testing.

    Only around 40% of non resident parents pay anything though, but the principle might be enough to cause widespread resentment.

    Unless I've missed it the UC white paper seems to completely avoid the issue! Can't see any mention of how child support is handled.
  • Sixer
    Sixer Posts: 1,087 Forumite
    zagfles wrote: »
    Personally I'd go for a system where instead of means tested benefits being reduced because of child support payments, CTC is. One of the understandable complaints with the old system was that the NRP's money often ended up supporting the PWC plus often the PWC's new partner! As their IS/JSA(IB) was reduced or eliminated because of "child maintenance" payments! But CTC wasn't! This often created resentment, understandably. Also the withdrawal rate was 100% over the disregard, so there was little advantage to the PWC.

    If instead the PWC had to declare child maintenance payments received to TCO and they used this to reduce CTC only (maybe using the same withdrawal rate in tax credits ie 41%), but not WTC or any means tested benefits, then the system would be much fairer, child maintenance from the NRP would reduce state support for the children as it should, but they'd benefit from most of it, but would not affect any support for the PWC or PWCP. And it would cope with variable/unreliable NRPs in the same way as the tax credits system copes with variable income.

    That makes perfect sense to me.

    Certainly, there are anomalies in this system. A relation of mine for one: she has one child at school and works, bringing home £1,000 a month. Her ex is well-paid and her child maintenance is £400 a month. She lives in the former family home, which has the mortgage paid off, which will be sold and the proceeds divided when her son is 18. So she has plenty of income and no housing costs. Yet she still qualifies for £80+ per week tax credits.
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,925 Forumite
    Sixer wrote: »
    Isn't it because NRPs have a nasty habit of not sticking to their payments regularly, so the income is too often not certain?

    You could apply the same argument to those in irregular work, but their income is still counted.

    I was tempted to ask my MP for an explanation on the subject, but I can't stand the man.
    Gone ... or have I?
  • Sixer
    Sixer Posts: 1,087 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    You could apply the same argument to those in irregular work, but their income is still counted.

    I was tempted to ask my MP for an explanation on the subject, but I can't stand the man.

    Zagfles's solution is elegant, is it not? Declare to TCs, so it's not what is supposed to be paid, but what is actually paid, that counts.
  • Zoetoes
    Zoetoes Posts: 2,496 Forumite
    So you're suggesting that someone receiving CTC has the CS taken into account and not those receiving IS? Is that what you mean?
    If you're going to stalk me, while you're at it can you cut the grass, feed the dog & make sure I've got bread & milk in :D
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,925 Forumite
    Sixer wrote: »
    Zagfles's solution is elegant, is it not? Declare to TCs, so it's not what is supposed to be paid, but what is actually paid, that counts.

    I think it is a step in the right direction, but still does not take into account the fact that support payments also benefit the PWC (particularly where higher amounts are involved).
    Zoetoes wrote: »
    So you're suggesting that someone receiving CTC has the CS taken into account and not those receiving IS? Is that what you mean?

    Very few people receive a child element on IS anymore, so most would receive IS plus CTC.
    Gone ... or have I?
  • Zoetoes
    Zoetoes Posts: 2,496 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    I think it is a step in the right direction, but still does not take into account the fact that support payments also benefit the PWC (particularly where higher amounts are involved).



    Very few people receive a child element on IS anymore, so most would receive IS plus CTC.

    Oh I see, I thought IS covered the parents and children.

    I do get CTC and I am thinking I would probably be miffed if I lost out the same as someone on IS and CTC.
    If you're going to stalk me, while you're at it can you cut the grass, feed the dog & make sure I've got bread & milk in :D
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 241K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.