Fruadulent claim!!!

infant2801

Marisco wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl: That's so laughable, it's not even worth answering! The word "workaholic" is tailor made for my family!!:rotfl:

As long as you want Davey Cameron to be the substitute father, like a sort of 'sugardaddy':o

Marisco

Can't you read like?? What on earth has Cameron got to do with my family???

kelloggs36

If you take all the bills into account it would not leave much to pay for children which are expensive. Those with very high housing costs gained from CS2 but many have lost out with the flat rate and will lose out even more under CS3 as it will be based on gross income - even reducing the levels means higher payments for everybody. Wait for the fall out from that!

Marisco

Yes, that should be interesting!!! Will everyone be moved, or will it be a mish mash like it is now?

kelloggs36

So what you really want is for only NRP income to be taken into account, less all the household bills and what is left to maintain children with which will be much closer to a nil figure if you do have a partner who works - that is why it was changed!

DX2

infant2801 wrote: »

Oh come on my deeear, I never called you a racist....just simply asked you a question "Your not being a ittle bit racist are you."

Please forgive me if that's what you thought I was insinuating about you.

I know that racism would just not enter your educated mind.;)

Numb nuts run along and play with the cars will you love, no one is really cares what you think

DX2

Marisco wrote: »

Yes, that should be interesting!!! Will everyone be moved, or will it be a mish mash like it is now?

Mish mash like it is now You seriously can't expected such a crap organisation to do things properly.

Marisco

But that is what would happen if the NRPP doesn't work anyway! Why should a NRPP be penalised for working? If an NRPP works, it should be for the benefit of her family, not another (I use "her" for ease, I know some PWC are men) It's just the same argument as using an NRPP's tax credits to pay a PWC, that's not right either!

infant2801

Marisco wrote: »

But that is what would happen if the NRPP doesn't work anyway! Why should a NRPP be penalised for working? If an NRPP works, it should be for the benefit of her family, not another (I use "her" for ease, I know some PWC are men) It's just the same argument as using an NRPP's tax credits to pay a PWC, that's not right either!

Wrong again!

The NRPP, whether male or female will quite happily want to pay toward 'housing costs', to allow the NRP to have more disposable income, enabling him to pay more maintenance for his child/ren.

I'm sure you agree.

infant2801

DX2 wrote: »

Numb nuts run along and play with the cars will you love, no one is really cares what you think

RRrrr, Why be so nasty to me.

It's me whose making sure you and your child have food iin your belly tonight, cause daddy won't!

You need to show me and any other taxpayer an ickle bit respect, please.:p