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!
Can you help me see how this is fair
fannyanna
Posts: 2,622 Forumite
I just posted the following on the child support forum and then thought this might be the better forum as my question is benefit related really and not specifically child maintenance.
I hope my post is appreciated for what it is. I'm not having a dig at PWC's or anything it's just that I don't see how the situation below is fair however someone else may be able to see it from another point of view and explain the rationale.......
I'm an NRPP with a hubby paying maintenance for 2 children so 20% of his net pay goes every month. Not a problem, I'm fine with that.
Hubby and I have wanted our own family for a while but as we're already financially responsible for two children it's made things a bit tricky but we're now trying for a baby.
Out of curiousity I've just had a look at benefit entitlements if I were to stay at home with the baby. On the basis of my hubby's income we'd be entitled to £66.63 per week. That's child tax credits, housing benefit and child benefit rolled together.
However on the basis that my hubby pays child maintenance 20% of his income is not available to us. If you subtract from his income the amount of money that we never benefit from and work out the benefit entitlement with what is left we'd be entitled to £199.15.
Now I understand that the benefit system is not set up in a way that would allow us to claim the larger amount but to me that doesn't exactly seem fair.
If we have a baby he'll be financially responsible for 3 children yet when being assessed for benefits he'll only be assessed for 1 of them and the 20% income that he never benefits from will be taken into account on the assessment.
I can't see the logic but perhaps this is because I'm only looking at it from our point of view.
I hope my post is appreciated for what it is. I'm not having a dig at PWC's or anything it's just that I don't see how the situation below is fair however someone else may be able to see it from another point of view and explain the rationale.......
I'm an NRPP with a hubby paying maintenance for 2 children so 20% of his net pay goes every month. Not a problem, I'm fine with that.
Hubby and I have wanted our own family for a while but as we're already financially responsible for two children it's made things a bit tricky but we're now trying for a baby.
Out of curiousity I've just had a look at benefit entitlements if I were to stay at home with the baby. On the basis of my hubby's income we'd be entitled to £66.63 per week. That's child tax credits, housing benefit and child benefit rolled together.
However on the basis that my hubby pays child maintenance 20% of his income is not available to us. If you subtract from his income the amount of money that we never benefit from and work out the benefit entitlement with what is left we'd be entitled to £199.15.
Now I understand that the benefit system is not set up in a way that would allow us to claim the larger amount but to me that doesn't exactly seem fair.
If we have a baby he'll be financially responsible for 3 children yet when being assessed for benefits he'll only be assessed for 1 of them and the 20% income that he never benefits from will be taken into account on the assessment.
I can't see the logic but perhaps this is because I'm only looking at it from our point of view.
0
Comments
-
isn't fair to you but it is to him! He "benefits" from the money knowing his kids are not starving...
try again running it as if he had 3 kids in the same house. what does it come out as?Debt free 4th April 2007.
New house. Bigger mortgage. MFWB after I have my buffer cash in place.0 -
Once baby comes along his CM will go down slightly (as 15% of his income will now be ignored) then it'll go up again when you get the CTC amount.
If he earns £300p.w £249 after tax has the 2 kids at least 52 nights he'd be paying £43p.w
When baby comes he'll be paying £37p.w
Then taking into account CTC's he'll be paying £40p.w.:footie:
Regular savers earn 6% interest (HSBC, First Direct, M&S) Loans cost 2.9% per year (Nationwide) = FREE money. 0 -
isn't fair to you but it is to him! He "benefits" from the money knowing his kids are not starving...
try again running it as if he had 3 kids in the same house. what does it come out as?
Sorry I don't quite understand - probably being a bit dumb
If you run the calculation on the basis that the three children are in the same house the benefit entitlement would obviously be a lot higher at £197.83. But my hubby obviously wouldn't be able to claim that as he'd just have the one child under his roof and wouldn't be receiving the child benefit for the other 2 children as he's the non resident parent.0 -
Once baby comes along his CM will go down slightly (as 15% of his income will now be ignored) then it'll go up again when you get the CTC amount.
Yes I know and as you've alluded in a way the reductions gets cancelled out by the addition because of the tax credits. So he'll still have quite a lot of money going out every month that "our" (I know that makes it sound devisive but it's just easier when typing
) family would never benefit from as it is for his previous children.
We'd still be in a position where we'd be getting less benefit if you understand what I mean - which you may not as I've babbled on a bit 0 -
i think the point is the way you've worded it. you say your hubby 'never benefits from' the portion of his income that goes for child support, the fact is he does benefit from it, in knowing that he is responsible and providing for his children.<insert super cool inspirational sig here>0
-
i think the point is the way you've worded it. you say your hubby 'never benefits from' the portion of his income that goes for child support, the fact is he does benefit from it, in knowing that he is responsible and providing for his children.
Okey dokey see what you mean now.
Ok, I'm looking at this purely from a financial aspect. When I say he doesn't benefit I mean we (him, me and future baby) don't (or should I say wouldn't) benefit from that money financially - as it is obviously earmarked as maintenance for the two other children (which is absolutely fine and as you have rightly said it's his way of benefiting those children).0 -
I don't think you should look at it that way. If you want to compare, it should be what you would be entitled to and what would it cost if the two children lived with you. Are you sure you would be that much better off?0
-
i think the point is the way you've worded it. you say your hubby 'never benefits from' the portion of his income that goes for child support, the fact is he does benefit from it, in knowing that he is responsible and providing for his children.
How is that benefitting from it? Its his kids and ex partner benefitting from it and not him.
If I give £5 to a homeless person on the street does that mean I benefit knowing I provide for someone else?
Situations like this are pretty impossible to judge as we dont know why the father has little to no access to a kid and time and time again we hear(and I personally know) females living on their own having either broken up with their ex and taken their kids with them or the male fed up with how he is treated and leaves his partner, either way the man has to pay for kids who he has little to do with the upbringing of.
Men should not just be a statistic when it comes to upbringing of a child.0 -
I don't think you should look at it that way. If you want to compare, it should be what you would be entitled to and what would it cost if the two children lived with you. Are you sure you would be that much better off?
If they lived with us the benefits would increase from £60 ish per week to just under £200 so a fair jump. We would also have that 20% of my husbands income available so I think it would be a sizeable difference. I appreciate there would be added expenditure but I'm not sure it would be that much.0 -
How is that benefitting from it? Its his kids and ex partner benefitting from it and not him.
He is "benefitting" from it as he is supporting his children.
He created them and now has an obligation to help raise them, whats so hard to understand.If I give £5 to a homeless person on the street does that mean I benefit knowing I provide for someone else?.
This is not charity. As he fathered these children, he needs to pay for them. The analogy of giving to a homeless person is incorrect. There is no obligation for you to pay money to them, there is for your children.
Situations like this are pretty impossible to judge as we dont know why the father has little to no access to a kid
.
Who has mentioned "access". The OP has not (unless I missed it). Access is not the issue here.
D70How about no longer being masochistic?
How about remembering your divinity?
How about unabashedly bawling your eyes out?
How about not equating death with stopping?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards