Can you help me see how this is fair

SingleSue

FBaby wrote: »

That might very well the case for you, and I am not saying that no children should receive DLA, but I am sure that none of the three friends I know do so. Two of them get a one to-one carer at school, not the entire time, but a large amount of it. One of them used to have sleep problem, but doesn't any longer. In any case, not being able to socialise or getting a good night sleep is not specific to disability, as a full-time single mum with little help from ex, I never got to socialise and I had two children not disabled who didn't sleep throught the night for years, yet I wasn't able to claim anything for it (rightly so, it's what comes with being a mum!)

Granted...I was trying to give the other side of the picture for balance.

I wasn't able to sleep through even with another half, if it wasn't him, it was one of the boys keeping me up...I always say it's a blooming good thing I am an insomniac! :rotfl:

It's not just the waking up though, it is the giving of medical assistance during the night too, real begger trying to give the correct cc's of medication in a hyperdermic syringe at silly o clock in the morning and half asleep or working out the percentage of peak flow compared to normal.....sometimes my brain goes into screaming ab dabs and just doesn't want to work

zagfles

catfish50 wrote: »

I can understand why it seems unfair to you, but to me it doesn't. It seems to me that if the 20% CM was taken into account when calculating his benefit entitlement, effectively the taxpayer would be paying his CM for him.

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.

a) tax credits aren't withdrawn at 100% so they'd get more in tax credits, but nowhere near the whole amount

b) in a "fair" system the maintenance payments would be included in the PWC's income for tax credits purposes, so that would offset the cost to the taxpayer.

In fact it would be a much better deal for the taxpayer if maintenance payments were deducted from the NRPs income and included in the PWC's income, since more PWCs will claim tax credits - many NRPs don't have new families.

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

What great advice this is, which essentially comes down to saying 'stuff his other children, they can adapt to having to do with less so my new family can have more' all this with no feelings of guilt... How anyone can think this to be acceptable is beyond me....

How anyone can think the current system is acceptable is beyond me. Assuming the same circumstances (income/kids) why should the NRPs new family be 20% of his wage worse off than his old family? How do you reckon that's fair? My suggestion would make them equal. You want to "stuff" his new family.

catfish50

zagfles wrote: »

a) tax credits aren't withdrawn at 100% so they'd get more in tax credits, but nowhere near the whole amount

Still, the NRP is supposed to pay the whole of the maintenance as assessed.

b) in a "fair" system the maintenance payments would be included in the PWC's income for tax credits purposes, so that would offset the cost to the taxpayer.

Wasn't that the way it used to be? I seem to recall it was changed (by Nigel Lawson I think) because it effectively functioned as an incentive to the custodial parent to just claim benefit and avoid applying for child support from the non-custodial parent. The idea was to save money on benefits payments by giving the custodial parent a financial incentive to claim support from the non-custodial parent.

I'm not arguing that the present system is fair on everyone however. Probably impossible to come up with an efficient system that would be fair in all cases.

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

How anyone can think the current system is acceptable is beyond me. Assuming the same circumstances (income/kids) why should the NRPs new family be 20% of his wage worse off than his old family? How do you reckon that's fair? My suggestion would make them equal. You want to "stuff" his new family.

Maybe because he had a family first and can't erase it just because he happens to now have a new family???? He tried to make it work once and it failed. That happens and like most 'errors' you have to pay for them. I am not talking about the kids being the error and paying for itbeing maintenance, I am talking about having to start again and accepting that this means having to do so with less. If the new partner can't accept that her partner is going to have less money coming in because he had children before, than she better walk away right away.

My ex is 20% better off to support his new family because he doesn't pay a penny towards the children we had together. His partner doesn't work and expects him to support her and her two children 100%. As if that wasn't bad enough, they then decided that they should bring another child into the world. Are you saying that it is totally acceptable that he shouldn't pay towards our children so that his partner, two step children and child to be have a better life? I don't expect my new partner to support my children, of course he contributes as part of the overall bills, but I could never stop working and think he should be paying everything for them, and he doesn't even have children of his own!

AnxiousMum

FBaby wrote: »

What great advice this is, which essentially comes down to saying 'stuff his other children, they can adapt to having to do with less so my new family can have more' all this with no feelings of guilt... How anyone can think this to be acceptable is beyond me....

In reality though - if we're talking about people only having the number of children that they can afford to have, then surely, when a couple with children split up, they need to make a decision as to whether or not they can afford to have more children right? An income can only go so far in providing for offspring - whether from an old or a new relationship. Yes, everybody has the right to move on with their lives, but they also need to be realistic as to how many people can be supported. That goes for PWC as well as NRP's.

FBaby

AnxiousMum wrote: »

In reality though - if we're talking about people only having the number of children that they can afford to have, then surely, when a couple with children split up, they need to make a decision as to whether or not they can afford to have more children right? An income can only go so far in providing for offspring - whether from an old or a new relationship. Yes, everybody has the right to move on with their lives, but they also need to be realistic as to how many people can be supported. That goes for PWC as well as NRP's.

Agree completely, but it seems having more children is a right even if it potentially harms those already on this earth....

pipscot

AnxiousMum wrote: »

In reality though - if we're talking about people only having the number of children that they can afford to have, then surely, when a couple with children split up, they need to make a decision as to whether or not they can afford to have more children right? An income can only go so far in providing for offspring - whether from an old or a new relationship. Yes, everybody has the right to move on with their lives, but they also need to be realistic as to how many people can be supported. That goes for PWC as well as NRP's.

So if a guy whose wife leaves him, takes his children with him - but he manages to get over it and after a few years remarries a woman who does not have children - is she not allowed to have any children at all because of something that happened before she came on the scene?

catfish50

AnxiousMum wrote: »

In reality though - if we're talking about people only having the number of children that they can afford to have, then surely, when a couple with children split up, they need to make a decision as to whether or not they can afford to have more children right? An income can only go so far in providing for offspring - whether from an old or a new relationship. Yes, everybody has the right to move on with their lives, but they also need to be realistic as to how many people can be supported. That goes for PWC as well as NRP's.

But divorcing couples notoriously find it difficult to agree about many things, how on earth could they be expected to agree on whether or not each of them could afford to have more children? And even if they reached an agreement during the separation, it surely wouldn't be binding if one of them then met someone new, married, and the new partner naturally wanted to have a baby.

FBaby

pipscot wrote: »

So if a guy whose wife leaves him, takes his children with him - but he manages to get over it and after a few years remarries a woman who does not have children - is she not allowed to have any children at all because of something that happened before she came on the scene?

Surely if he managed before meeting his new wife, he should manage afterwards, unless there is an expectation that he should support her too and he isn't able to do that whilst continuing to support his children.