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
Comments
-
Then she can go ahead and do the same, fight for custody back and we have no working parents who rely solely on benefits just because they don't want to pay towards their kids...
Or they could share custody and financial support, like they do in most civilised countries...NRP should be expected to pay for their step-children, at least not when they are struggling to contribute towards his own children. There is nothing wrong with being a SAHM when this is in agreement with the father. The moment that arrangement breaks down, BOTH parents should accept that THEY have to contribute towards their children, and the privilege of being a SAHM shouldn't be a choice any longer. My ex's partner believes that my ex should support her children, in addition to the support she is getting from her ex for her children just so that she can avoid going to work. I too wish I could be a SAHM, or at least cut down on my hours, but being in a new relationship and having my children to support means that this is not the right thing to do even if financially, by stretching it, we could do it. I accept that the moment I decided to have children, I took away a large chunk of the choices I had about how I wanted to live my life because supporting my children will always come first. The joy of being their mum makes it all up.
Yes, but the way the benefits and tax credits system work mean NRP's have to support their step-kids, even if they and their partner work. That's as well as supporting their first kids.
I'd change the tax credits system so that step-parents' income is not assessed for CTC, but maintenance payments are, and maintenance payments are deductible from the NRP's income for tax credits if he starts a new family.0 -
Your forgetting one important fact.
For me to be wrong what I posted has to be wrong in every case. If there are any cases where my comments are correct then I am correct because my complaint is about a flawed system that allwos it to happen. At no point have I said that everyone who seeks maintainance fits my description.
If you had read my post correctly, I didn't actually say you was incorrect, just that it was not in all cases....which you have just agreed with.We made it! All three boys have graduated, it's been hard work but it shows there is a possibility of a chance of normal (ish) life after a diagnosis (or two) of ASD. It's not been the easiest route but I am so glad I ignored everything and everyone and did my own therapies with them.
Eldests' EDS diagnosis 4.5.10, mine 13.1.11 eekk - now having fun and games as a wheelchair user.0 -
Shared custody is usually much more expensive because many things have to be bought twice, you have to have a bedroom for the child/bedrooms if more than one child different sex etc... If parents can afford their children by paying/receiving maintenance, they will no doubt struggle with shared custody.Or they could share custody and financial support, like they do in most civilised countries...
Why do they HAVE to? Moving with someone means bills are cut, why would the nrp have to contribute towards step-children in addition to reduction in bills, pwc salary and maintenance?Yes, but the way the benefits and tax credits system work mean NRP's have to support their step-kids, even if they and their partner work. That's as well as supporting their first kids.I'd change the tax credits system so that step-parents' income is not assessed for CTC
Agree with thisbut maintenance payments are
and thisand maintenance payments are deductible from the NRP's income for tax credits if he starts a new family.
I don't think you can have it both ways, maintenance paid added as income, but deducted as payment.0 -
To me what would be fair is if we could be assessed on 80% of hubbies income (as that is what we have available to us). But that's obviously not how the system works so not much that we can do about it really. So ultimately whether it's fair or not there's not much that we can do about it
That would seem fair to you as you would then receive more in benefits.
The calculation is based on the whole amount because, like most people, a percentage of their wages would be spent on any children they have and if the system worked on the basis of deducting how much you spent on children in order to determine allowance, the system would become very messy.There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you - Beatrix Potter0 -
That would seem fair to you as you would then receive more in benefits.
The calculation is based on the whole amount because, like most people, a percentage of their wages would be spent on any children they have and if the system worked on the basis of deducting how much you spent on children in order to determine allowance, the system would become very messy.
Yes precisely, but my assessment (which would obviously take into consideration my husbands income) would then in effect mean that I am getting less benefits because I am being assessed for my husbands children.0 -
Fine.
But why then after he has paid for his kids upkeep does his ex then get tax credits for the upkeep of the children and doesnt even have to declare what he pays her. Seems to me like someone will be living the high life will t'other person is driven into the ground.
I do think that was a mistake when they decided that child maintenance did not have to be considered with regards benefits claimed.There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you - Beatrix Potter0 -
Yes precisely, but my assessment (which would obviously take into consideration my husbands income) would then in effect mean that I am getting less benefits because I am being assessed for my husbands children.
Yes, but as a partnership your income becomes joint income so it would mean you are both receiving less in benefits, not just you.
If your husband was not paying a fixed percentage in support, you would still be assessed on 100% and some money would still be going to support the children.There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you - Beatrix Potter0 -
Yes, but as a partnership your income becomes joint income so it would mean you are both receiving less in benefits, not just you.
If your husband was not paying a fixed percentage in support, you would still be assessed on 100% and some money would still be going to support the children.
That's my point - we'd be assessed on 100% of his income when the reality is that our family (me and baby) would never ever benefit from 100% of his salary as some of it (in this case the fixed amount of 20%) would always be paid to his previous/other family.
Just to be clear I'm fine that he pays support. They're his children and he needs to financially support them. But "our" family seem to be adversely impacted other and above the maintenance that is paid out.0 -
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.
That 20% benefits the children though.
If the family were still together, the father would be spending more than 20% of his income on that family.There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you - Beatrix Potter0 -
That's my point - we'd be assessed on 100% of his income when the reality is that our family (me and baby) would never ever benefit from 100% of his salary as some of it (in this case the fixed amount of 20%) would always be paid to his previous/other family.
Just to be clear I'm fine that he pays support. They're his children and he needs to financially support them. But "our" family seem to be adversely impacted other and above the maintenance that is paid out.
I know you're fine with the child support payments
The thing is, you aren't worse off because you will be receiving state money for your child, in affect giving your family more money than you would of had if there was no tax credits to begin with.
Now, I know you would receive more if assessed on 80%, but then people could receive more if they were assessed once housing costs were deducted. There are always ways you could look to how you would be better off.
Maybe look at the positive side, you will be receiving some extra money to help with your family, rather than the negative of you would get x more if y occurred.There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you - Beatrix Potter0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K 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
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards