Can you help me see how this is fair

fannyanna

I know that.

But that doesn't benefit MY child.

P.S. I know that sounds horrendous but I can't be bothered to re-type all the other stuff I've said in my previous posts so that I don't sound like the wicked step-mother :-)

pipkin71

fannyanna wrote: »

Sensible lady - my heart clearly works quicker than my head :rotfl:

I'm sure you wouldn't change it though

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

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.

More expensive, but not that much more. They seem to manage in other countries, here it's not even catered for in the tax credits & benefits system, the parents can't share tax credits & benefits for a child.

Besides if shared care is the default, then parents might think a bit more carefully about how they'd manage if they split up.

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?

Why would moving in cut bills? If the NRP moves straight from his ex to new partner what bills are saved? If he lived temporarily with a mate or in a shared house he might save a little.

But if the new partner say earned £15k, she'd get full CTC for her (say) 2 children, plus some WTC. When he moves in, if he's on £20k, her tax credits would be cut from about £6800 to about £500. Where's that extra £6k going to come from? Plus she might lose housing benefit, council tax benefit... .

I don't think you can have it both ways, maintenance paid added as income, but deducted as payment.

It's not "both ways", it's one instead of the other. Say he pays £4k child maintenance, then that £4k is deduted from the NRPs salary for tax credits purposes, and added to the PWC's. Ie the money is assessed on the household that gets it.

melly1980

zagfles wrote: »

It's not "both ways", it's one instead of the other. Say he pays £4k child maintenance, then that £4k is deduted from the NRPs salary for tax credits purposes, and added to the PWC's. Ie the money is assessed on the household that gets it.

Correct, and therefore the benefits system is not being used to pay someones child maintainance because what is lost at one end is gained at the other.

fannyanna

pipkin71 wrote: »

I'm sure you wouldn't change it though

Spot on

fannyanna

zagfles wrote: »

Say he pays £4k child maintenance, then that £4k is deduted from the NRPs salary for tax credits purposes, and added to the PWC's. Ie the money is assessed on the household that gets it.

I think that's one of the clearest ways of looking at it.

nannytone_2

no system is ever going to be perfect. there will always be winners and losers.
how it is now the biggest winners are lone parents on benefit, with NRP that pay maintenance.
the losers are single people and childless couples ( especially those that pay maintenance!)

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

Lets not forget as well if he pays 400 per month and he is only 50% responsible for financially supporting the child then this is the equivalent of trying to claim that the child costs £800 per month (unless of course like I claim the system isnt about provision but getting as much as humanly possible out of someone)

From the man who doesn't like assumptions - you make a large one here

NRP paying £400 per month does NOT mean that it supposedly COSTS £800 per month to provide for a child. It just means that the NRP has a job that pays a decent wage, and the child benefits from a certain percentage of that. It may be that the mother earns alot less, or possibly alot more, or is likely, on benefits. But, it is assumed that no matter what the PWC earns, that approximately 15% of her income (no matter the source) is spent on providing for the child as well.

I've had a look through our local paper tonight - and if I were on my own, a one bedroom apartment would run me about £400 per month, however, to give a child a home with a garden, in a safe neighbourhood, I'd be looking at that costing about £750 per month. Right there, you have about £350 per month that is benefiting the child - possibly the NRP as well, but also creating alot more work for the NRP garden care, maintenance etc. Utilities would quite possibly be more than in a small one bedroom apartment, groceries more for two versus one, and then you have the child's clothing, furniture, toys and entertainment. Believe me, your £400 per month does not go anywhere near to covering the entire cost of raising a child, you do need the help of the PWC to do that

You have a child, you change circumstances, but it is still your responsibility to help maintain a lifestyle for your child. Don't like the system - then fight it

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Don't like the system - then fight it

If only it were that simple eh

AnxiousMum

fannyanna wrote: »

If only it were that simple eh

As an example - has anybody written to their MP about this matter? Several posters on here have mentioned they are in a similar position - who out of those posters, has taken a proactive step in addressing it and bringing it to the attention of someone who may be able to have the situation looked at?