Can you help me see how this is fair

allen35

AnxiousMum wrote: »

No, it's not fair at all. I've actually done a calculation on entitled to.....and with my five kids - one who is independent but living at home, one in university and three under age 12 - keeping my same job, house etc., I would come out £1000 better off per month if I was a single parent, versus what we have as a family with both working and only benefit received is child benefit. Luckily for the taxpayer.....I kinda like having him around

it wouldn't surprise me if this one of the reasons why families split up, crying shame and Mr Cameron speaks of family values, it should of been the first thing him and IDS changed/reviewed by making it more of an incentive for couples to work at their problems rather than splitting willy nilly because financially he'll have his big wage minus 20% and PWC can receive anything up to £1500 in benefits no questions asked and is currently the norm and encouraged.

I actually hear people saying if you split up with him you'll get this much and that benefit and then screw him for CM, it's a joke.....

I agree every NRP should pay for the upkeep of his children but by

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

so if i have sex and dont take precautions then its 'good luck'?

i call it stupidity

Nope

If you have sex without precation then you could have been chosing to have a child (ie intending for that to happen) but you could equally have just made a mistake. (hence my crossing the raod analogy, if you make a mistake and get hit by a car you havent chose to be hit by a car have you?)

Alternatively, you could have done the right things and the contraceptive failed through no fault of your own.

Or, you could have tried the right things but the contraceptive failed because it was applied wrong (another mistake)

There are probably plenty of other permeatations other than the unbelievably simplistic "you have chose to have a kid" argument.

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

well, when it comes to your turn, let's hope your wife goes for the set calculations and not what it actually costs

I dont know if that is supposed to be funny but its true given I have 4 kids

Id suggest in my case the calculations might be on my side.

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

ive spouted my philosphy on here numerous times and it's always ignored lol

i say ok pay for 2 kids
regardless of whether its wtc or ctc. after the first 2, then theyre the parents responsibi;ity
ok free education and heathcare and CB (regardless of income)
multiple births..........natural, then ok they need to be funded.............IVF.....then youre taking the risk upon youself.

low income will get tax credits. for 2 kids.
more than that, then it is a personal choixce
as i said......i only had 2 kids
was thAT CHANCE?
no
I had 2 kids because i made sure i only had 2 kids!

aah, the magic number of two. Which just so happens to be your circumstances because you must have done everything right :rotfl:

FWIW, I agree with the concept though. It would ensure provision for families but not for the **** takers.

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

its a sad fact that too many people live their lives by 'thge system' rather than do what is right.

and its the childless and singletons that fund it.

well thats not quite true, I have 4 and pay a shed load into the system.

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

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

I implied cut bills for the nrpp.

zagfles wrote: »

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... .

But tax credits were not HERS to start with. It is not money she earned, it is money that was given to her to help. Why do people think they have ownership of tax credits they are entitled to under certain conditions? If she has two children to support, she should get out and get a job like so many married mothers find themselves having to do because they are not entitled to all the benefits single parents do.

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.

Why should his maintenance payment be ignored for tax credits purposes, but should be considered when assessing te pwc entitlement for tax credits? I think none should be in place.

princessdreamer

The 2 child rule would not work, I have 3 children. I was married for 15 years and my husband left after many online affairs for the first one willing to drop her knickers and take him on. Neither of them work, he claims to be a lodger in her house and she claims as a single parent. They are trying to force us out of our home to get his half of the money despite me having paid more of the mortgage and managing payments fine on my own.
Would love to know where this place of economic choice to be better off on my own is, I am fighting for a divorce, fighting to walk away with anything I have worked for. My husband says I can get a council house and have benefits support me as its not his problem. The system sucks whatever side you sit on.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

Why should his maintenance payment be ignored for tax credits purposes, but should be considered when assessing te pwc entitlement for tax credits? I think none should be in place.

Because she's the one benefitting from that money and not him.

nannytone_2

im not suggesting that my 'rule' should affect kids already born.
i#d suggest april 2012, so no one pregnant right now wpould be affected either.
from that date and 3rd or subsequent kids born would only receive CB.
people would know this ruling was coming in and so it would be their choice to have more kids.

i say 2 kids, not because thats how many i have, but because any family only needs 2 to 'replace' themselves. there is no need in this country to increase our population

anguk

nannytone wrote: »

its a sad fact that too many people live their lives by 'thge system' rather than do what is right.

and its the childless and singletons that fund it.

I think you make a fair point. There definitely seems to be a pecking order as to who benefits the most from the state:
single parent receiving maintenance
single parent not receiving maintenance
couple with children
childless couple
single person