Can you help me see how this is fair

GobbledyGook

Part of the reason maintenance is disregarded is so that people now don't have the problems my Grandparents had. When my Grandparents had care of my brother and I they were supposed to get £100 a week from our father. When my Grandfather was terminally ill and my Grandmother had to give up work to care for him they were assessed for means tested benefits and because the court said they were to get £100 a week they were assessed as getting it. Despite the fact that the CSA never managed to get a single penny from him.

Families like ours were hit twice over. We didn't get the benefit of the £100 maintenance, but we were also hit when it came to benefits because we were assessed as having £5200 a year income that we weren't getting.

Obviously there are people like myself for whom the maintenance disregard would be a fantastic thing if I was on benefits because my ex-husband has a higher than average wage, but I believe people like myself would be few and far between. I'd rather pay a bit more into the pot and risk a few people benefiting more than they maybe should than to see families in the position we were in.

Until the CSA or it's newer forms actually form a truly effective service for collecting child maintenance due then it shouldn't be counted because it penalises families twice over. Some will say that we should count it if they get it and disregard it if they don't, but can anyone honestly say hand-on-heart that we are anywhere near a stage where the systems in place for paying out to needy families are trustworthy enough to do that? We've already seen many times over how the lack of investment in the tax credit computer system has cost the country millions in loss and people can be left with nothing while it's errors are corrected.

Just to clarify this should only be, imo, for the parent receiving the maintenance, not the parent paying it. The argument that the family of the NRP does not benefit from the maintenance money completely misses the point imo that the child who lives with the PWC IS part of the NRP's family therefore the NRP and their family DO benefit from it.

fannyanna

GobbledyGook wrote: »

Part of the reason maintenance is disregarded is so that people now don't have the problems my Grandparents had. When my Grandparents had care of my brother and I they were supposed to get £100 a week from our father. When my Grandfather was terminally ill and my Grandmother had to give up work to care for him they were assessed for means tested benefits and because the court said they were to get £100 a week they were assessed as getting it. Despite the fact that the CSA never managed to get a single penny from him.

Families like ours were hit twice over. We didn't get the benefit of the £100 maintenance, but we were also hit when it came to benefits because we were assessed as having £5200 a year income that we weren't getting.

Obviously there are people like myself for whom the maintenance disregard would be a fantastic thing if I was on benefits because my ex-husband has a higher than average wage, but I believe people like myself would be few and far between. I'd rather pay a bit more into the pot and risk a few people benefiting more than they maybe should than to see families in the position we were in.

Until the CSA or it's newer forms actually form a truly effective service for collecting child maintenance due then it shouldn't be counted because it penalises families twice over. Some will say that we should count it if they get it and disregard it if they don't, but can anyone honestly say hand-on-heart that we are anywhere near a stage where the systems in place for paying out to needy families are trustworthy enough to do that? We've already seen many times over how the lack of investment in the tax credit computer system has cost the country millions in loss and people can be left with nothing while it's errors are corrected.

Just to clarify this should only be, imo, for the parent receiving the maintenance, not the parent paying it. The argument that the family of the NRP does not benefit from the maintenance money completely misses the point imo that the child who lives with the PWC IS part of the NRP's family therefore the NRP and their family DO benefit from it.

It was stupid and unfair that your grandparents were assessed on money that they never received.

I have to disagree with your last point though (although I'm sure we can agree to disagree ). As warm and friendly as it is for me to say that my husbands children are mine and blah, blah, blah when it actually comes down to it (financially) my child will be receiving less benefit entitlement because of my husbands other children (yet they will benefit from both the state and the maintenance my husband pays is in effect a top up to that). We (my child and I) will be a victim of the same stupidity and unfairness that your grandparents suffered.

I agree with your point about the system not being to handle such complexities so ultimately it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks (and who feels hard done by and who doesn't) because it isn't going to change any time soon.

As others have said you can understand why couples get frustrated and end up going down the single parent route.

zagfles

anguk wrote: »

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

That's pretty much right for benefits, except I'd switch single people and childless couples around (if a single person is out of work they get means tested benefits, if one of a childless couple is they won't).

But for taxation, the list is pretty much reversed, because of independant taxation which means non earners can't use their tax allowance.

If the tax system assessed families, like the benefits system does, and like most of Europe, a family would get a tax allowance per person, and since this would reduce the tax take considerably, tax rates would have to be higher (like they are in most of Europe).

So single people in work on a decent income benefit hugely from independant taxation, at the expense of families.

So basically, in the UK, low income families and high income single/childless people get the best deal. High income families and low income childless people get the worst deal.

GobbledyGook

fannyanna wrote: »

It was stupid and unfair that your grandparents were assessed on money that they never received.

I have to disagree with your last point though (although I'm sure we can agree to disagree ). As warm and friendly as it is for me to say that my husbands children are mine and blah, blah, blah when it actually comes down to it (financially) my child will be receiving less benefit entitlement because of my husbands other children (yet they will benefit from both the state and the maintenance my husband pays is in effect a top up to that). We (my child and I) will be a victim of the same stupidity and unfairness that your grandparents suffered.

I agree with your point about the system not being to handle such complexities so ultimately it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks (and who feels hard done by and who doesn't) because it isn't going to change any time soon.

As others have said you can understand why couples get frustrated and end up going down the single parent route.

We can agree to disagree

Your child and I won't at all be the victims the same as my grandparents imo. Your situation is different. Your child will only be receiving less because your husband has more than one child. That is not the same as receiving less because you are deemed to be receiving income that you are not getting.

Your husband IS receiving the income for his family. The only reason you and your child are not receiving it is because your husband has more family than just the two of you.

I know we will not agree, but in my opinion your situation is akin to me saying that my younger children do not receive a fair amount because I spend some on my eldest child. The only difference in your case is that the elder child does not live with you and is only your husbands child.

It would be a boring world (and extremely boring forum!) if each time we had an opinion everyone else simply said "I agree."

fannyanna

GobbledyGook wrote: »

We can agree to disagree

Your child and I won't at all be the victims the same as my grandparents imo. Your situation is different. Your child will only be receiving less because your husband has more than one child. That is not the same as receiving less because you are deemed to be receiving income that you are not getting.

Your husband IS receiving the income for his family. The only reason you and your child are not receiving it is because your husband has more family than just the two of you.

I know we will not agree, but in my opinion your situation is akin to me saying that my younger children do not receive a fair amount because I spend some on my eldest child. The only difference in your case is that the elder child does not live with you and is only your husbands child.

It would be a boring world (and extremely boring forum!) if each time we had an opinion everyone else simply said "I agree."

Haha - yes we'll definately agree to disagree :rotfl:

I appreciate your opinion though and after all that's what you expect when you posting for peoples views

FBaby

If it was up to me, there would be:
- no more tax credits for anyone
- highly subsidised childcare, costs based on income
- Some childcare providers should be opened at 7 am and others opened until 8pm.
- These shift should be prioritised to single parents working these shifts
- There should be no more benefits specific to single parents. Single parents should be expected to work no matter the age of the child. Many mothers in two parents households have no choice but to go back to work to support their family, there is no reason why it should be different because you are single. Staying at home to look after a child is a luxury, not due and paid by those who do work even though they might also prefer to stay home.
- If the single parent doesn't have access to childcare where they live, they should be moving to a closer town where such childcare is available. Help in tthe form of loans should be in place to help with moving expenses.
- The local council should be made to find a childcare place just as they are expected to find a place in primary school
- Maintenance should be paid at the 15/20/25% rate net income of the nrp (taking into account nights staying over/travel expenses ect...)
- nrps should have the right to request an investigation as to how the money provided is being spent if there is some evidence that it is not spent for the benefit of the child. The CSA should be made to investigate in exactly the same way they investigate deprivation of capital. The nrp is paying towards the child, he should have a right to know how that money is spent if and when required.
- nrpp/pwcp income should not be considered for benefits.
- Parents should have to work full-time before they can be considered for any form of benefits.
- child benefit should be discontinued for those earning over a certain amount
- child benefit should not be granted to any one having a baby whilst on benefits (unless they lost their jobs after falling pregnant).

pipscot

FBaby wrote: »

If it was up to me, there would be:
- no more tax credits for anyone

This would require upping the minimum wage and/or increasing the personal tax allowance so that people can actually survive without tax credits.

melly1980

pipscot wrote: »

increasing the personal tax allowance so that people can actually survive without tax credits.

Which is sensible.

The current system is ludicrous. Instead of taxing people less in the first place we tax them higher, get them to apply to get some of it back and then have to pay out of the public purse to hire the people to administer the department that gives back the money that could have simply not been taken in the first place.

GobbledyGook

FBaby wrote: »

- highly subsidised childcare, costs based on income

Isn't that basically what the childcare element of tax credits is?

FBaby

Some people are not entitled to tax credits and have to pay a massive amount of childcare, others are not entitled because of the pwcp' salary which is taken into account for tax credit purposes.