Can you help me see how this is fair

fannyanna

HRV wrote: »

I spent the 1st 2 days after finding out about the twins in tears-not because of 2 babies but because of our financial situation!

In a way I am 'lucky' I have a well paid but highly stressful job working 50+ hours- so me working does still pay- just. We can not live without that bit extra though and like you say would be entitled to something ike 11 pounds a week if I give up- not possible! Financially we would be best off if my OH gave up work, and I worked- but his DD would loose out and he would not enjoy it- so we will continue to both work full time.

OP- I hope you manage to get your family- you are entitled to your own baby too- it may be hard but Im sure it'll be worth it ( I keep telling myself:D)

I could kiss you right now.

It's so nice someone understanding our situation.

Don't get me wrong I understand there are often losers when it comes to child maintance and a lot of PWC's struggle to get any money but there's also the people like me and you who end up adversely impacted too.

P.S. Whilst I'm considering the possibility I think I'd be crying for a month if I got pregnant with twins. Once again purely because of the financial situation as I think it would be lovely to have twins - although double the work and even less sleep. Sorry you probably don't need reminding of that one

fannyanna

nannytone wrote: »

if his eligability for tax credits was taken on income 'after' his maintenace was paid ( meaning you'd get more tax credits) then surely that would mean that the taxpayer would be helping to pay his maintenance too?

it might seem unfair, but surely it would be more unfair for him to receive extra tax credits to help pay for other children that are his responsibility?

They do already. PWC = living on benefits.

I understand what you're saying though.

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

if his eligability for tax credits was taken on income 'after' his maintenace was paid ( meaning you'd get more tax credits) then surely that would mean that the taxpayer would be helping to pay his maintenance too?

it might seem unfair, but surely it would be more unfair for him to receive extra tax credits to help pay for other children that are his responsibility?

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.

nannytone_2

i agree that it is totally wrong!

i always thought it was a ridiculous idea that maintenance should be disregarded when it comes to benefits.

i have a friend who is on benefits ( income support, ctc, hb and cb) her 5 kids have 4 different fathers. one pays nothing but the other 3 pay her over £600 a month between them! she's laughing.

but do yo suggest that the fathers tax credit entitlement should be worked out after maintenance is paid, so the taxpayer can fund the same children even more?

melbury

Please put me out of my misery, I am useless with abbreviations:o

What do NRPP and PWC stand for?

Thanks

fannyanna

nannytone wrote: »

i agree that it is totally wrong!

i always thought it was a ridiculous idea that maintenance should be disregarded when it comes to benefits.

i have a friend who is on benefits ( income support, ctc, hb and cb) her 5 kids have 4 different fathers. one pays nothing but the other 3 pay her over £600 a month between them! she's laughing.

but do yo suggest that the fathers tax credit entitlement should be worked out after maintenance is paid, so the taxpayer can fund the same children even more?

I also agree with you that it's stupid that maintenance is disregarded when it comes to benefits.

And I do agree with you to some extent about your other comment. Although if these children were all in the same household my husband would be entitled to a lot more benefits and so the taxpayer would be paying even more. I think either way the taxpayer would be paying. It's just at the moment it's split between the NRP and PWC (with more taxpayer assistance going to the PWC).

fannyanna

melbury wrote: »

Please put me out of my misery, I am useless with abbreviations:o

What do NRPP and PWC stand for?

Thanks

Non resident parent and parent with care. Both terms used when looking at child maintenance.

I'm an NRPP - non resident parent partner.

AnxiousMum

nannytone wrote: »

but do yo suggest that the fathers tax credit entitlement should be worked out after maintenance is paid, so the taxpayer can fund the same children even more?

Not quite what I suggested - if you read it properly, I stated that the PWC would include the maintenance payments in their estimate for income for the new year - so that their child maintenance paymetns received WERE taken into account, meaning a reduction in child tax credits for the Pwc

Edit: Nannytone - don't know if the two threads have been merged or something, but I was replying to the same thread on the child support forum.....but it has appeared here.....ummmmm. the post I made that I referred to was on the child support forum thread

nannytone_2

sorry anxious mum, i wasnt replying to you lol i really should 'quote' more often!

melly....if the children where living in the fathers household, then the mother wouldnt be receiving benefits for them, and as she doesnt work, i doubt the father would be getting more than she is for them.

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

but do yo suggest that the fathers tax credit entitlement should be worked out after maintenance is paid, so the taxpayer can fund the same children even more?

its a fair point and I guess that your right on that. Ive probably got a bit confused on this point, I was under the impression that the guys tax credits that he gets for his current family are assessed and a proportion of that is distributed to the old family while at the same time the old family dont have to regard this as income thus getting even more tax credits. If that is the case it is a scandle.