Can you help me see how this is fair

shell_542

GobbledyGook wrote: »

Whilst an NRPP's income shouldn't be counted to actually pay towards a child's maintenance I strongly believe it should be counted towards working out the costs that the NRP is allowed to deduct for things like housing (if that's still allowed).

Why on earth should an NRP be allowed to claim 100% of housing costs if they are actually only responsible for half of it?

Pre-2003 NRPPs income was included when working our housing costs.

Post-2003 no housing costs are considered, so no need for info on NRPPs income.

AnxiousMum

findingout wrote: »

Completely agree. A good friend of mine pays £75 a week for one child. It doesn't take £150 a week to raise a child.

Is it really fair to base it on what a child costs 'each week' though? My kids have never cost the same each week of their lives. When they are little there are diapers to buy, they outgrow their clothing quickly, there is more bits to buy in terms of strollers, cribs, high chairs, maybe the need for a bigger car for the family etc. There's childcare if both parents are working. As the child grows, costs are relatively lower when they enter school - though may still require before/after school care (and those complaining about £75 per week - well, that could be taken care of right there, plus more!). There are school trips, days out, gifts for parties they go to etc. All the while, I have put money aside for things like further education, driving lessons etc. so a payment of £75 per week over their life time, no, that would not equate to anywhere near half of what it costs to raise a child.
Of course, as the PWC, they are also financially responsible for the child - where do NRP's think the rest of the money comes from (whether the NRP is working, or on benefits - they are still responsible) to raise a child?

I think where the problem arises is where a PWC doesn't, for whatever reason, budget out the child support received, so that when more expensive times come, they are struggling, and therefore the child seems to be 'going without'. As a parent of the child though, it is deemed that any parent will do whatever is best for the child - and that includes the use of child support monies. Unfortunately though, just like in two parent families, not everybody DOES put their children first, it's not just the odd PWC

Marisco

Thing is though, it's unrealistic for the NRP to pay for half of all expenses, as the NRP might have another family to keep. The PWC's get all sorts of benefits to help, the NRP gets nothing. If PWC's want NRP's to pay for half of everything, then the benefits should be split to reflect this. PWC's, and NRP's, need to realise that neither can carry on as if they were still together.

melly1980

GobbledyGook wrote: »

Whilst an NRPP's income shouldn't be counted to actually pay towards a child's maintenance I strongly believe it should be counted towards working out the costs that the NRP is allowed to deduct for things like housing (if that's still allowed).

Why on earth should an NRP be allowed to claim 100% of housing costs if they are actually only responsible for half of it?

but its ok for the NRP to be deemed 100% responsible for the old familys house and the upbringing of the chuld from the previous marriage. Strange that they see to be 100% financially responsible for everything that went before but not the current family.

Emmzi

you know, none of this paying for other people's kids with my taxes seems fair to me... if you all paid for your own my bill would be lots less...

melly1980

Emmzi wrote: »

you know, none of this paying for other people's kids with my taxes seems fair to me... if you all paid for your own my bill would be lots less...

So by that logic it isnt fair that my taxes pay for hospitals for you to have treatment in etc etc etc

FBaby

Morglin wrote: »

It has been the policy for many years to send any child that can attend mainstream school to one.

It's cheaper and thought better that disabled kids and able kids learn to mix and treat each other as 'normal'. Segregating kids bought it's own problems, although a few children will always need to be in a more supported school environment.

DLA is to pay for ALL the extra costs of disability, which can be many and varied - you cannot possibly know what these families have to spend on what, as I wouldn't imagine they will provide a list for all 'interested parties' to look at! :wall:

Lin

I never hinted that these children shouldn't go to mainstream school, on the opposite, i am very much supporting of this. What I am confused about is why parents should receive carer allowance when their children spend most of their time at school.

I can assure you that I know very well, because these are close friends enough to tell me exactly how it is. They admit themselves that they don't spend the money on their child's disability. One has some learning and speech difficulties, gets plenty of support already through their LA and NHS, he doesn't need to be brought anything different to any other child, but he is entitled to DLA and his mum to carer's allowance (and more tax credits I believe). All it means is that they can afford a lifestyle equivalent to those whose parents earn a very good salary. I don't blame them at all, it is how the system is set up. Would I refuse the money if i was in their shoes.... probably not...

FBaby

melly1980 wrote: »

Not only that but when it comes to extracting cash from blokes it is considered that he should pay for the full upkeeps of the kid(s). Doesnt seem to enter anyones head that it is a 50/50 split.

Why dont they calculate how much it costs to bring up a kid then halve it and bill him for that half? Nope....its much more fun to raid him for as much as they can squeeze out.

Because in some cases, this would be an unfair system for the nrp. I am not entitled to any tax credits any longer, but pay between £250 and £300 a month childcare (morning, after school, holiday clubs). I calculated that all together, I pay £800 a month that I wouldn't if I didn't have them. I think their dad would habe a heart attack if he was told he needed to pay £400 a month (would probably be assessed at £250 a month at most via the csa, maybe less. He pays nothing at the moment).

Also, how to do you come up with costs associated with having a child? Middle class children cost more than lower class (because any normal parent will aspire for more for their children if they can afford it)

zagfles

Nope, it's totally unfair along with much of the way the benefits and tax systems operate.

Benefits policy isn't driven by fairness, it's mainly driven by pressure groups who represent a particular subsection of society, and more importantly, targets, especially the sacred "child poverty" target.

By biasing the system against NRPs and towards single parents, "child poverty" numbers are reduced because although "child poverty" will be increased among NRPs' new families where they have one, the reduction in child poverty numbers in single parents families is much larger. Fairness, equality etc don't matter, it's all about target chasing.

Just like at Stafford hospital - who achieved foundation status by ticking all the boxes and meeting all the targets, rather than actually caring for their patients.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Thing is though, it's unrealistic for the NRP to pay for half of all expenses, as the NRP might have another family to keep. The PWC's get all sorts of benefits to help, the NRP gets nothing. If PWC's want NRP's to pay for half of everything, then the benefits should be split to reflect this. PWC's, and NRP's, need to realise that neither can carry on as if they were still together.

That's on the assumption that the pwc is still single and getting a lot of benefits. Many nrpp are also pwcs..