Can you help me see how this is fair

zagfles

fannyanna wrote: »

Hubby and I have wanted our own family for a while but as we're already financially responsible for two children it's made things a bit tricky but we're now trying for a baby.

Out of curiousity I've just had a look at benefit entitlements if I were to stay at home with the baby. On the basis of my hubby's income we'd be entitled to £66.63 per week. That's child tax credits, housing benefit and child benefit rolled together.

However on the basis that my hubby pays child maintenance 20% of his income is not available to us. If you subtract from his income the amount of money that we never benefit from and work out the benefit entitlement with what is left we'd be entitled to £199.15.

Now I understand that the benefit system is not set up in a way that would allow us to claim the larger amount but to me that doesn't exactly seem fair.

If we have a baby he'll be financially responsible for 3 children yet when being assessed for benefits he'll only be assessed for 1 of them and the 20% income that he never benefits from will be taken into account on the assessment.

What about if your husband gave up work to look after the baby rather than you? Then he'd have no income, and 20% of zero is zero! Your tax credits would then be based on income you actually get.

nannytone_2

melly1980 wrote: »

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

everyones taxes go to pay for healthcare, education etc. services that everyone uses at some point in their life.
everyone is educated and everyone see's a doctor.
tax credits arent a benefit for everyone.
you use the education system and the health system that we all pay tax for.
plus you get tax credits!
(i'm not saying 'you' specifically, just everyone that claims them)

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

I agree, but nrps and nrpps also need to realise that they won't have the same funds to bring up their family as they would have if the nrp didn't have children from a previous relationship however frustrating this is for the nrpp.

Absolutely FBaby. That was the point I was trying to make:) No one, the PWC or the NRP, can live like they could before, as one income won't keep two families. The problem arises when neither admit this, so we get PWC's trying to fleece the NRP's, and deadbeat NRP's trying to get out of paying anything, so they can both carry on living as if they were still together! The sad fact is, unless the NRP has a well paid job, then the PWC will have to get used to a lower standard of living and all that entails, as will the NRP and NRPP. Screwing the NRP to keep your lifestyle won't work, as all you get is resentment all round, and NRP's sometimes going to great lengths to avoid paying anything. Ultimately, it's the kids who suffer through all the bitterness between the parents:(

SingleSue

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

So true, both my younger ones were not supposed to attend mainstream school but because of various changes in the education system and the removal of some special schools, both now have to.

For middle son, he has coped pretty well albeit with expensive support, for youngest, he is not coping at all well despite having a very high level of intensive support in school. The setting suitable for him (and the one he improved mightily at when he spent two terms there), is not available to him....because he improved so well whilst there and they discovered that he actually had intellect!

For information, although all 3 of my boys are disabled, only one receives DLA (youngest), middle son used to but no longer does and eldest has not even tried to claim...having a disability does not automatically mean you receive disability benefits.
Also, every penny (plus more) is spent on meeting youngest's needs, be that specialised therapy, travel costs or costs for special foods...the needs of the two other children are met out of the general living budget.

Re equality (which was mentioned earlier), it is not only females who claim child support from the absent parent, I know of several males who are the PWC. Also, not every case is via the CSA (mine is by private agreement and not a huge amount, when the changes came in where child support did not need to be disclosed, I was a whole £10 a week better off).

And finally, not all absent parents are willing to see their children, so it is not always the case of the PWC ripping the children away from the NRP and refusing to let them see them...some of us are actively tring to keep the channels open and trying to encourage our ex partners to actually have a relationship with their children!

SingleSue

FBaby wrote: »

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...

I actually spend more time at the school than anywhere else, not a case of sending the kids off to school and then sitting back doing nothing for me at all, blimey even arranging a school time doctors appointment for myself is an exercise in planning to make sure there is cover as in case of a problem, I have to be at the school within 10 minutes of their call.

Also, there is no break, no going out socialising, no full nights sleep (quite a few of no sleep nights though) and when the boys are not at school (for youngest and his severe asthma, that is quite often), no give in time during the day either.

melly1980

dmg24 wrote: »

How can you compare the state funding an individual's choice to have children with someone needing essential medical care?

You don't seem too hot on this debating malarky ...

So no hospital treatment can ever be due to your own fault? You cant eat unhealthy? Drink to much? so and and so on. Im still expected to pay my taxes to look after you if you abuse your own body (none sexually of course :rotfl:) There are tonnes of ways in which your bad decisions can cost the tax payer money in certain services.

Its exactly the same. So evidently I am quite good at this debating malarkey.

catfish50

fannyanna wrote: »

Out of curiousity I've just had a look at benefit entitlements if I were to stay at home with the baby. On the basis of my hubby's income we'd be entitled to £66.63 per week. That's child tax credits, housing benefit and child benefit rolled together.

However on the basis that my hubby pays child maintenance 20% of his income is not available to us. If you subtract from his income the amount of money that we never benefit from and work out the benefit entitlement with what is left we'd be entitled to £199.15.

Now I understand that the benefit system is not set up in a way that would allow us to claim the larger amount but to me that doesn't exactly seem fair.

If we have a baby he'll be financially responsible for 3 children yet when being assessed for benefits he'll only be assessed for 1 of them and the 20% income that he never benefits from will be taken into account on the assessment.

I can't see the logic but perhaps this is because I'm only looking at it from our point of view.

I can understand why it seems unfair to you, but to me it doesn't. It seems to me that if the 20% CM was taken into account when calculating his benefit entitlement, effectively the taxpayer would be paying his CM for him.

Am I wrong?

FBaby

SingleSue wrote: »

I actually spend more time at the school than anywhere else, not a case of sending the kids off to school and then sitting back doing nothing for me at all, blimey even arranging a school time doctors appointment for myself is an exercise in planning to make sure there is cover as in case of a problem, I have to be at the school within 10 minutes of their call.

Also, there is no break, no going out socialising, no full nights sleep (quite a few of no sleep nights though) and when the boys are not at school (for youngest and his severe asthma, that is quite often), no give in time during the day either.

That might very well the case for you, and I am not saying that no children should receive DLA, but I am sure that none of the three friends I know do so. Two of them get a one to-one carer at school, not the entire time, but a large amount of it. One of them used to have sleep problem, but doesn't any longer. In any case, not being able to socialise or getting a good night sleep is not specific to disability, as a full-time single mum with little help from ex, I never got to socialise and I had two children not disabled who didn't sleep throught the night for years, yet I wasn't able to claim anything for it (rightly so, it's what comes with being a mum!)

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

What about if your husband gave up work to look after the baby rather than you? Then he'd have no income, and 20% of zero is zero! Your tax credits would then be based on income you actually get.

What great advice this is, which essentially comes down to saying 'stuff his other children, they can adapt to having to do with less so my new family can have more' all this with no feelings of guilt... How anyone can think this to be acceptable is beyond me....

fannyanna

princessdreamer wrote: »

Another woman whining about the fact she chose to get with someone who already has children. The children were there first they were getting the money first how you feel about it is irrelivent. If you want more money get a job.

Have a job thanks