The CSA keeps badgering me to go back to work, but work doesnt pay, suggestions pleas

gillypkk

CTC are for the family. if she is working for than 16 hours a week it will be working tax credits. you should get a copy of the award letter same as her.

JamesP1976

I dont think we get the award letter in duplicate.

shirlgirl2004

DX2 wrote: »

What do you need explaining? Anyone with children whether they work or don't get CTC. Those who don't work get more, those on low income get some and those on highish incomes get about a tenner a week.

I think you'll find CTC is means tested because we have 2 children and we don't get it. So not quite anyone with children.

DX2

JamesP1976 wrote: »

Come to think of it, parents who co-habit can claim, so why cant a parent who isnt co-habiting claim? after all, he is still a taxpayer.

Can you clarify this post for me, I think I may have been out in the sun too much today

You expect a NRP to be able to claim CTC for the children who don't actually live with them? Just because a NRP "may" be a tax payer?

So how would the PWC be able to claim CTC then?

DX2

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

I think you'll find CTC is means tested because we have 2 children and we don't get it. So not quite anyone with children.

My post wasn't really long or hard to understand was it? Did you bypass the part where I said those who have a highish income probably only get a tenner a week? So for you to get nothing-zilch-nadda you must be earning a fair wack.

erdd2

Orville wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood. It's not about paying for contact, it's about being expected to pay for your part of the childrens upkeep, but in return you should be able to have contact with your children. Not too much to ask is it?.

No it is not too much to see your children and seeing your children should not be seen as a reward for contributing to their upkeep I agree parents should contribute towards ALL their childrens upkeep. I was commenting on the no maintenance no contact stance of many PWCwhich is the stance OP says his ex has taken....shame on her!

JamesP1976

I dont agree with that. I believe it should me no maintenance if the PWC seeks to prevent contact.

PWCs who encourage and promote contact should be awarded everything.

gillypkk

DX2 wrote: »

Can you clarify this post for me, I think I may have been out in the sun too much today

You expect a NRP to be able to claim CTC for the children who don't actually live with them? Just because a NRP "may" be a tax payer?

So how would the PWC be able to claim CTC then?

i thought thats what he meant too but i was hoping beyond hope i misunderstood!

JamesP1976

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

If you live with your partner then tax credits are awarded to a household jointly. Your partner is the primary earner, which means wtc wouldn't be used, however you would be liable to pay a portion of the CTC.

DX2 wrote: »

You expect a NRP to be able to claim CTC for the children who don't actually live with them? Just because a NRP "may" be a tax payer?

Im lost.

CTC is for the child living in the household, now its not.

DX2

JamesP1976 wrote: »

PWCs who encourage and promote contact should be awarded everything.

I believe that those NRP who walk away and have nothing further to do with their child should pay more