Can CSA Take Child Tax Credit as income

kelloggs36

CTC is ALWAYS used as the NRP income regardless of anything else, eg whose child it is, whether they work etc.

fannyanna

clearingout wrote: »

Many would argue the 'first' children should come first and that making that reduction is unacceptable so somewhere along the line, it seems to balance out as both 'sides' are equally indignant! It's frustrating where ever you stand, I think.

What even if the same couple go onto having another child? Of course not -this argument only ever gets banded about when the man goes onto have another child with someone else.

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

What even if the same couple go onto having another child? Of course not -this argument only ever gets banded about when the man goes onto have another child with someone else.

I think the point is that once the child(ren) are there, all are equal, however, if a parent is already struggling to support the children already alive, he/she should consider twice before having more, hence 1st children coming first.

clearingout

fannyanna wrote: »

What even if the same couple go onto having another child? Of course not -this argument only ever gets banded about when the man goes onto have another child with someone else.

apologies - not sure I understand what you're saying. My children's maintenance (assuming they ever actually got any!) is reduced as a result of my ex living with another woman who has children who are the responsibility of another man (and for whom, I assume, she receives maintenance). I don't consider that appropriate, personally, as my ex has his own children who should come first. If he then goes on to have more children with her (which I suspect he will), the maintenance will be reduced again (bit of a moot point, but there you go!). So, that I might be able to claw some of that back through their tax credit seems about fair to me!

There is an awful lot of indignation about the PWC being able to take the tax credit straight from another child's mouth, but never anything about that reduction in the first place. I would happily give back my (invisible) tax credits in favour of no reduction for ANY children living in my ex's household. It's not about him moving on, it's about putting the children first. I'm sorry if it offends, but I couldn't give two hoots about anyone else's children when I'm struggling to put food in the mouths of my own.

fannyanna

clearingout wrote: »

apologies - not sure I understand what you're saying. My children's maintenance (assuming they ever actually got any!) is reduced as a result of my ex living with another woman who has children who are the responsibility of another man (and for whom, I assume, she receives maintenance). I don't consider that appropriate, personally, as my ex has his own children who should come first. If he then goes on to have more children with her (which I suspect he will), the maintenance will be reduced again (bit of a moot point, but there you go!). So, that I might be able to claw some of that back through their tax credit seems about fair to me!

There is an awful lot of indignation about the PWC being able to take the tax credit straight from another child's mouth, but never anything about that reduction in the first place. I would happily give back my (invisible) tax credits in favour of no reduction for ANY children living in my ex's household. It's not about him moving on, it's about putting the children first. I'm sorry if it offends, but I couldn't give two hoots about anyone else's children when I'm struggling to put food in the mouths of my own.

Oh I completely agree with you that it is HUGELY unfair that the child maintenance liability gets reduced for the NRP for non biological children.

The point that I was making was in relation to the NRP going on to have another biological child but with someone else.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

I think the point is that once the child(ren) are there, all are equal, however, if a parent is already struggling to support the children already alive, he/she should consider twice before having more, hence 1st children coming first.

But it's not about the (let's face it) Father being unable to provide support. Just because maintenance gets reduced in line with the CSA rules doesn't mean that he's struggling to provide support and therefore shouldn't have any further children.

My husband pays child maintenance for the two children that he already has and we're currently trying for our first child together. Now when that happens his child maintenance liability will decrease. Why? Because that's how the CSA rules work and not because he'll be struggling financially.

My husband currently pays two seperate PWC's £41 per week. When we have a child this will reduce to £35 per week. Now I'm very sorry for them that they are both going to lose out financially by £6 per week but is that really justification for my Husband and I not to have a child of our own? Should my Husbands past really have that much of a hold on his future and mine? Of course not!

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

But it's not about the (let's face it) Father being unable to provide support. Just because maintenance gets reduced in line with the CSA rules doesn't mean that he's struggling to provide support and therefore shouldn't have any further children.

This argument really depends on each case. For some where support is already low in comparaison to what the children actually cost, a another cut can have a significant effect on the children he already has, even though he can claim that he is providing support or it might mean that pwc has to put more in to make up the difference. In the opposite case, it shouldn't be an issue of course.

But it has to be seen both ways. How would you feel if your OH were asked to contribute more each month because the pwc had another child and therefore couldn't contribute as much towards his children and he was expected to make up for the difference?

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

apologies - not sure I understand what you're saying. My children's maintenance (assuming they ever actually got any!) is reduced as a result of my ex living with another woman who has children who are the responsibility of another man (and for whom, I assume, she receives maintenance). I don't consider that appropriate, personally, as my ex has his own children who should come first. If he then goes on to have more children with her (which I suspect he will), the maintenance will be reduced again (bit of a moot point, but there you go!). So, that I might be able to claw some of that back through their tax credit seems about fair to me!

There is an awful lot of indignation about the PWC being able to take the tax credit straight from another child's mouth, but never anything about that reduction in the first place. I would happily give back my (invisible) tax credits in favour of no reduction for ANY children living in my ex's household. It's not about him moving on, it's about putting the children first. I'm sorry if it offends, but I couldn't give two hoots about anyone else's children when I'm struggling to put food in the mouths of my own.

I put forward that same argument a few months back and got quite slated for it

In the end, both sides will think of their own entitlements. Why should the pwc makes up the difference to what goes on the kids because her ex has decided to have another child; why should the nrp not be able to have another child because he already has children (when to be fair, if he was still with the pwc and they'd decided to have another child together, it is likely the first ones would have to do with less...)

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

In the end, both sides will think of their own entitlements. Why should the pwc makes up the difference to what goes on the kids because her ex has decided to have another child; why should the nrp not be able to have another child because he already has children (when to be fair, if he was still with the pwc and they'd decided to have another child together, it is likely the first ones would have to do with less...)

I think this sums everything up nicely.

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

I put forward that same argument a few months back and got quite slated for it

In the end, both sides will think of their own entitlements. Why should the pwc makes up the difference to what goes on the kids because her ex has decided to have another child; why should the nrp not be able to have another child because he already has children (when to be fair, if he was still with the pwc and they'd decided to have another child together, it is likely the first ones would have to do with less...)

Yes, but they'd be making do with less with mum and dad together as a family unit, possibly with two incomes, one house to run, one set of bills to pay. They wouldn't be seeing a disparity between their parent's households, they wouldn't be hearing what a miserable moo their mother is or a mean !!!!!! their father is when they ask for something all their friends already have, they wouldn't have to be saying 'sorry,can't go to the party tonight as I have to go to my dads' or any other such stuff that children of separated parents have to deal with. I feel quite sure my children would be more than prepared to go without and make do even more so than they have to now if mum and dad would only make things up and we all lived together again.

Except for those with NRPs on high incomes, I suspect that maintenance rarely reflects the actual costs of bringing up a child/ren to a PWC who is on their own. Different when they move on, but very hard on your own.