Can CSA Take Child Tax Credit as income

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

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.

I agree, but it is unlikely money will make up for what they've lost anyway. What I wonder is when maintenance becomes lower, how much do the kids lose out, or how much it is the pwc who does because she can't bear to see the kids having to do with less? It was certainly my case, when my kids dad decided to stop paying maintenance, I didn't have the heart to stop my kids activity, or telling them that they couldn't go on the school trip etc..., I somehow made up for it, and saw myself working like a mad woman for it all to go on the kids.

pinkpig08

But there is a difference between deciding not to pay maintenance anymore and have a reduction of a few pounds per week because of going on to have further children. My DH pays £270 per month at the moment for 2 children. On top of that his ex gets child benefit, tax credits and money from her cash in hand job, plus her husbands wages. We just get my husbands wage and child benefit. He does not put aside £270 per month solely to spend on our children, but does for his previous 2. I don't really understand the need to 'make up' the difference? When we have our baby soon, it will reduce his payment by £10 per month. If my husband and his ex were still together and had gone on to have another child, the effect would be the same.

FBaby

£270 a month for two children living together (so there is scale of economy) is very acceptable. On the basis of 50/50, that's £540 a month, add tax credits and child benefits, anything above all this means that the children are most likely spoilt (unless maybe they live in London, and both full time in expensive childcare). £10 less a month at this rate is unsignificant and the idea that this should stop him having more children is ludicrous. It is a different scenario when the nrp is paying say £100 a month for 3 children already.

In regards to the fact that the effect would have been the same if the couple had been together, how does it matter to the pwc? She is not getting the joy of enjoying the other child, so the effect is certainly not the same for her.

clearingout

pinkpig08 wrote: »

But there is a difference between deciding not to pay maintenance anymore and have a reduction of a few pounds per week because of going on to have further children. My DH pays £270 per month at the moment for 2 children. On top of that his ex gets child benefit, tax credits and money from her cash in hand job, plus her husbands wages. We just get my husbands wage and child benefit. He does not put aside £270 per month solely to spend on our children, but does for his previous 2. I don't really understand the need to 'make up' the difference? When we have our baby soon, it will reduce his payment by £10 per month. If my husband and his ex were still together and had gone on to have another child, the effect would be the same.

so you don't work but you would expect your husband's former partner to work to support their children AND you expect her new partner to support children that aren't his?

Your husband's contribution to his children is not purely about spending on them, is it? It's about the roof over their heads, food, clothing, toys, heat, lighting, activities, childcare.....The point you're making, in around about way, is the point that has already been made - if you can't afford to have more children, then you shouldn't, should you? Families who have more children whilst reliant on the state for tax credits and other benefits are often criticised for 'breeding' when they can't afford it. If you 'miss' £270 a month to that extent (and I know many people would), then having more children is a luxury, and sacrifices need to be made.

It is unfortunate that you met your husband when he already had children. But that's life. His children should be his priority and I've said this before, why on earth would you want to be with someone who doesn't prioritise their children or who puts other children (someone else's or children with a new partner) above those children? Sadly, it would seem many, many women are happy to accept this, as well as actively promote it in the guise of 'moving on' and 'being fair'.

I recognise I am not in a new partnership (as well as knowing that I will not be having more children (too old!) so it's a bit of a moot point for me personally and perhaps one I won't ever really understand on that basis), but I do feel sad sometimes that so many seem to think it is their right to a family life, without considering it is also those children by a former partner's right to a family life, albeit broken, with both their parents.

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

so you don't work but you would expect your husband's former partner to work to support their children AND you expect her new partner to support children that aren't his?

It is exactly the situation I am in. My ex is with a new partner who already has two children. When they met, she didn't work, claim all the benefits, tax credits and maintenance. When they moved in together, she obviously lost much of her benefits, so he had to take over. Actually at the time, he was on benefits too, which is probably why they decided to move in together then (after 3 years together). He then took on a low paid job and had to support her and her children. During all this time, he didn't give me a penny towards our children. They then decided to have another child (who they claim was an accident!) and he still doesn't contribute a penny. My children are supported 100% by myself in terms of direct costs and the support of my partner too in terms of indirect costs (shared bills, mortgage etc...). It somehow doesn't seem right...

I have to say I really really stuggle to understand those parents who separate but still think that it is not their responsibility to work to support their children. Being a stay at home parents is a luxury when both parents agree together that one will financially support the family. Once the family breaks down, then that arrangement is also broken and both should be supporting their own children.

The OP clearly relies on her new partner to support her and as such thinks it is ok not to work to support her children from a previous relationship. Surely she should realise that it is a good thing that at least some of her income, even if really not hers but what she gets from tax payers should be going towards her other children?

pinkpig08

clearingout wrote: »

so you don't work but you would expect your husband's former partner to work to support their children AND you expect her new partner to support children that aren't his? I didn't say I expected her to work. The children are 18 and 16, and she has only worked for the past 10 months or so. I don't work now because it would end up costing me money to work because of childcare. I have worked for the last 16 years and intend to return when my youngest is of school age. Incidentally, why should she not work to support her children? I didn't say I expected her husband to support the children either, but obviously his money should be contributing to the household bill etc as he lives there.

Your husband's contribution to his children is not purely about spending on them, is it? It's about the roof over their heads, food, clothing, toys, heat, lighting, activities, childcare..... which all need paying for, and which his maintenance contributes towards - allbeit without toys and childcare because of their ages. Nowhere have I said that he has chosen to spend less time with them because of our children. The point you're making, in around about way, is the point that has already been made - if you can't afford to have more children, then you shouldn't, should you? Families who have more children whilst reliant on the state for tax credits and other benefits are often criticised for 'breeding' when they can't afford it. If you 'miss' £270 a month to that extent (and I know many people would), then having more children is a luxury, and sacrifices need to be made. To what extent?

It is unfortunate that you met your husband when he already had children. But that's life. His children should be his priority and I've said this before, why on earth would you want to be with someone who doesn't prioritise their children or who puts other children (someone else's or children with a new partner) above those children? Sadly, it would seem many, many women are happy to accept this, as well as actively promote it in the guise of 'moving on' and 'being fair'. I'm not quite sure what you're saying. How does he not prioritise his children? He pays, and has always paid, maintenance on time every time, taken them on holiday, they are free to come whenever they want - although that is not as often now because they are older and do their own thing. They get birthday/Christmas presents from my family too which they wouldn't get if we weren't together.

I recognise I am not in a new partnership (as well as knowing that I will not be having more children (too old!) so it's a bit of a moot point for me personally and perhaps one I won't ever really understand on that basis), but I do feel sad sometimes that so many seem to think it is their right to a family life, without considering it is also those children by a former partner's right to a family life, albeit broken, with both their parents. Everyones' situation is different and I don't like getting into arguments about the rights/wrongs of PWC or NRP behaviour because obviously everyone has a different take on it. His previous children will have barely seen a difference as his maintenance payments have only changed by a few pounds a week. We are £500 per month worse off now I am not working, but it is a sacrifice we have chosen to make and, as a result, we are adjusting to the change in income - his previous children are barely affected.

Comments in red

pinkpig08

In relation to the OP, on the basis of the information given, I have to say it sounds quite unreasonable to complain about having to pay £5 per week for her previous child when her new partner earns too much to get WTC.

PlayingHardball

FBaby wrote: »

It is exactly the situation I am in. My ex is with a new partner who already has two children. When they met, she didn't work, claim all the benefits, tax credits and maintenance. When they moved in together, she obviously lost much of her benefits, so he had to take over. Actually at the time, he was on benefits too, which is probably why they decided to move in together then (after 3 years together). He then took on a low paid job and had to support her and her children. During all this time, he didn't give me a penny towards our children. They then decided to have another child (who they claim was an accident!) and he still doesn't contribute a penny. My children are supported 100% by myself in terms of direct costs and the support of my partner too in terms of indirect costs (shared bills, mortgage etc...). It somehow doesn't seem right...

I have to say I really really stuggle to understand those parents who separate but still think that it is not their responsibility to work to support their children. Being a stay at home parents is a luxury when both parents agree together that one will financially support the family. Once the family breaks down, then that arrangement is also broken and both should be supporting their own children.

The OP clearly relies on her new partner to support her and as such thinks it is ok not to work to support her children from a previous relationship. Surely she should realise that it is a good thing that at least some of her income, even if really not hers but what she gets from tax payers should be going towards her other children?[/QUOTE

SNAP! It obviously suits our NRPP to forget that there were children around 'before their time'. When my ex went on his 'online date', he surely must have seen the writing on the wall, the woman had a 14 year old child, was on benefits (working the minimum part time job, to qualify for WTC, what normal healthy adult can't work full time with a 14 year old child?). She promptly moved in with the ex a few months later, quiting her job (and council house too) If ex couldn't see the writing on the wall, I certainly could! lol

I agree with you, I alone pay for my child's direct costs, with my partner the 'indirect costs, housing, etc). My NRP (and his wife) should feel remorse, I don't think they do though.

I can't fathom where the OP in this thread is coming from!