Tax Credits / Step Children should my income count?

lobbyludd

getting married is a legal step that results in you both being responsible for financially supporting each other and any children of the family. financially supporting a spouse or their children isn't being "nice": it's what the law expects. The benefits system expects the same if you live together, because it is based on need.

few people appear to understand this.

this doesn't negate the biological non-resident parents responsibility - but his is limited to the amount the CSA calculates, which is a fixed amount based on earnings, not on the childrens needs. The rest falls to the resident parents financial support system (including new partners) and the state. Is that fair? probably not, my ex pays peanuts towards the upkeep of his children. But new partners have a choice when forming a relationship, about whether to go forwards with it or not.

the benefit system is needs based, if you have 2 households and then beome 1 - the benefits system takes into account that you no longer need as much help - because you are not running 2 house-holds - it's not a punishment or unsupportive to new blended families. How your wife feels about who should support the children is irrelevant, the state won't step in because she decides that your finances shouldn't be taken into account - you're married.

I really wish that there was a list of the legal responsibilities that you take on upon marriage or cohabitatin, and the rights you give up: at least people could then make informed decisions about it.

I suggest if the children's father is hiding his income - she investigates raising a variation with the CSA - but don't expect quick or even any results, the CSA system really doesn't cope well with self-employed NRPs.

Marisco

zagfles wrote: »

I already said what the alternative is, so no need to use strawmen. "I think it'd be much better if maintenance payments were counted at income for CTC and step-parents income ignored."

Yeah, no wonder there are so many single mums in the lonely hearts columns. And why the UK has more single parent families than any other EU country. People can't afford to have a relationships with them.

I know a single mother who lives with her sister. The sister acts like a step parent to the kids in every way, in fact they probably have a closer relationship with their aunt than they would with a step parent as they've known her all their life. The aunt looks after the children when their mum is at work, she goes on holiday with them, she is basically a step parent as far as they are concerned. But she doesn't financially support the children, other than presents etc and maybe some spending on holidays when she's feeling "kind".

And why should she, just because she chooses to live with a single mother? They aren't her kids, she didn't choose to have them. That doesn't mean she doesn't love them or care for them.

The only difference between them and a "couple" is the relationship between the 2 adults. Why should the financial support of the kids be different?

That is entirely up to the men whether they "take on" a woman with kids. What I'm saying is they shouldn't moan about it after, as they knew the situation from the start!!

So you would be quite happy for a "step" to treat stepkids with the odd present now and then, and a bit of pocket money as and when?? And that would be it? What would happen if the mother couldn't afford, say, a school trip or new shoes etc. You'd just say "tough do without"? Hmmm, I wonder how long a relationship like that would last!!!!

FBaby

I agree with everything, a step-parent takes on the children when they choose to live with them, however, this only applies to the pwcp not the nrpp and that is what I don't think is right. In many cases, children will see their nrp 2 days out of 7, yet, pwcs salary is considered for the sake of benefits, but nrpp i not. You read cases of nrp who decide to stop working whilst their partner go to work and earn the family salary. This will result in the nrp not having to pay a penny towards his children because his partner's income can't be taken into consideration. However, if the pwc isn't working, her partner will be expected to contribute towards the children, hence amongst 4 parents, the only one contributing is the step-dad....

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

I agree with everything, a step-parent takes on the children when they choose to live with them, however, this only applies to the pwcp not the nrpp and that is what I don't think is right. In many cases, children will see their nrp 2 days out of 7, yet, pwcs salary is considered for the sake of benefits, but nrpp i not. You read cases of nrp who decide to stop working whilst their partner go to work and earn the family salary. This will result in the nrp not having to pay a penny towards his children because his partner's income can't be taken into consideration. However, if the pwc isn't working, her partner will be expected to contribute towards the children, hence amongst 4 parents, the only one contributing is the step-dad....

Exactly - it's a ridiculous, inconsistent mess. I knew someone who did exactly that - he had 2 kids then had an affair with a woman who was a very high earner - he left his family and started a new one with this woman, gave up work to become a househusband. Very high household income, yet he didn't have to pay anything in maintenance. His first kids were always wanting to play with their half-siblings because they had all the latest gadgets etc.

His attitude was he was perfectly happy to take custody of his first kids. If his ex wanted them to stay with her then it was her who was making them live in relative poverty...

zagfles

Marisco wrote: »

That is entirely up to the men whether they "take on" a woman with kids. What I'm saying is they shouldn't moan about it after, as they knew the situation from the start!!

Err...clearly the OP didn't know or he wouldn't be asking the question!

So you would be quite happy for a "step" to treat stepkids with the odd present now and then, and a bit of pocket money as and when?? And that would be it? What would happen if the mother couldn't afford, say, a school trip or new shoes etc. You'd just say "tough do without"? Hmmm, I wonder how long a relationship like that would last!!!!

I'm saying parents should be responisble for their children. Not someone who happens to live with the parent, whether a sibling, friend, lover or grandparent.

Marisco

zagfles wrote: »

Err...clearly the OP didn't know or he wouldn't be asking the question!

Surely he wasn't naive enough to think that all he had to do was cough up a Xmas/b'day present and a bit of pocket money from time to time???

The person you know who left work though is a different kettle of fish!! There is nothing wrong with someone being a SAHP, and it makes sense for the lowest earner to stay at home. However, CM should still be payed at the "going rate" even if it's not the "real" parent who is earning. That way it stops an NRP giving up work just to avoid paying CM. The whole system is skewered TBH.

real1314

chocice22 wrote: »

Hi,
I have no financial or parental responsibility for these children as that is hers & her ex's.

chocice22 wrote: »

Let me clarify, I have a fantastic relationship with my step children and treat them as if they were mine.

So, you'd treat your own kids in the same way, no financial or parental responsibility for them too?

Good Grief.

The Ex contributes towards his kids through maintenance; whatever the faults / limitations in that arrangement.

You contribute towards your own household, including your wife, which would include things that affect her needs. If her mum was destitute and needed financial help, would you say "not my problem, you're on your own" ?

:cool:

zagfles

Marisco wrote: »

Surely he wasn't naive enough to think that all he had to do was cough up a Xmas/b'day present and a bit of pocket money from time to time???

The person you know who left work though is a different kettle of fish!! There is nothing wrong with someone being a SAHP, and it makes sense for the lowest earner to stay at home. However, CM should still be payed at the "going rate" even if it's not the "real" parent who is earning. That way it stops an NRP giving up work just to avoid paying CM. The whole system is skewered TBH.

Exactly my point!

zagfles

real1314 wrote: »

So, you'd treat your own kids in the same way, no financial or parental responsibility for them too?

Good Grief.

The Ex contributes towards his kids through maintenance; whatever the faults / limitations in that arrangement.

You contribute towards your own household, including your wife, which would include things that affect her needs. If her mum was destitute and needed financial help, would you say "not my problem, you're on your own" ?

:cool:

If her mum were destitute she'd be able to claim benefits without his income being taken into consideration. That's the point. He's asking the same if true for the kids. He's not saying he's not prepared to support the kids, he's asking if it's right that his income is used to assess benefits payable in respect of kids he doesn't have PR for. It was a question. He's got the answer.

The sactimonious BS in this thread is unbelievable.

Leanne78

You are all living in the same household so therefore the government will take both your incomes into consideration. Think yourselves lucky that the bio - father pays anything at all for there are plenty of men out there who pay nothing. I also have 2 children from previous relationship who my husband supports on top of our 2 children together. my circumstances are slightly different because my previous partner committed suicide when I left him so therefore maintenence payments was not an option for me. I know plenty of men though who are still around & make no contribution to their children.

If you feel the maintenence you are receiving is unfair you can ask the csa to re avaluate him at any time