WFTC/Tax Credits and child maintenance under new system

AnxiousMum

michelle1506 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. But she is claiming £230 per week from the ex!! I know that out of this money £180 is paid to the child minder and in addition she is claiming WFTC which covers 70% of the child minder fees. In other words she is getting the child care fees twice (or most of them). Sorry, but I think that it's too much to expect £230 every week from someone who earns only 40k and furthermore that this maintenance is not considered when applying for Tax Credits or WFTC.

Some people might not agree but it's what I think..

No, it probably doesn't make sense to you - as you say - your info is from a 3rd person, so not entirely accurate I'm sure. There may be a private arrangement betwen the two parents, there may be other financial issues which you are not aware of. There may be spousal support included in this. To go on 3rd hand info - well, that's pretty much 'misinformation' isn't it?

AnxiousMum

michelle1506 wrote: »

But why does not both parties pay a contribution to the child care fees? Why only one? Sorry, but I stand by my earlier comments, feel sorry for the ex - think she had better hope that he doesn't find himself a new girlfriend

Think about it .....if the childcare fees are that much, there's also the cost of their accommodation (after all, mum would only need a one bed apartment without them), the added electricity used for washing kids clothes etc., the extra oil/gas/elec for hot water used by them, food, cost of transportation - mum might be able to get away with public transport without kids, but with kids, needs a reliable vehicle. There are many more cost associated with children than childcare, and what the parents are doing is 'splitting' the costs. So it cannot be said that the ex is paying the childcare, he's not. He's contributing to the overall living expenses of his children, along with the mother (and the help of tax credits). Sometimes it's best just to ignore third hand information.

paddedjohn

Ziggazee wrote: »

OP.....it really isn't your business.....you don't know all the ins and outs, only what you assume to be the case. Even if the ex finds himself a new girlfriend why would this change things?? Unless of course you are the "new girlfriend" and are hell bent on causing trouble ;-)

Its all our business if the girl gets£1000 per month that is not taken into account when claiming benefits, the system is totally wrong allowing this to happen, in a roundabout way its better to split up to get extra benefits.

AnxiousMum

paddedjohn wrote: »

Its all our business if the girl gets£1000 per month that is not taken into account when claiming benefits, the system is totally wrong allowing this to happen, in a roundabout way its better to split up to get extra benefits.

I agree it should be taken into account. But the OP seems surprised that the ex has to pay £1000 per month - 25% of his salary - so 3 kids? That's standard....

Ziggazee

Thou doth protest too loudly methinks ;-)

And going back to my original post......what if the ex gets another girlfriend.....what difference will that make?? His maintenance liability will not change (unless of course the new girlfriend has children/they have children together).

jojo_2012_2

Difficult one. I'm yet to get any maintenance from CSA (surprise). But from what I hear from others it cannot be considered a guaranteed income, ie you wouldn't want to rely on it to pay your rent/childcare. I wonder how much tax credits she actually gets. I hope she's putting some of the £230 away for uni fees it's a lot by anyone's standards, maybe she has 6 hungry kids, where the money won't go too far actually. Weird one.

stroodes

hmm I think £230 per week is way more than enough to feed 6 hungry kids, why is it always down on absent parent to keep the children why never take pwc income into it......just wondering from a happily married mother of 2 ( both have same dad )

Ziggazee

Stroodes, do you really think that it's only absent parents that keep their children? Not all single parents claim benefits you know. I know many single parents who work and earn a very good wage (I was one of those until recently). Why should the absent parent be "let off" just because the pwc has worked hard and made their way in the world?

cosmic-dust

michelle1506 wrote: »

But why does not both parties pay a contribution to the child care fees? Why only one? Sorry, but I stand by my earlier comments, feel sorry for the ex - think she had better hope that he doesn't find himself a new girlfriend

You wouldn't be the bitter new girlfriend by any chance.

cosmic-dust

stroodes wrote: »

hmm I think £230 per week is way more than enough to feed 6 hungry kids, why is it always down on absent parent to keep the children why never take pwc income into it......just wondering from a happily married mother of 2 ( both have same dad )

:rotfl:Miaow.