Housing benefit going down, how will I manage?

Marisco

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying one parent should be better off than another in cases where access is 50/50. Rather that their net income from the state should remain unchanged. How they divy that up between them is entirely their own business.

But because of the way the benefit system works, the one claiming the benefits (even if they give half to the other) will always be better off re housing. If the father has to sleep on the sofa, then so should the mother. So either they should take the HB off both of them, or none of them. Of course this should only apply if they share the care 50/50, i.e exactly the same time with both parents. This is why it wouldn't really apply to all that many people, not many do do it on a totally shared basis.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Marisco wrote: »

But because of the way the benefit system works, the one claiming the benefits (even if they give half to the other) will always be better off re housing. If the father has to sleep on the sofa, then so should the mother. So either they should take the HB off both of them, or none of them. Of course this should only apply if they share the care 50/50, i.e exactly the same time with both parents. This is why it wouldn't really apply to all that many people, not many do do it on a totally shared basis.

Why should LHA be any different if the parents decide to split the extra rate a child attracts between them?

Mojisola

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You surely don't think that both parents should get the 2/3/4 bed LHA amount?

I don't think the answer is simple but I do wonder why one parent should be entitled to all the benefits and child support from the other parent when the child only lives with him or her for half the year.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think the answer is simple but I do wonder why one parent should be entitled to all the benefits and child support from the other parent when the child only lives with him or her for half the year.

Because to split the benefits between both parents would push them both (and the child) closer towards poverty.

Mojisola

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Because to split the benefits between both parents would push them both (and the child) closer towards poverty.

So it's okay for one parent to live in poverty? I can see why so many fathers end up losing contact with their children.

After Jan 2012, how many parents with care are going to happy about a child going to stay with the other parent who is living in a shared house?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mojisola wrote: »

So it's okay for one parent to live in poverty? I can see why so many fathers end up losing contact with their children.

After Jan 2012, how many parents with care are going to happy about a child going to stay with the other parent who is living in a shared house?

Again, that is a matter between two adults and no concern of the state. As it stands, the state has already provided for the child to be adequately housed. Perhaps this will mean that the parent not in receipt of the child related benefits will be further motivated to secure sufficient income for their child access wishes to be fulfilled. I'm not sure, in this case, that full employment and the kind of access described are very compatible.

fluffymovie

Oh mckneff, wind ur neck in.

I am a benefit team leader and married to a benefit fraud investigator so have some legitimate knowledge of the legislation. I despair really I do.

Oldernotwiser

Mojisola wrote: »

So it's okay for one parent to live in poverty? I can see why so many fathers end up losing contact with their children.

Surely the assumption is that the NRP (of whichever gender) will be working and that the PWC needs extra money because, while the children are young, s/he may be at home or working part time?

McKneff

fluffymovie wrote: »

Oh mckneff, wind ur neck in.

I am a benefit team leader and married to a benefit fraud investigator so have some legitimate knowledge of the legislation. I despair really I do.

Well I despair even more now with people like you an the work that you and yours do actually showing people how to milk the system,
and to actively encourage is nothing short of..............

Ask your fraud investigator oh what they think of your suggestion in the post,

Oldernotwiser

fluffymovie wrote: »

Oh mckneff, wind ur neck in.

I am a benefit team leader and married to a benefit fraud investigator so have some legitimate knowledge of the legislation. I despair really I do.

Could you give us a link to the rule that says it's legitimate to "sign over the Child Benefit to you as this would entitle you to the 2bed rate? If needed, you could give her the money in cash so she isn't out of pocket?". Not surprisingly, the links you've given don't mention that particular scenario.