'Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012' - consultation period

PreludeForTimeFeelers

CMEC are currently asking for responses to the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.

The paper is available from here.

I'd recommend anyone who feels they may be using the future scheme read up on this, and take this opportunity to make your voices heard. This is the first real chance that the public will have to read the actual details of the scheme, and also to have a say on these matters, so I'd be interested in seeing if we could discuss these matters here rationally.

The questions they're asking are as follows;

Making the calculation
Question One
Do you agree with the proposal to remove students from the nil rate cases and calculate liability on their gross weekly income?
Question Two
Is making an assumption about shared care the right approach to avoid some of the current practical difficulties regarding shared care calculations?
Changing a calculation
Question Three
Do you think the periodic income check adds value to the review process?
Variations
Question Four
What do you think of the proposal to remove assets and lifestyle inconsistent with declared income grounds given the new approach to unearned income?
Question Five
What are your views on the new grounds which aim to make the scheme easier to navigate, understand and administer and to ensure that where the non-resident parent has significant unearned income that this can be taken into account?
Other matters to note
Question Six
Do you agree that the percentage rates applied for relevant other children should be reduced to produce a more equal treatment of children in first and second families?
Question Seven
Do you agree with the proposal to increase the flat rate?
Question Eight
Do you agree with the proposal to compel non-resident parents who have a maintenance liability based on current income to report further upward changes?
Question Nine
What do you think of the proposal only to make this compulsion apply to employed non-resident parents (i.e. not parents who are self-employed or who have an element of unearned income)?
Annex C
Question Ten
Do you think that the amounts a Default Maintenance Decision awards should be increased with inflation?

Matt_Fry

A1. No, students don't have any money anyway. And they will only go overseas to work in tax-free jurisdictions when they get their university degrees – Google - "the brain drain".

A2. No, use the facts

A3. Yes

A4. Agree

A5. No, because the word "significant" is not defined, and it can result in NRPPs being liable via a back-door.

A6. Don't know, it doesnt specify whether "relevent child" is a NRP biological child.

A7. Yes, provided its not above inflation

A8. No, they complete a tax return and income is already declared. Making them to declare it again will only encourage more NRPs to take themselves out of tax altogether, worse, they will sign on to cover the audit trail.

A9. It will cost Great Britain Plc more money than its worth, see A8

A10. No, it should be linked to average earnings increases.

The government clearly hasnt learned its lesson yet. The more draconian the CSA makes it for NRP's, the more likely they exit the the British Economy.

Child support should be stigmatised because it engourages teenage pregnancies knowing they will be supported by the state or an NRP and not forced to go find a job. Child support should only be for parents who have been abandoned by the other parent. Not a tax on excluded parents.

DUTR

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

CMEC are currently asking for responses to the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.

The paper is available from here.

I'd recommend anyone who feels they may be using the future scheme read up on this, and take this opportunity to make your voices heard. This is the first real chance that the public will have to read the actual details of the scheme, and also to have a say on these matters, so I'd be interested in seeing if we could discuss these matters here rationally.

The questions they're asking are as follows;

Making the calculation
Question One
Do you agree with the proposal to remove students from the nil rate cases and calculate liability on their gross weekly income?
Question Two
Is making an assumption about shared care the right approach to avoid some of the current practical difficulties regarding shared care calculations?
Changing a calculation
Question Three
Do you think the periodic income check adds value to the review process?
Variations
Question Four
What do you think of the proposal to remove assets and lifestyle inconsistent with declared income grounds given the new approach to unearned income?
Question Five
What are your views on the new grounds which aim to make the scheme easier to navigate, understand and administer and to ensure that where the non-resident parent has significant unearned income that this can be taken into account?
Other matters to note
Question Six
Do you agree that the percentage rates applied for relevant other children should be reduced to produce a more equal treatment of children in first and second families?
Question Seven
Do you agree with the proposal to increase the flat rate?
Question Eight
Do you agree with the proposal to compel non-resident parents who have a maintenance liability based on current income to report further upward changes?
Question Nine
What do you think of the proposal only to make this compulsion apply to employed non-resident parents (i.e. not parents who are self-employed or who have an element of unearned income)?
Annex C
Question Ten
Do you think that the amounts a Default Maintenance Decision awards should be increased with inflation?

1) No, everybody eleigible pays
2) Yes
3) Perhaps, although the calculation should include the PWC's income and reduced accordingly (or the care costs shared)
4 ) Remove inconsistent lifestyle variations
5) This should not be adopted, earned income only
6) Yes
7) No, NRPs have to live too, increasing liability increases reluctance to contribute.
8) No, disagree, there should be an upper cut off limit.
9) Poor proposal.
10) No, there is a recession on and will be for a long time, everybody has to tighten their belt.

Blob

I have just read this very quickly and will have to read it again.

1. There is still no 'Duty of Care' for the people that work in the CSA.
2. It would seem that they plan to open the gates for the people to get a child with someone and then ask to be kept forever. If the NRP be they male or female and have a good job and assets prior to the child, and the other partner then takes the child and uses this system to their advantage, they can make enough money from this to be made for life. One of the reasons for the system being set up was "to end the gravy train for life" well it seems that it may be back again!

Will do a full answer when I have gone through this at a more sedate pace.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Just a little bit more info for the people who have already responded/who are reading the regulations, based on my reading of the document for a couple of hours this morning (along with my thoughts);

Q1) Students are currently exempt from paying child maintenance, the proposal is that instead of them remaining on the nil-rate, they are now assessed on any income, so if they're working part-time then they will be assessed on their earnings.
I think this is fair enough, if they are earning then they still have a financial responsibility to their child/children.

Q2) It's hard to decide the 'facts' in shared care disputes...currently if neither party can provide evidence then there's an argument that the CSA side with the PWC - their proposal actually puts the NRP onto more of an even footing, as the new suggestion is that if there is a dispute, and neither party can prove it, then the CSA will assume 1 night per week shared care.
Personally I'm not too sure about this, I think it gives some NRPs an easy way to reduce how much they will pay.

Q3) Checking income regularly ensures that the maintenance payable is accurate, I doubt anyone would disagree with this.

Q4) Removing 'lifestyle inconsistent' and basing this on actual earnings is probably more accurate. They currently assume something like 8% is earned based on property/assets, and that return just isn't viable.

Q5) Unearned income is a term used by the HMRC, and refers to dividends, income from assets and properties, and should definitely be used for assessment purposes. The 'significant' amount is defined in the paper as over £2500.

Q6) It defines 'relevant other child' as a child that either the NRP or his partner receives CHB for. This doesn't have to be the NRP's biological child, it can be a step-child/partner's child.
I think that reducing the reduction due to a relevant child is fair - currently the system favours the child living in the NRP's household, and the new proposal brings these closer in line.

Q7) The current flat rate is £5 per week, the new suggestion is that this rises to £7. I think this is a fair amount, the flat rate has been the same for 8 years. I think an increase of £2 in 8 years isn't too extreme.

Q8) If an NRP's income rises by more than 25%, then yes, they should report this change.

Q9) The proposal is that SEMP NRPs don't have to declare changes in income of 25% or more, due to their income fluctuating more. I think this is a fair proposal.

Q10) Again, the DMD rate has been constant for 8 years, so I think an increase is due.

DUTR

Prelude, your answer to Q4 contradicts the answer to Q8, if regular checks are being completed then there is nothing to report.
I don't think a system that encourages maximum claim amount is good for anybody but the greedy.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

DUTR wrote: »

Prelude, your answer to Q4 contradicts the answer to Q8, if regular checks are being completed then there is nothing to report.
I don't think a system that encourages maximum claim amount is good for anybody but the greedy.

I don't think that is a contradiction - I think NRPs should inform CMEC of major payrises, but a periodic system check will make sure that there is a system in place to perform this automatically, as not all NRPs will tell.

DUTR

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

I don't think that is a contradiction - I think NRPs should inform CMEC of major payrises, but a periodic system check will make sure that there is a system in place to perform this automatically, as not all NRPs will tell.

Out of interest, what if there is a major pay reduction eg reduced hours ?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

DUTR wrote: »

Out of interest, what if there is a major pay reduction eg reduced hours ?

Then the NRP should also inform about that change too.

DUTR

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Then the NRP should also inform about that change too.

So what is the point of the regular reviews?
Perhaps you are missing some basics on the whole csa thing, NRPs are not criminals and breeding a culture of claiming claiming claiming without having to do much is not good for the economy and future generation.
Of course that is not to say all PWCs or NRPs are stereotyped, although it is not every parent's intenet to give the utmost to the offspring without having some kind of life themself.

RedSky

DUTR wrote: »

So what is the point of the regular reviews?

If reviews are annual and an assessment takes place in June with a 25% change occurring in July then the assessment would not alter until 11 months later, unless it is required to report 25% changes immediately. Without annual reviews then unreported changes, or those less than 25%, will never be detected.