Financial Help for Single Dad's Who DO Pay Maintenance

magred

bestpud wrote: »

If the OP wanted benefits advice, he'd have given his situation and asked if he was entitled. He didn't though - he started a poll to invite answers to a general benefit issue.

That's really something for the debating forum if you look at the site rules and I suspect it will be moved there at some point.

Appreciate this comment, however I have provided some details around my circumstances (my thread posting starting with this info.), and it does relate to a genuine and general benefit enquiry/entitlement question, and the info. is real.

There are, of course, very significant moral issues associate with this, and I am prepared to ignore them completely, however they sit right at the very centre of my initial question.

Nevertheless, if I (and many others are told) "You are entitled to something" and the opposite "You are not entitled to something" by the same body (HMRC), what does one do?

I am forever being informed that I am/will/must be entitled to help from those that already claim similar benefits (work colleagues/friends), but have ignored it (you can see why).

I don't claim, nor am I in receipt of any benefit, and to be honest, don't actually want any benefit help. However, many many other people (in far better situations than my own) are in receipt of benefits and don't say no, and if we need help we are always being told to ask for it. You can see why people like me don't.

Therefore, if I am entitled to help, what is it?

If I am not entitled to any help, why not?

That's all!

Caz3121

Low wage for a single person for the purpose of working tax credits is around £13k (plus you need to be over 25 and working 30 hours+)
I assume in your workings you included your children as it came back with you being entitled to child tax credits. As has been said you should not include them in the calculations as unless they live with you the majority of the time and you claim child benefit

magred

Caz3121 wrote: »

Low wage for a single person for the purpose of working tax credits is around £13k (plus you need to be over 25 and working 30 hours+)
I assume in your workings you included your children as it came back with you being entitled to child tax credits. As has been said you should not include them in the calculations as unless they live with you the majority of the time and you claim child benefit

Hello Caz3121. Thank you.

No, I answered the straightforward questions with factually-correct, honest answers, and stated that my children do not live with me (which they do not).

Either the HMRC questions are wrong, calculated incorrectly, the software is not right, or I was told on the telephone (this morning) something that is factually incorrect. I didn't provide the answer I posted here, HMRC did.

You can see why I am confused!

FBaby

You must be saying/entering different things. In your first post, you wrote the HMRC stated that you were entitled to a level of child tax credits/childcare element... the only way it would have stated that is if you've entered that you have children living with you (which means, you have residency of children, so that wouldn't apply to you) and that you have childcare costs, which I assume you don't actually have at the moment. If your children are in childcare, your ex is paying for this, either out of her salary, or with the help of tax credits SHE is claiming, with or without help of your maintenance (depending on how much this is).

You wouldn't be entitled to any of these benefits unless your became the resident parent for your children.

Child maintenance is anything between 15 and 25% of your salary. Trust me, if your children were living with you full-time and you had to bear all the costs I've listed below, you would find yourself forking out a lot more than that percentage, hence the parent who do pay for them (or the one expected to do so) is entitled to support from the governement, whilst you are not.

Two4Tuesday

Question 2 on the tax credits online calculator is a tiny bit misleading. It asks "How many children do you have under the age of 20?" but should really be "How many children do you have under the age of 20? that live in your household"

magred

Two4Tuesday wrote: »

Question 2 on the tax credits online calculator is a tiny bit misleading. It asks "How many children do you have under the age of 20?" but should really be "How many children do you have under the age of 20? that live in your household"

Yes, if that is what they mean!? Don't they employ proof-readers (if this is what they mean)?

Maybe they should employ me to proof and test their website content!

In response to the post from FBaby, yes, I understand this. In my case, the children's mum doesn't (won't?) work. I am not going to enter into any moral/ethical judgement here about that, but all I will say is that she is not paying for our children's upkeep. I am, and you all are.

However, my initial query asks whether and/or why men are not entitled to help in this situation, where there are difficulties associated with child care (i.e. provision of what I need to provide for them) through any help that is available?

I am a still a parent who pays maintenance towards my children and again, separately, pay for food and anything else they need when they are with me for whatever period (whether regular stays or holidays). Their mother in this instance is entitled to help because the children are 'permanently resident', yet any time when the children are 'temporarily resident' with the father, the state is not interested (yet payments are in effect being made twice by the father: once through maintenance, the other time when the children are present).

Interestingly, it was women who highlighted this anomaly to me!

I fully appreciate the costs and difficulties associated with raising a family, however many people often, incorrectly, assume that single people/single parents (who do not have children who live with them) have it all easy.

Unless residency is exactly 50/50, any benefit provision stays with the resident parent.

clearingout

magred wrote: »

I am a still a parent who pays maintenance towards my children and again, separately, pay for food and anything else they need when they are with me for whatever period (whether regular stays or holidays). Their mother in this instance is entitled to help because the children are 'permanently resident', yet any time when the children are 'temporarily resident' with the father, the state is not interested (yet payments are in effect being made twice by the father: once through maintenance, the other time when the children are present).

You can receive a reduction in your maintenance payments based on the nights the children stay with you. As such, it is not considered that they are supported twice during that time. Of course, it's not a huge reduction and if your PWC isn't particularly amicable, you can find yourself having to pay for a whole set of toys, clothes, shoes for every occasion.

I think a lot of us (I am a PWC) accept that for a single NRP who pays maintenance and needs to travel to see their children and who earns an average wage, things feel 'unfair'. They are made more unfair when a PWC is un-coperative and wont' help out with travel, or who won't send clothes or who demands more money on top and tells the children you can't go to football because daddy won't pay (emotional blackmail at it's best/worst). I also think NRPs on minimum/low/average wages in London and the South East must really struggle given higher housing and general living costs.

But a system which takes all of this into account will be a system that needs to make value judgements. And to make value judgements you need lots and lots of people with very high levels of training. It's just not cost-effective. And it also amounts to little more than state interference in family life.

There will always be winners and losers no matter what the system. There are plenty of PWC and their children living in poverty,just as plenty of NRP struggle, but because they get the benefits, they're not allowed to moan about it.

And it doesn't help when their exs make value judgments about the fact that they work/don't work. I have seen NRPs moan that the PWC doesn't work and then moan again when she gets a job and leaves the children with a childminder. You can't win!

BigAunty

You are not living on £220 a month - focussing on disposable income after all major living costs is a dubious way of looking at it. Why the amnesia about the services you enjoy with the rest of your net wage? You are paying back debts which are never taken into account for any means tested benefits, nor are living expenses, such as the cost of running a car or your decision to have a mortgage.

Many working people have low disposable incomes by the time they've paid their major costs like housing, council tax, energy and food bills. It isn't poverty to have a low disposable income after housing, transport and bills - poverty is about not to be able to afford rent/mortgage and basic bills, what pensioners can suffer if they have to choose between eating and heating.

We may live in a low wage/high cost society, one whose welfare system naturally prioritises the parent who cares for children, but even though you don't enjoy luxuries which some people take for granted (like holidays and takeaways) you aren't poor, you've just got high personal expenses like a mortgage, car and child maintenance.

Renegotiate the debt repayments. Ask your ex to consider giving you a proportion of the child benefit and tax credits for the proportion of time they spend with you. Buy a cheaper property. Use the MSE website to find ways to up your income and reduce your expenses - download their budget planning spreadsheet.

Help is available but it's called self-sufficiency - the state, as you found out, expects you to manage with what you've got and change your lifestyle to suit your income, not have taxpayers double fund you and your wife twice over for the children.

Some housing benefit claimants who have relationship breakdowns are shocked that the state won't pay HB for rooms for the child at both places - why is there an expectation that the taxpayer would pay double costs and encourage under occupation when there is a housing shortage?

magred

clearingout wrote: »

You can receive a reduction in your maintenance payments based on the nights the children stay with you. As such, it is not considered that they are supported twice during that time. Of course, it's not a huge reduction and if your PWC isn't particularly amicable, you can find yourself having to pay for a whole set of toys, clothes, shoes for every occasion.

I think a lot of us (I am a PWC) accept that for a single NRP who pays maintenance and needs to travel to see their children and who earns an average wage, things feel 'unfair'. They are made more unfair when a PWC is un-coperative and wont' help out with travel, or who won't send clothes or who demands more money on top and tells the children you can't go to football because daddy won't pay (emotional blackmail at it's best/worst). I also think NRPs on minimum/low/average wages in London and the South East must really struggle given higher housing and general living costs.

But a system which takes all of this into account will be a system that needs to make value judgements. And to make value judgements you need lots and lots of people with very high levels of training. It's just not cost-effective. And it also amounts to little more than state interference in family life.

There will always be winners and losers no matter what the system. There are plenty of PWC and their children living in poverty,just as plenty of NRP struggle, but because they get the benefits, they're not allowed to moan about it.

And it doesn't help when their exs make value judgments about the fact that they work/don't work. I have seen NRPs moan that the PWC doesn't work and then moan again when she gets a job and leaves the children with a childminder. You can't win!

I totally agree with what you have said, especially the last two paragraphs.

In respect of my own situation, I never have judged my 'ex' on what she does and does not do (although it may sound like I did above). I don't. Fortunately, we have a very very good working, communicative "mum and dad" relationship, and do everything we can to support our children despite the difficulties of travelling between homes, and other things.

I am well aware this is not true for many children, which I find truly heart-breaking.

For me, it could be a lot better; it could also be worse too.

However, it's not right that so many people struggle in 2012, whether in the UK or not. I won't digress onto another associated topic!

Thank you - all of you - who have provided your personal feedback. I didn't expect a magic answer (and didn't get one!), however I appreciate it all the same.

Vejovis

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Perhaps they expect people to use a bit of common sense?

thank god someone else thought that, i thought i was going mad. it never fails to amaze me how people need everything spelling out to the nth degree.