Do csa ask for mothers income/assets??

shegirl

fannyanna wrote: »

I think the current system is the fairest.

Using a % of income seems to be the most transparent approach. The NRP pays the set % regardless of how much the PWC earns.

The only thing that I find unfair is that child tax credits are counted as income.

Oh,definately.That's quite absurd to be honest!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

shell_542 wrote: »

As much as forums can be great for support and advice, I personally think that they can sometimes have a negative effect of whirring up anger and making someone think they are being reasonable because one other person of the same mindset agrees with them.

This thread has spiraled out of control unnecessarily.

I think that some of the advice offered is sometimes rather extremist too - default suggestions by some folk are "Complain to your MP" and "Never speak to the CSA by telephone" when it may be a situation where complaints aren't needed as the issue could be resolved in 5 minutes by a simple phone call.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Marisco wrote: »

But is it fair, as Kent points out, that their kids have to go without because her oh has to pay such a large chunk to the first kids who don't go without? That's not very fair either.

On CS2 the reduction in liability for having the 'second kids' is more than the 'first kids' get, so if anything they're the ones who are favoured by the CSA.

anguk

fannyanna wrote: »

I think the current system is the fairest.

Using a % of income seems to be the most transparent approach. The NRP pays the set % regardless of how much the PWC earns.

The only thing that I find unfair is that child tax credits are counted as income.

You see that's the bit I really don't understand.

A NRP remarries and has children, their CTC is calculated on their household and the children living there. But CSA class the CTC that is paid for that household and those children as income when working out how much maintenance should be paid to the other children living in a different household. :huh:

Yet the maintenance the PWC receives isn't taken into account when calculating their benefits? :huh:

How is that fair?

shell_542

shegirl wrote: »

Thing is,if it was regarded in working tax credit would it not also end up having to be taken into consideration for things such as child tax credit aswell?Meaning that the child would end up no better off and would not be benefitting so much from the money from the nrp?I can see where you're coming from and understand your thought on it,but it would end up with the child not benefitting wouldn't it.

Factoring in child support as income for benefits purposes would work exactly the same way as how it works for couples.

You don't lose the "income", you have the tax credits reduced in line with the level of income.

Basically, what you have written above reads to me like you are advocating everyone receiving the maximum tax credits available, regardless of income, because why should a child lose out? Unless you mean only children with Non Resident parents deserve to "not go without".

shell_542

anguk wrote: »

You see that's the bit I really don't understand.

A NRP remarries and has children, their CTC is calculated on their household and the children living there. But CSA class the CTC that is paid for that household and those children as income when working out how much maintenance should be paid to the other children living in a different household. :huh:

Yet the maintenance the PWC receives isn't taken into account when calculating their benefits? :huh:

How is that fair?

It isn't. But it's the easiest and cheapest way for the government to regulate it, so tough basically.

shegirl

shell_542 wrote: »

Factoring in child support as income for benefits purposes would work exactly the same way as how it works for couples.

You don't lose the "income", you have the tax credits reduced in line with the level of income.

Basically, what you have written above reads to me like you are advocating everyone receiving the maximum tax credits available, regardless of income, because why should a child lose out? Unless you mean only children with Non Resident parents deserve to "not go without".

No,I don't think everyone should receive the maximum benefits available regardless of income,but I wouldn't include maintenance in that.No child deserves to go without.To reduce the tax credits just would mean there would be no added benefit to the children receiving maintenance and I know many nrps who wouldn't be happy with that,especially when tax credits are largely used as general household income rather than specifically for the child -it that were introduce it would reduce 'general household' income for the pwc meaning they may need to use the maintenance in more general terms (whereas some of us use it specifically for our kids,rather than anything indirect).

Tax credits shouldn't come into it for either family and I really don't understand why they take it into account with the nrp,it's just not right.

shell_542

shegirl wrote: »

No,I don't think everyone should receive the maximum benefits available regardless of income,but I wouldn't include maintenance in that.No child deserves to go without.To reduce the tax credits just would mean there would be no added benefit to the children receiving maintenance and I know many nrps who wouldn't be happy with that,especially when tax credits are largely used as general household income rather than specifically for the child -it that were introduce it would reduce 'general household' income for the pwc meaning they may need to use the maintenance in more general terms (whereas some of us use it specifically for our kids,rather than anything indirect).

Tax credits shouldn't come into it for either family and I really don't understand why they take it into account with the nrp,it's just not right.

But why should a PWC receive a potentially large sum every month and not have their benefits adjusted accordingly? If we are allowing a child in a PWCs household to have a percentage of their parents income set aside unaffected by benefits to ensure they are looked after adequately, why shouldn't the same happen in every household with a child, whether their parents are separated or not? It is what it is. An unfair way of arranging finances.

The reason they did it was because of the unreliable NRPs who didn't pay on time every month. It wasn't best for the children to lose out every month the NRP didn't pay (and not to mention, is also expensive for the benefits people to keep doing recalculations). So they thought it was easier to allow PWCs to keep all benefits. But for every PWC with an unreliable NRP who was finally better off and able to sort out their finances, there was also other PWCs who all of a sudden were receiving their child maintenance and full benefits on top. Even if the maintenance payments every month equal that of a wage. That is ridiculous. The country needs to reduce the welfare bill, not add to it even more.

shegirl

shell_542 wrote: »

But why should a PWC receive a potentially large sum every month and not have their benefits adjusted accordingly? If we are allowing a child in a PWCs household to have a percentage of their parents income set aside unaffected by benefits to ensure they are looked after adequately, why shouldn't the same happen in every household with a child, whether their parents are separated or not? It is what it is. An unfair way of arranging finances.

The reason they did it was because of the unreliable NRPs who didn't pay on time every month. It wasn't best for the children to lose out every month the NRP didn't pay (and not to mention, is also expensive for the benefits people to keep doing recalculations). So they thought it was easier to allow PWCs to keep all benefits. But for every PWC with an unreliable NRP who was finally better off and able to sort out their finances, there was also other PWCs who all of a sudden were receiving their child maintenance and full benefits on top. Even if the maintenance payments every month equal that of a wage. That is ridiculous. The country needs to reduce the welfare bill, not add to it even more.

Oh it certainly does,but how many parents would be happy paying if they knew it made no difference to the child at all?

Have to say though,when it comes to maintenance I've never seen it as me receiving money,always my ds and always told him that whatever was bought with it was from daddy and told him to thank daddy,even thanked him myself.Now he wants to get out of it and doesn't bother with his son

There will never be a wholly fair system will there