MSE News: Budget 2012: what the child benefit overhaul means for you

HoneyNutLoop

I've seen you mention that before, but I am not aware of any such rule. Under the standard calculation, contact costs don't come into it all. If you provide overnight care of the child for at least 52 nights a year, and are on the flat rate because you are claiming either income support or JSA then it gets reduced to nil. But if you are on the flat rate because you have income under £100 then you don't get any reduction for overnight stays.

On the reduced rate, you get the normal 1/7th off for 52 nights, 2/7's off for 104 nights, etc as the standard rate.

Contact costs can only be considered unde a variation and only for contact that has not already been considered under shared care. I.e if child stays with you every Saturday night and comes for tea every Wednesday, you would get band 1 s/c for the Saturday and then apply for a variation for the contact costs for the Wednesday only.

If you are on the reduced rate, your contact costs need to be at least £520 for variation to be considered. On the standard rate your costs need to be at least £780 a year. Any costs up to that threshold are not considered under an award. So if your contact costs were £700 a year and you're on the reduced rate, the variation that could be awarded would be for £180.

To continue the scenario, this is then divided by 52 to give your weekly award of £3.46 which is then deducted from your net weekly income. Say that was £160 as in the last example, this would be reduced to £156.54. You would still pay £5 flat rate for the first £100 and then 19% of £56.54. So the assessment would still be £16 because that works out to £15.74 and it's rounded to the nearest pound.

You cannot apply for a variation under any special expenses ground including contact costs if you are already on the flat rate.

AgentOso_2

kevin137 wrote: »

You think, they have just been through 2 or 3 years of getting it passed with all the crap and talking and notifications and all that crap. So it was not like it was not known about, much like all the changes with the CSA coming in now, that has take time and we all know about it, it has been in the press etc...

And now people complain...!!!

I know it is off topic, but we are a country of complainers that never do anything about it... Sheep is what we are...! And there is nothing that is going to change that...

As an example, when "Congestion Charging" was being brought in for London... We had the talks, the battles, it was decided and done... We where told why it was happening, what it would mean the cost it meant to us etc etc....

And we had the perfect opportunity to kill it dead in it's tracks on the 1st day of operation... ALL USE PUBLIC TRANSPORT and the system collapses and it would not be workable, as it would take 2-4 years to move in the financial support to get public transport into coping, just try to order enough buses and the build time is that...! But oh no, we just pay it and put up with it...

This is no different... SHEEP.... Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaa

I think you'll find there has been plenty of oposition to this for a long time, more than the caravan and pasty tax but the aspirational class that this impacts are the easy easy target. The people this impacts have one real way to show anger at this, simply vote them out.

It's been all over financial websites, news channels have loved the case studies and Labour are taking glee in pointing out the "perverse" loop holes.

While the petition won't change anything now, it provides the smallest fraction of relief for those angered at the sheer stupidity of the system.

I actually agree in principle with the idea but not in the way its been setup currently, you really couldn't have invented something as stupid if you tried.

kevin137

AgentOso wrote: »

I actually agree in principle with the idea but not in the way its been setup currently, you really couldn't have invented something as stupid if you tried.

That goes for whole of the benefits system thug, no one wants to take responsibility and risk really upsetting the voters, so they pick at it, a bit at a time, constantly "improving" the system making it more confusing and causing bigger problems....

Scrap the whole thing and start again from scratch...!

As for labour smiling or being happy over it, they are the biggest cause of the problems as they let all and sundry at the benefits system causing more debt and leading to the needed cuts now...!!!

wayne0

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

I've seen you mention that before, but I am not aware of any such rule. Under the standard calculation, contact costs don't come into it all. If you provide overnight care of the child for at least 52 nights a year, and are on the flat rate because you are claiming either income support or JSA then it gets reduced to nil. But if you are on the flat rate because you have income under £100 then you don't get any reduction for overnight stays.

On the reduced rate, you get the normal 1/7th off for 52 nights, 2/7's off for 104 nights, etc as the standard rate.

Contact costs can only be considered unde a variation and only for contact that has not already been considered under shared care. I.e if child stays with you every Saturday night and comes for tea every Wednesday, you would get band 1 s/c for the Saturday and then apply for a variation for the contact costs for the Wednesday only.

If you are on the reduced rate, your contact costs need to be at least £520 for variation to be considered. On the standard rate your costs need to be at least £780 a year. Any costs up to that threshold are not considered under an award. So if your contact costs were £700 a year and you're on the reduced rate, the variation that could be awarded would be for £180.

To continue the scenario, this is then divided by 52 to give your weekly award of £3.46 which is then deducted from your net weekly income. Say that was £160 as in the last example, this would be reduced to £156.54. You would still pay £5 flat rate for the first £100 and then 19% of £56.54. So the assessment would still be £16 because that works out to £15.74 and it's rounded to the nearest pound.

You cannot apply for a variation under any special expenses ground including contact costs if you are already on the flat rate.

you can apply for a variation for contact costs... or shared care only - so the CSA told me.

you would not get both (in any circumstance - ie: overnight and day) - just one or the other... and they decide which to award?

if above £10 for incomes subject to a relevant benefit or £15 if over £200... (this is why i asked, because. it seems a grey area if you earn between 100 and 200 quid

if your contact costs are above a tenner then you dont pay the "flat rate" if only on the flat rate (i will find some links, but to be fair, i think your post states this too?)...

Buzzz

This is last doors so hopefully someone will respond..

I have searched this thread and can only find one reference to if you are separated.

Me and wife are separated, separated mortgages, house, and she earns under £50k and claims the child benefit and child lives with her.

I earn over £60k and have separate house etc, child comes to stay with me some nights / weekends.

Are we classed as 'separated' therefore meaning I don't have to self assess?