living and paying maintenance....

annie1975_2

kevin137 wrote: »

On a different note, slightly, the benefit system, while a necessary evil needed in the UK, does not work with the CSA as it appears to many NRP's that they are just cash cows to fund single mothers who choose to abuse the system...

Now i know this is something that will always cause dissent with some, but until 2010, it was taken in leu of the benefit that you where entitled to... To which i agree to a point.

Would a system that meant it could be taken into consideration as income like CTC or CTC but no other benefit seem a fairer system...??? Those benefits are income based and should have CSA taken into consideration in my opinion...!

I totally agree. This was my arguement on another board.friend of mine getting £208 a week CTC and keeping £300 a month Maintenece.So the taxpayer is keeping her kids as well as her husband. And shes bragging about how yesterday on social network shes been out and bought herself a very expensive hanbag and shoes,and thanking her ex for his csa payment thats paid for it. I think its a disgrace.

charlieismydarling

Well Annie, with friends like you, who needs enemies?

The reason that PWC have maintainanace disregarded is because there are huge problems with a significant number of NRP who withold payment, pay inconsistently or not at all. This has a huge affect on the PWC and the children. Debts can build up, bank charges are incurred and the income can not be relied on.

Why shouldn't your friend buy a handbag? With tc of 200+ a week she must have 3 or 4 children, meaning that her Ex is paying less than 18 a week per child. He seems to have got off lightly.

kevin137

charlieismydarling wrote: »

The reason that PWC have maintainanace disregarded is because there are huge problems with a significant number of NRP who withold payment, pay inconsistently or not at all. This has a huge affect on the PWC and the children. Debts can build up, bank charges are incurred and the income can not be relied on.

Really..? I didn't know that you had maintenance withheld if you had a CSA assessment... Previous to 2010 i mean.

I always thought that the maintenance was collected by the CSA and then given to the Treasury in leu of benefit paid...

So there was never any affect on the PWC running up debts etc as a result of maintenance being withheld, just run up because there is bad financial management.

charlieismydarling

I don't quite understand your post Kevin.

My point was that if a pwc is relying on maintainance to pay bills then if nrp doesn't pay, well the bills don't get paid.

It used to be that money collected by csa was paid to treasury in lieu of benefit. Not all pwc are non working and I guess it is easier to have a rule disregarding maintainance altogether rather than seperate rules for benefit recipients and working pwc.


I am of the opinion that one of the reasons for this disregard was to encourage more pwc to provide information about absent parents to the dwp, but who knows.

Oh and not all pwc regard nrps as cash cows! Why shouldn't nrps pay a fair whack for their children? It is deciding the amount that is fair that is the crucial problem and hopefully one day a fair system will be rolled out.

shop-to-drop

The main problem with disregarding maintenance for benefits purposes as I see it is that it makes many parents, especially those where the father is well paid and mother low paid/not working, better off to split up, rather than be self supporting and stay together.

annie1975_2

charlieismydarling wrote: »

Well Annie, with friends like you, who needs enemies?

The reason that PWC have maintainanace disregarded is because there are huge problems with a significant number of NRP who withold payment, pay inconsistently or not at all. This has a huge affect on the PWC and the children. Debts can build up, bank charges are incurred and the income can not be relied on.

Why shouldn't your friend buy a handbag? With tc of 200+ a week she must have 3 or 4 children, meaning that her Ex is paying less than 18 a week per child. He seems to have got off lightly.

And even without the £300 a month maintenence, i think she still gets quite a lot from the state?

He has been paying her £3oo amonth. Then she gets £122 a week wages,then £47 a week child benefit, Housing benefit, council tax benefit and £208 a week tax credits. What im saying is why should the taxpayer keep her kids (or her in a luxurious life),when most of the tax payers are struggling themselves.
He also has got a new partner with children whom he has to keep as well. She gets over £440 a week in her hand and i think thats disgusting at the taxpayers expense.(And her kids walk round with pants half up their legs,.). Ive not got a problem if the kids benefit by it,.

annie1975_2

And £300 a month works out at £70 a week. Thats £23 each.

shop-to-drop

annie1975 wrote: »

And £300 a month works out at £70 a week. Thats £23 each.

True, they are both getting off lightly it's the taxpayers getting ripped off.

clearingout

so...basically until the PWC is out there earning in excess of £50k pa and capable of supporting her children in her own right without any support whatsoever from the state, the NRP shouldn't have to pay any maintenance? at what point - working hours, level of education, money earned per hour, salary level, general aspriation - does it become 'acceptable' that an NRP should support their children? is it not the case that if the PWC is in a position to support their children without the help of the NRP, we would have NRPs and their new partners on here moaning about her lifestyle and how little they earn and why should they have to pay anything for the children?

The CSA is in incredibly blunt tool and is unfair whichever side of the fence you might find yourself on. But it seems to me that the PWC is always damned if they do and damned if they don't and will never satisfy anyone whether they work, don't work, earn well or earn nothing at all.

annie1975_2

You dont have to earn in excess of £50,000 for a decent standard of living. . Plenty of people manage on less than half of that.
And yes NRP should keep their children. But the taxpayer is picking up a big tab as well,and it shouldn't be.