living and paying maintenance....

annie1975_2

fannyanna wrote: »

It makes a mockery out of the system when a means tested benefit ignores, what can be a substantial source of income (child maintenance)!

Here Here. Everyone elses other income comes into account when claiming tax credits etc,so why not maintenence.
Maybe , just maybe when the universal credits come into force things might change for the better.(for the taxpayer).

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

yes, I understand this. I struggle to give any other than the fact that the children should see the benefit of their NPR's income.

In that case, the pwc should be made liable to show evidence how maintenance is being spent on the children and the children only (since benefits will already pay all essentials).

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

In that case, the pwc should be made liable to show evidence how maintenance is being spent on the children and the children only (since benefits will already pay all essentials).

and how on earth would that work? and why on earth should I, as someone who works full time but is still in receipt of considerable tax credit support, have to then spend time and effort on top of everything else have to account for every penny spent?

kevin137

Just to add into the mix, i don't think savings etc are taken into account enough for benefit.

Over here in Norway, a car is considered a luxury and as such if you own a car over a certain amount, it is classed as savings, and as such make you ineligible for benefit.

In other words sell the car, but a much cheaper one, or use public transport, if you are on benefit you do not have the right to have a car primarily funded by the tax payer, the tax payer already funds a perfectly adequate public transport system...

SingleSue

Not over here they don't.....public transport for the school runs costs more per day than my car does in fuel for a week!

I tried to do the public transport thing for the school runs when my Audi went bang, within a week, my parents had had enough and bought me another car (£461 from Ebay and now it's 6th year since purchase) as it was leaving me with no money to do anything else and we were turning up late all the time (oh the joys of village life where the buses turn up when they feel like it instead of when they are supposed to!)

Mind you, with disabled children, my car is not a luxury...it is an essential.

Re the breakdown of maintenance, I gave my ex husband just that a few weeks back (he was proposing to change the frequency of payments - private agreement) and he was happy and pretty amazed at the thoroughness of my accounting.

But then I am OCD about things and completely obsessed with numbers, so it was easy for me to do.

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

and how on earth would that work? and why on earth should I, as someone who works full time but is still in receipt of considerable tax credit support, have to then spend time and effort on top of everything else have to account for every penny spent?

It's not accounting for every penny, just showing that the extra money is spent on the children, ie. extra activity etc... It's no more time/effort than the nrp spends to earn the money in the first place for his children.

As a pwc, I really do feel for nrps who provide a large amount of maintenance to a pwc who hardly provide a penny to her children and rely on tax payers, but then see little evidence of that extra money benefiting the children. My ex pays me on a direct arrangement probably half of what he would need to pay via the csa, but I would have no issue breaking down what his maintenance pays towards. Of course he wouldn't ask because his contribution is not even 1/3rd of what the children cost, but in principle, I think that is totally justifiable.

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

It's not accounting for every penny, just showing that the extra money is spent on the children, ie. extra activity etc... It's no more time/effort than the nrp spends to earn the money in the first place for his children.

As a pwc, I really do feel for nrps who provide a large amount of maintenance to a pwc who hardly provide a penny to her children and rely on tax payers, but then see little evidence of that extra money benefiting the children. My ex pays me on a direct arrangement probably half of what he would need to pay via the csa, but I would have no issue breaking down what his maintenance pays towards. Of course he wouldn't ask because his contribution is not even 1/3rd of what the children cost, but in principle, I think that is totally justifiable.

I understand what you're saying but where is the line? it is only PWC on benefits, those of us who earn at the lower end of things with multiple children so receive considerable tax credit...or what? who gets to say whether or not maintenance is being appropriately spent? what are the sanctions if not spent appropriately?

For me it would be pretty simple - my ex's full assessment would go on childcare so I could work. Would that be appropriate expenditure?

FBaby

I do agree that it isn't unforceable, but it shows the discrimination in principle. In one hand, you say that it is acceptable that maintenance should be disregarded from benefits so that it allows children to have a similar-ish lifestyle to what they had before, but the nrp has no control over whether this is the case or not. They could be paying many £100s and yet see a big difference in the lifestyle his children gets because he has no right over the money he provides. Not only he has no control for the time they are not with him, but very likely over the time he has with them because once he has paid maintenance, the likelihood is that he won't be able to spoil them when he has them as he might have done before the separation. That's why I don't agree at all with the position that maintenance should top up benefits to allow children to keep them as much as possible in a lifestyle ressembling what they benefited from before the separation.

In regards to childcare, this would be provided mainly by tax credits. If the pwc earns enough that she is not entitled to help with childcare costs, then it should be fair enough that childcare costs are divided in two, so the nrp contributes half. If it means that all what he contributes amounts to half the childcare, then that is more than fair enough.

clearingout

the problem is demanding accountability shifts the balance of power and control the other way, don't you think? I also think it assumes that every PWC is somehow out for the money, doesn't do the best by their children and is somehow stupid with money and unable to budget. By the same token, every NRP is some kind of hard working saint who is a) having to live with the systematic abuse of their children by their ex and b) is being fleeced by their ex financially.

Fbaby - you don't receive any support from tax credits. Your post above seems to suggets that you consider every PWC is either on benefits or only earning part-time so tax credits pay all the childcare or pick up the bill for their children generally. My own experience is that whilst there is often a need to fall back on benefits/tax credits as a PWC when a relationship breaksdown, most people get back on their feet and work and get on with their lives and live a mix of work and tax credits and maintenance and generally trying to make ends meet, just as most two parent households do. You can't be the only PWC earning a decent wage, can you?!

annie1975_2

People used to manage before all this tax credits/working tax credits business..You had to get off your butt and work all the hours god sent.
Other than that , they didnt have what they couldnt afford.
Basically the kids that are in one parent family,(parent doing small amount of hours)Have a better lifestyle than most of the kids in 2 parent familys.....
The point i made earlier was its very nice when you can go out buying expensive bags and shoes,at the expense of the tax payer.When the majority of the tax payer are struggling to buy nice things for themselves.
Go in Primark like everyone else.