Who is the Resident Parrent ?

kevin137

Orville wrote: »

I would still do the payments based on one claiming for two and then split the payments. if it's a 50 / 50 share. Personally i think that is the fairest way.

Until you find that one parent earns nothing living on benefits and the other earns £35,000 then it is NOT fair...!

You have shared care, the Mother is entitled to claim CTC, CB housing benefit etc etc, on top of that there is jobseekers or whatever the current name for that is, and all is rosy.

On the other hand, the father is entitled to NO housing benefit, NO CTC, NO CB, NO council Tax, and under the current system would have to pay the mother for having the kids 1 week in every 2...

And you want to talk about fair...??? What you need to think about is the impact that the current system has on the working parent who qualifies for nothing, and to be honest while earning £35,000 a year, would more than likely end up with LESS money than the mother on benefits. The system is NOT fair, it never has been...!!!

Shared care should mean exactly that, no financial benefit to either parent, for having the kids 1 day more than the other. It breeds contempt and also breeds a society that become reliant on benefits and handouts until the child reaches a certain age, then they have no idea how they will financially survive without the said handouts they no longer qualify.

I know every case is different, and some will always be angry at how the system is. But it is our acceptance of the system that makes it that way, if enough people where not happy about it, then surely it would change.

There are a hell of a lot of dead beat useless fathers out there that do absolutely nothing to support their children, and they are the scum of the earth in my mind. On the flip side there are plenty of mothers out their that use the children as a meal ticket to milk their ex for all they can...!

Then you look at the fathers that go without and do all they can for their children with no complaints at all, and the mothers who go back to work to make sure they support themselves regardless of what extras they receive from the NRP.

It is all swings and roundabouts. But at the end of the day, you cannot call shared care shared care unless it is truly shared and that means EVERYTHING including the financial side of things...!

If we had this system in place when people split, then they may be more prepared to work together for the children instead of arguing over the money side of what it costs to bring up kids... We can all hope i guess...

clearingout

I'm sorry Kevin but whether you like it or not, it does cost money to bring up children. And the more you have, the more expensive it is. It is not fair that one working parent should shoulder all that resposibility whilst the other sits on benefits but neither is it fair that one of two working parents should shoulder all that responsibility on their own. I wouldn't hazard a guess at the statistics but I suspect for every single mother sitting on benefits, there's another out there working 40 hours plus a week without any additional support - financial or anything else - from the father. My child care bill is in excess of £700 a month - I earn £1.5k and have debts from my marriage (ones in my name used by the ex to fund his business) to the tune of nearly £200 a month, I have to run a car to get to work, I have to keep a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs and food on our plates. And you suggest that it would be in the children's best interests for me to give half the tax credits and child benefit to their father? If I did that, he wouldn't suddenly start paying for half of the children's essential costs so how would it be fair?

[Deleted User]

Orville wrote: »

I don't agree with the "if there are 2 children you should be able to claim for one each" comment. That way it costs the goverment more in payments as each parent would get the single child rate of tax credits and chb which if you add togther is more then one parent claiming for two children.

My friend has joint custody of his 2 children the Mother gets the higher rate and he gets the 2nd child rate of the Child Benefit. Unsure what happens with the tax credits I assume she claims something but he is a high earner and don't qualify for any.

Orville

kevin137 wrote: »

Until you find that one parent earns nothing living on benefits and the other earns £35,000 then it is NOT fair...!

You have shared care, the Mother is entitled to claim CTC, CB housing benefit etc etc, on top of that there is jobseekers or whatever the current name for that is, and all is rosy.

On the other hand, the father is entitled to NO housing benefit, NO CTC, NO CB, NO council Tax, and under the current system would have to pay the mother for having the kids 1 week in every 2...

And you want to talk about fair...??? What you need to think about is the impact that the current system has on the working parent who qualifies for nothing, and to be honest while earning £35,000 a year, would more than likely end up with LESS money than the mother on benefits. The system is NOT fair, it never has been...!!!

Shared care should mean exactly that, no financial benefit to either parent, for having the kids 1 day more than the other. It breeds contempt and also breeds a society that become reliant on benefits and handouts until the child reaches a certain age, then they have no idea how they will financially survive without the said handouts they no longer qualify.

I know every case is different, and some will always be angry at how the system is. But it is our acceptance of the system that makes it that way, if enough people where not happy about it, then surely it would change.

There are a hell of a lot of dead beat useless fathers out there that do absolutely nothing to support their children, and they are the scum of the earth in my mind. On the flip side there are plenty of mothers out their that use the children as a meal ticket to milk their ex for all they can...!

Then you look at the fathers that go without and do all they can for their children with no complaints at all, and the mothers who go back to work to make sure they support themselves regardless of what extras they receive from the NRP.

It is all swings and roundabouts. But at the end of the day, you cannot call shared care shared care unless it is truly shared and that means EVERYTHING including the financial side of things...!

If we had this system in place when people split, then they may be more prepared to work together for the children instead of arguing over the money side of what it costs to bring up kids... We can all hope i guess...

As you say the current system is wrong i agree, people should be made to go back to work even if they have kids. It is all to easy to ponce off the state. But all things being equal benefits should be split if the raising of the child is 50/50.

I am a single father who works and raises my child full-time. My ex works full time, but regardless of what she earns if we raised the child 50/50 i would not object to her having an equal share even though her earnings as an accountant far outweigh mine. just because i am in a lower paid job does not give me more of a right to the money. after all she put in the effort to go to uni and get her degree and i didn't. I could stay at home if i wished, but that is not me.

Orville

Deleted_User wrote: »

My friend has joint custody of his 2 children the Mother gets the higher rate and he gets the 2nd child rate of the Child Benefit. Unsure what happens with the tax credits I assume she claims something but he is a high earner and don't qualify for any.

My friend is in a similar position, but she had a breakdown and he has the child now but she has also has her on a 50 / 50 basis. She however gets nothing even though she now goes out to work and he stays at home, reason being he gets the child benefit. I have said to her, yes ok you have had your troubles, but your on the mend now and have her half the week. Go back to court and get what your entitled to, but she won't.

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

I'm sorry Kevin but whether you like it or not, it does cost money to bring up children. And the more you have, the more expensive it is. It is not fair that one working parent should shoulder all that resposibility whilst the other sits on benefits but neither is it fair that one of two working parents should shoulder all that responsibility on their own.

I didn't suggest that it didn't cost money to bring up children, what i know is the biased towards the PWC even in shared care regardless of income...!

i will explain it as simply as possible.

If i earned £35,000 before tax, with 2 children, and shared care, i would not be eligible for ANY benefit.

My Ex on the other hand would be eligible for about £900 housing benefit per month (my last area of being resident in london) Council tax of about £120 a month, WTC if part time of about £200 per month, CTC credits of about £120 per month, and income of 16 hours work at about £400 per month. Add into it CB of about £100 per month (not sure of exact figures) and you have a total of £1840 per month Gross...!

And then you expect the NRP to contribute as well...? On shared care...?

I just think that the system is very very biased and expects fathers to contribute regardless of their situation, and what i am saying is that it is not always what is right...!

There are many ways to abuse the system, and i am sure they have all been tried and succeeded with by many people.

What you can't do is see the other side of things, and i am not trying to pick a fight or be horrible. Just saying that i DO see it from both sides, and i DO try to think outside the box.

Would you rather i suggest that both parents claim and put more strain on an already broken system...?

I think that BOTH parents have a moral obligation to work, regardless of wether they are together or not. It is the way of the world...! I also think that both parents have a moral obligation to care for there children both in support and financial care.

And i sit here and watch how many people get screwed (PWC & NRP) by a system that is horrendous with the view that the UK has it seriously wrong...! We are supposed to be a civilised society. Yet in this we are the most backward of the 1st world there is...!

Geez even America get it better than us when it comes to childcare and the time given to BOTH parents..!

If both work, then it is a different matter, but shared care is shared costs...! If i earned more than you, you would still be eligible for the WTC and CTC as well as the CB so why should i fund anymore of your life...? Do i not have the same responsibility for the shared care alternate weeks that YOU do...???

duchy

Deleted_User wrote: »

My friend has joint custody of his 2 children the Mother gets the higher rate and he gets the 2nd child rate of the Child Benefit. Unsure what happens with the tax credits I assume she claims something but he is a high earner and don't qualify for any.

That's just silly

If he is earning above the rate CTC is paid and she earns below by claiming child benefit he is depriving the mother's household (which includes his children) of the CTC she could be claiming. If he gets child benefit only he can claim CTC for that child (except he earns "too much" so can't ...and she can't claim for that child because CTCis only paid to the parent claiming child benefit).

Seems like he doesn't mind deliberately reducing the Mother of income to spend on their children for the sake of a principle ......I can't think of ANY situation that would make that a sensible way of doing things !

clearingout

kevin137 wrote: »

If both work, then it is a different matter, but shared care is shared costs...! If i earned more than you, you would still be eligible for the WTC and CTC as well as the CB so why should i fund anymore of your life...? Do i not have the same responsibility for the shared care alternate weeks that YOU do...???

technically the costs are the same for alternate weeks, yes. But what I'm saying is that if I had to go through this again, my ex wouldn't contribute. So I would pay full childcare - not half, full. I would have no choice but to pay full because I don't know of any nursery, childminder or school before/after provision that allows you pay on a week on/week off basis. If you want a place, you want it every week. End of. If I got clever and said bill my ex for the other week and it didn't get paid, they would refuse to take my children for the week that was paid. I would pay for all school uniform, clothing, shoes, hair cuts because my ex wouldn't. I would do all doctors, hosptial, dentist, speech therapy appointments, regardless of who's week they fell into. I would have to pay for any additional activity - swimming, Beavers, football. Again, like childcare, I'd have to pay for every week 'cos a space would be open for my child, regardless of whether or not they used it.

This is what I think you're not getting - is that some parents would demand shared care as a cost-cutting exercise for them without actually particpating in a fair and reasonable way in the financial side of bringing up that child. As it stands, the CSA will help me out but CSA3 is clearly stating 50/50 will no longer incur a maintenance liability on either side. Sure, I may earn less but that doesn't make me any less qualified or experienced or less worthy than my ex - I am personally far better qualified than my ex but we took different career paths and his is far more lucrative than mine. Sure, tax credits etc. may top up my average wage but for me, that still wouldn't put me in the same 'take home' range as my ex and he still wouldn't be forking out for our children.

To be honest Kevin, I think we're arguing over different sides of the same coin. I shall flounce off now!!!

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

This is what I think you're not getting - is that some parents would demand shared care as a cost-cutting exercise for them without actually particpating in a fair and reasonable way in the financial side of bringing up that child. As it stands, the CSA will help me out but CSA3 is clearly stating 50/50 will no longer incur a maintenance liability on either side. Sure, I may earn less but that doesn't make me any less qualified or experienced or less worthy than my ex - I am personally far better qualified than my ex but we took different career paths and his is far more lucrative than mine. Sure, tax credits etc. may top up my average wage but for me, that still wouldn't put me in the same 'take home' range as my ex and he still wouldn't be forking out for our children.

To be honest Kevin, I think we're arguing over different sides of the same coin. I shall flounce off now!!!

That is exactly what i am getting at, it doesn't fit every scenario i know, but if you have shared care and i earn more than you, then why shouldn't you claim the benefits like WTC CTC and CB, which would make some headway to evening the difference out, maybe possibly make your household income more...!

But that should not mean that i be penalised by having to pay you as well cos you make the claim for CB...

It just sucks and makes people choose to use the kids as a financial gain in my eyes, and shared care meaning no more CSA is a huge relief for many people i think...

On the flip side, for those with shared care, how many will now reduce the access purely because the money will be less and they need to do this to qualify for CSA...? And that is definitely wrong...!

rockcake67

The csa does take into account child benefit in shared care.The nrp gets a reduction to reflect this.