Child tax credits used for CSA payments

shegirl

Oh come on,you are on benefits.Working tax credit and child tax credit.What's child tax credit for 5 kids per week?around £270-£300 alone?then add on child benefit x5,working tax credits...

Like it or not you are on benefits and your girlfriend has been on maternity and generally has a low wage.

sleeping_tiger wrote: »

We claim no benefits and pay our way for all the children

I would pay the csa bill whatever comes through

But issue was just with them taking childs tax credits into account whether you work or don't. Unless claiming income support or jobseekers.

I think many other families would struggle by this and wanted to post to see if other where going through same thing. But here people judging and jumping to conclusions. Have found other websites that people have same views (why should children's money pay for other children that get same amount per child)

I am not supported by the state and am very pleased to spend time with my family.

shegirl

Two points.

1.How exactly can she claim tax credits as a single person to get more money while living with him as her partner?(not that she could get more anyway,which leads onto second point)

2.OP gave up working to be a stay at home dad to all the kids living with him and has no income of his own.

kevin137 wrote: »

The way to look at it is not that the childrens money or CTC is taken into account as more that you shouldn't have to support them as they are primarily either not your children, and if they are have 2 parents in the house to support them not just you...

This issue comes up on many occassions, normally when you meet someone else who already have children, and it changes very quickly.

SOme basic sums to explain the situation quickly would be an income after tax of £400 2 children from previous relationship and 2 children of new partner (not yours) .

Prior to new relationship would be £80 per week in CSA

New relationship is £64 a week.

You have a legal responsibility to support your children, you don't however have a legal responsibility to support the new children, yet it is still taken into account. Now if your new partner claims CTC as a couple, then that has to be taken into account, as it is deemed that you have a higher income as a joint claim, if you want to take this out of the equation, it is simple, your new partner makes a single person claim for CTC.

So answer this, what or how much would your new partner receive in CTC as a single person. Is it more or less than the £16 a week difference you get in CTC. If it is more then you are no worse off as it is calibrated to allow for your income and amount of children in your current household regardless of if the children are yours or not. If it is less than the £16 a week, then she should claim as a single person to get more, but you would pay more in CSA.

The mathematics behind it is simple, in such a diverse wold with benefits payable to nearly 50% of the country in some form or another there will always be people upset.

I don't dispute your anger and frustration at seeing the current household children going without, but you still have to accept that if your earnings have not changed neither should your liability regardless of who you live with. That is personal choice. But you still have a financial obligation which you appear to take seriously and that is a good thing for sure.

Just take it with a pinch of salt and try to work out what the financial implications are if you where still single now. More money to pay on bills etc as you would pay them all. In your current situation you should not be paying them all...

kevin137

What i meant was if he didn't like paying over part of the CTC as an assessment she (his partner) should claim the tax credit as a single person, and then it would be irrelevant.

He would pay more in CSA but they would not have CTC taken into account, i doubt the CTC would go up though, possibly even down if she is not employed if she is even eligible...

Does that make more sense...? The primary reason for CTC being paid is from having someone employed in the house... And that person has to be paying tax. That is why it is a tax credit surely, if no tax is paid, then they cannot credit the tax back to you..

That is my take on it anyway.

Fission

sleeping_tiger wrote: »

... issue was just with them taking childs tax credits into account whether you work or don't.

The effect of tax credits for someone who is working is as a negative income tax (that's why they're paid by the Revenue and not DWP).

If someone is paying £60 in income tax, and getting £50 in tax credits, the effect is the same as if he were paying £10 in income tax. If he gets £70 tax credits, he's receiving tax from the Revenue rather than the other way round.

That's why tax credits are taken into account - they are very relevant to the calculation of net income (gross - tax - NI - pension contributions).

For someone who's not working and has no income, any tax credits payable to a household where someone is working are being paid in respect of his partner's earnings, and if that's so, the credits will be seen as her income (she being the partner with the higher earnings).

For someone who's not working and is claiming benefit (whether or not getting tax credits), the receipt of the benefit alone will either mean that he is liable to pay either £5 or nil. The tax credits won't come into it.

Essentially, then, the only time they're taken into account is when the parent is the main earner in a family and is earning. Or has earnings attributed to him via a variation.

FBaby

Since you seem to be a very caring dad, how did you explain to your children that they have to do with less because you wanted to spend more time with your new baby? Because however you try to make it that it is to spend more time for all his children, I'm sure their brain will do quick calculation...dad decides to stop working just as new baby is born. It's because he wants to spend more time with baby and he doesn't care if it means that we get less as a result...

shegirl

You don't need to work to get child tax credits.They are also paid to anyone unemployed/on benefits with resident children.

How would he pay more in CSA if she claimed as a single person?The only way that would happen is if the OP was working -he isn't.Furthermore,that could be also be benefit fraud as it is based upon the income of both adults within the household.If he was working she could not claim as a single person-both details are needed leaving it as a joint claim.I believe whether one is working or not,if you have a partner they must be on your claim.

kevin137 wrote: »

What i meant was if he didn't like paying over part of the CTC as an assessment she (his partner) should claim the tax credit as a single person, and then it would be irrelevant.

He would pay more in CSA but they would not have CTC taken into account, i doubt the CTC would go up though, possibly even down if she is not employed if she is even eligible...

Does that make more sense...? The primary reason for CTC being paid is from having someone employed in the house... And that person has to be paying tax. That is why it is a tax credit surely, if no tax is paid, then they cannot credit the tax back to you..

That is my take on it anyway.

shegirl

Correct me if I'm wrong,but (and it's been stated on here before aswell as elsewhere-hence asking) I thought it was only working tax credits that were used depending on who is the highest earner whereas child tax credits are always taken as the nrps income?

Fission wrote: »

The effect of tax credits for someone who is working is as a negative income tax (that's why they're paid by the Revenue and not DWP).

If someone is paying £60 in income tax, and getting £50 in tax credits, the effect is the same as if he were paying £10 in income tax. If he gets £70 tax credits, he's receiving tax from the Revenue rather than the other way round.

That's why tax credits are taken into account - they are very relevant to the calculation of net income (gross - tax - NI - pension contributions).

For someone who's not working and has no income, any tax credits payable to a household where someone is working are being paid in respect of his partner's earnings, and if that's so, the credits will be seen as her income (she being the partner with the higher earnings).

For someone who's not working and is claiming benefit (whether or not getting tax credits), the receipt of the benefit alone will either mean that he is liable to pay either £5 or nil. The tax credits won't come into it.

Essentially, then, the only time they're taken into account is when the parent is the main earner in a family and is earning. Or has earnings attributed to him via a variation.

Fission

shegirl wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong,but (and it's been stated on here before aswell as elsewhere-hence asking) I thought it was only working tax credits that were used depending on who is the highest earner whereas child tax credits are always taken as the nrps income?

That is true. I was trying to keep my answer as simple as possible.

Not many people will get enough per week to take them onto the full 15%/20%/25% basic rate (at least, not without earnings as well), but it is probable that a good proportion of such cases would result in the £5 a week flat rate liability.

kevin137

I stand corrected and learned something new, i always thought both parts where taken into account if the NRP was the higher earner....

So WTC would be relevant as you need to work to get them...

It is swings and roundabouts though, there are 1000's claiming as single parents when there are 2 living there, they pay more but get more...

I don't agree with any of the system in the UK it all needs dragging to the bin and starting again...

As i have said before, you should not be eligible to claim anything if you have equity including a car over a certain value, and that value should be a total of savings bank account car and property...!!! It makes me sick that so many people get away with beating the system...!!!

My nan worked hard all her life, saved every penny, went without, never had holidays etc etc and now she is in a care home paying for herself... £215,000 so far, yet the same care is offered to someone who has sat on benefits all there life, and doesn't have a penny in savings, but had 3 holidays a year, new car every year and lived in cheap council property... You get my point...!!!

FBaby

sleeping_tiger wrote: »

Yes is normal, taking a few months break was to spend time with children and let my partners business get up and running to benefit all the children.

I don't understand your rationale in any case. You say that you took time off to benefit ALL your children. You also say that it will allow your partner to start her business to benefit ALL the children... so why is it such an issue that the tax credits you receive should benefit ALL the children.