csa grrrrrr

shegirl

**Patty** wrote: »

But what's NOT fair is when the only child tax credits received are the premiums due to a child receiving DLA....a child which belongs to the NRP's Partner.......And the CSA include those in the NRPs calculation.

IMO.....those should be excluded. Normal tax credits, fair enough because of the reduction.....but not those.:)

But then,NRPs can get a reduction for having a disabled child in their new family because they cost more(they also get a lot more money)Those of us with disabled kids don't get extra from the NRPs because they cost more...

**Patty**

shegirl wrote: »

But then,NRPs can get a reduction for having a disabled child in their new family because they cost more(they also get a lot more money)Those of us with disabled kids don't get extra from the NRPs because they cost more...

They CAn apply for a variation yes......but have you seen the form?:eek:

I don't tell my mother that much.....let alone the NRPs ex wife!

(in case you havn't....you have to fill in an almost-DLA type form including ALL rates of DLA & then it's sent to the PWC for her to look at to see if she agrees! )

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

In the case of the nrp only contributing £50 a month for the living expenses of an 18 year old, then surely he can see that he isn't even close to contributing half of what the child cost. How can he feel agreeved by it? That nrp has a child who manages to survives and enjoy a certain lifestyle either supported by the pwc alone, or with the help of her partner and/or the help of tax payers.

My view is that that nrp should feel extremely grateful that he is under no pressure to contribute to 50% of the cost of that child's living. What would it do if the system was such that it was what he was expect to contribute regardless of his earnings?

I didn't make myself clear, that was a week not month. The figures were only a sample anyway, I wasn't using "proper" figures, as I can't be arrised working them out! The point I was making though, was that an NRP's income for the purpose of means tested benefit, is counted before the maintenance is taken off, whereas an PWC's maintenance is disregarded for means tested benefit purposes. This is not fair.

As Calley points out, her PWC is considerably better off due to benefits than her family who works. As for a disregard for "overnights", it still means the NRP has to have a bigger house/flat to accommodate the child/ren, so will have the same housing costs, with none of the benefits to pay for it, as the PWC.

As for supporting a child who is an adult, where will it end? The gov are talking about stopping HB for people under 25, will the NRP be expected to still give the PWC CM? When a "child" reaches 18, then the NRP should have the option of paying the "child" him/herself, and what happens then is between the "child" and the PWC.

I'm all for fairness to everyone, but the way the system is set up now, it's weighted in favour of PWC's. I'm not talking about the "won't pays" here, but those who are doing their best on the same amount of money they had before they split up.

As for the NRP being grateful for not being forced to contribute 50%, that is just ridiculous!! How is the NRP supposed to live then? Say he gets £1000 per month, and he has to contribute £500 of that to CM, bear in mind if he applies for benefit, he will be assessed on £1000 not £500 he has left, so it's odds on he won't get anything or very little. So how is he supposed to live, also bearing in mind that the PWC will be claiming WTC (if working no matter how little!) CTC, CB, HB, CT and maintenance on top of that.

Now you tell me who will be worse off! I'm talking about your average Jane Bloggs here, not high earners who won't qualify or need the benefits. At 50% the NRP won't even be able to afford to rent anywhere, never mind somewhere where he can have overnights with his kids!

As I'll never see eye to eye with those who think the system is fair I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. I think the deadbeats are despicable, but when it boils down to it, it has to be fair to the NRP as well. To me it's always been about affordability, and I think it's not right that the CSA can leave an NRP almost destitute.

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

You realise that any PWC who comes on here and says they are struggling to make ends meet gets called a 'benefit scrounger' and is told to get off their backside and work for a living? Amazing how different it is for new partners, isn't it?

I hadn't picked up that the pwc was actually working. So she's working and at least contributing towards her child, probably not much less than the nrp, but because nrpp has decided not to work, he should contribute less towards his first child? That's a bit rich....

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

I hadn't picked up that the pwc was actually working. So she's working and at least contributing towards her child, probably not much less than the nrp, but because nrpp has decided not to work, he should contribute less towards his first child? That's a bit rich....

yep! this is something I can't stand. PWC who don't work = benefit scroungers, PWC who work part-time = benefit scroungers/not hard enough working/lazy/.....PWC who work full-time = neglectful of their children and/or have enough money that they don't need the support of the NRP.

Whatever the outcome, the NRP and his/her new partner usually manage to twist the situation to them being hard done by, hardworking people who shouldn't have to contribute towards the upbringing of 'other' children. Doesn't matter what the PWC do, we will never 'win'. :rotfl:

365days

FBaby wrote: »

just picked up your post 365days. The counter-argument is that every one is entitled to move on and have more children. That's fair enough, but that doesn't mean that maintenance should be much reduced as a result when the contribution is already minimal. The decision to have a baby should take into consideration the limitation of the current situation, however much they wish they were not there.

It's easy to ignore what one doesn't want to see, and then moan because it still there...

Not sure I really understand what you are saying, or which post you are referring to. However, I agree everyone is entitled to move on and everyone is entitled to have more children. What they should not be entitled to do is to reduce the contribution they were making in maintenance payments because they have decieded to have another child. It reminds me a little of re homing the cat and keeping the kittens.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

I didn't make myself clear, that was a week not month. The figures were only a sample anyway, I wasn't using "proper" figures, as I can't be arrised working them out! The point I was making though, was that an NRP's income for the purpose of means tested benefit, is counted before the maintenance is taken off, whereas an PWC's maintenance is disregarded for means tested benefit purposes. This is not fair.

Well, as a pwc, my taxes are considered before I paid the huge childcare bill I had to pay which left me with significantly less, but that wasn't discounted either...

As Calley points out, her PWC is considerably better off due to benefits than her family who works. As for a disregard for "overnights", it still means the NRP has to have a bigger house/flat to accommodate the child/ren, so will have the same housing costs, with none of the benefits to pay for it, as the PWC.

As pointed by clearingout, of course she will be better off since she has a child whose two parents work. As a family, the only difference is that she only has to work 16 hours whereas the nrp would need to work at least 24 hours. She too will have costs associated with her child and that's not taken into account when working out what she is entitled too.

As for the NRP being grateful for not being forced to contribute 50%, that is just ridiculous!! How is the NRP supposed to live then? Say he gets £1000 per month, and he has to contribute £500 of that to CM, bear in mind if he applies for benefit, he will be assessed on £1000 not £500 he has left, so it's odds on he won't get anything or very little. So how is he supposed to live, also bearing in mind that the PWC will be claiming WTC (if working no matter how little!) CTC, CB, HB, CT and maintenance on top of that.

How he is supposed to live is a decision one makes before they decide to have more children to support. The reality is that he already has a child that he can't support if he isn't able to contribute towards half of their costs, so why oh why decide to have another one???

PS; The 50% was half of the cost of the child, not half of the nrp salary in case that wasn't clear.

FBaby

365days wrote: »

Not sure I really understand what you are saying, or which post you are referring to. However, I agree everyone is entitled to move on and everyone is entitled to have more children. What they should not be entitled to do is to reduce the contribution they were making in maintenance payments because they have decieded to have another child. It reminds me a little of re homing the cat and keeping the kittens.

I wasn't very clear indeed. I was agreeing with you, but was forecasting the response to your comment, which usually is that nrps are entitled to move on and have more children (no matter their financial position).

FBaby

clearingout wrote: »

yep! this is something I can't stand. PWC who don't work = benefit scroungers, PWC who work part-time = benefit scroungers/not hard enough working/lazy/.....PWC who work full-time = neglectful of their children and/or have enough money that they don't need the support of the NRP. :rotfl:

This made me laugh because I think you have summarised every possible pwc situations!!

Cally_Smart

I can see both sides but is an nrp never supposed to have a life after divorce.It's particularly hard to condense everything into a post on here .We have always been supportive of children & we had them EVERY weekend for well over 5 years (& I was working all week myself).Was hard work meeting someone with 4 children & I didn't think for one minute it would be otherwise.There are disputed 'arrears' & the pwc has alienated them from us which is very sad for all.