CSA Are they committing fraud??

kevin137

preludefortimefeelers wrote: »

so without the 2 kids; nrp receives £200 and pays £30 child support, leaving the nrp with £170.
With the two kids (assuming £113 tax credits): Nrp income is £313 (almost 57% more than earlier, to turn this around 'free tax-payers money simply for having children? This is fair in what world?'), pays £38 child support (rounded up), leaving the nrp with £275.

Out of that extra £113, the nrp receives £105. His/her other child gets £8 (7%). To be honest, i think that using these figures perhaps the nrp should count themselves lucky.

yepp... What he said...

wayne0

hey... kids cost money to raise... the PWC has these same benefits ETC... why should £8 be taken from the kids of second household...

CTC is considered an income when assessed for housing benefit ETC.

so housing benefit consider the family to have access to this additional £8 when calculating the amount of money the NRP has to pay their rent.

So...

considering that the CSA's "GOAL" is to put the child in the same position as before the parents split up:

EXPLAIN: How is taking money off one child - which wouldnt be here if the parents were together - achieving this goal.

it is simply acheiving the other primary goal: to extract as much money as physically possible from the NRP.
(see mp's guidance as issued in relation to new 2012 scheme)

kevin137

@wayne0

In 2010 it cost £192.50 to raise a child per week..!!!

So by my reckoning, that means you seriously underpay by what the government wants YOU to pay...!

On that basis, count yourself lucky and stop complaining...!!! I for one think you go on far too much about how hard done by you are, you chose to have children, you pay next to nothing for these children and then complain when your new children go without, again if you can;t afford them... DON'T HAVE THEM...!!!

I have a suggestion for you, go and see a doctor, and make an appointment to have the snip before you have another reason to complain...!!!

shoe*diva79

Ah Kevin, thats really made me smile!

HoneyNutLoop

Me too. :rotfl:

HoneyNutLoop

I know I will get shot for this, but here goes. The way I see it, almost all of your money (as your wife isn't eligible for anything given her status) is state given, rather than earned. You receive £150 a week housing benefit I think I recall reading, say another £25 a week council tax benefit (as I don't recall the figures), approx £114 a week CTC and SSP of £81.60 a week. That's £370 a week you get net. For someone to earn that, their gross pay would need to be approx £25000 and that person with the same household make up as you would be liable to pay child maintenance of £44 a week. That person, with two children in their household, would be entitled to nothing, no housing benefit, no CTC.

So while we're talking fair, how is it fair that you, as someone with the same income coming in and the same number of children as accounted for in the scenario, get to pay £21 a week less maintenance because you are largely state dependent than someone who is working to earn the same amount of money as you are given and is therefore financially self-sufficient? Please explain to me how that is fair? That person still has rent to pay and children to feed. Personally I feel all income should be treated the same irrespective of source. That way we stop punishing those people who are self-supporting.

FBaby

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

I know I will get shot for this, but here goes. The way I see it, almost all of your money (as your wife isn't eligible for anything given her status) is state given, rather than earned. You receive £150 a week housing benefit I think I recall reading, say another £25 a week council tax benefit (as I don't recall the figures), approx £114 a week CTC and SSP of £81.60 a week. That's £370 a week you get net. For someone to earn that, their gross pay would need to be approx £25000 and that person with the same household make up as you would be liable to pay child maintenance of £44 a week. That person, with two children in their household, would be entitled to nothing, no housing benefit, no CTC.

So while we're talking fair, how is it fair that you, as someone with the same income coming in and the same number of children as accounted for in the scenario, get to pay £21 a week less maintenance because you are largely state dependent than someone who is working to earn the same amount of money as you are given and is therefore financially self-sufficient? Please explain to me how that is fair? That person still has rent to pay and children to feed. Personally I feel all income should be treated the same irrespective of source. That way we stop punishing those people who are self-supporting.

Excellent post. I am always amazed at those whose income relies mostly or solely on tax payers money spending so much time complaining about the system and how they are hard done by.

wayne0

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

I know I will get shot for this, but here goes. The way I see it, almost all of your money (as your wife isn't eligible for anything given her status) is state given, rather than earned. You receive £150 a week housing benefit I think I recall reading, say another £25 a week council tax benefit (as I don't recall the figures), approx £114 a week CTC and SSP of £81.60 a week. That's £370 a week you get net. For someone to earn that, their gross pay would need to be approx £25000 and that person with the same household make up as you would be liable to pay child maintenance of £44 a week. That person, with two children in their household, would be entitled to nothing, no housing benefit, no CTC.

So while we're talking fair, how is it fair that you, as someone with the same income coming in and the same number of children as accounted for in the scenario, get to pay £21 a week less maintenance because you are largely state dependent than someone who is working to earn the same amount of money as you are given and is therefore financially self-sufficient? Please explain to me how that is fair? That person still has rent to pay and children to feed. Personally I feel all income should be treated the same irrespective of source. That way we stop punishing those people who are self-supporting.

all of my money is not STATE GIVEN...

My rent is not paid for me, I work for a living...

my council tax is not paid for me...


my CTC is actually now 74.73 due to my earnings last year... (payments were reassessed when completed tax return & updated TC's)
I actually lost WTC.

oh and my assesment was set at £46/week....

my wifes status makes my household money state given? - i work a full week despite serious health issues... thats expecting handouts...? I could easily be sat on ESA - and claiming everything (including carers allowance for my wife - as she is entitled to carers allowance due to being married to a british citizen - but the fact is: I choose to work where I can.)

Also SSP is based on my wage (and your wrong about the amount... its 85.85/week).

The fact remains, Im off work due to illness. and i have paid enough into the system over the years to justify claiming the SSP im entitled to. After all, isnt that the reason we pay Tax and National insurance - a guarentee that we wont have nothing should the worse happen!

and the next fact is: if UKBA actually got their acts together and sorted my wifes application under EEA law then she would be able to work in the UK and we wouldnt need to claim any Tax credits ETC.



BTW:
i think your refering to my post here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=56845975&postcount=38

my rent that i pay is £144.xx a week (£625/month)
i pay all my council tax (my wife is currently deemed to have no recourse and it would mean recourse if i claim council tax benefit )

whilst i state I CAN claim. did i actually say that i DO claim it?

as my wife entered the uk under EEA law, she should essentially be treated equally to an EEA national. We are just waiting for ukba to sort out her immigration case...

and also...


if you ddnt read the thread, you should... I had went round the council the day i posted that, and spoke to the advisors who told me i was elegible to claim 60 a week in hb... but doing so could affect my wifes residency as ukba currently have her down as NRPF.

HoneyNutLoop

You've missed the entire point I was trying to make.

FBaby

What will you do when your SSP runs out? Will you be back at work despite your serious health issues?

The fact is that you lost a job making your situation precarious, you then moved away, came back with your wife, knowing she couldn't work, and had a child to support. What do you do? Decide to have two children in a short time. Surely the responsible thing to do would have been to sort out your career (not just finding any job) and wait until your wife had an opportunity to gain employment too just in case, insuring you could support the child you already have BEFORE deciding to have two in a row.

YOu keep going on about your poor children who have to do with little and blaming everyone else for it. You made the decision to have them at an unstable time, that's the reason why they might not be getting all you wish they got. Yet despite the fact neither your wife not yourself are currently working, you are able to feed, clothes and shelter them, so surely the system is not that horrible towards them?