Change of circumstances

kevin137

We need a benefit system, that is for sure, the problem is it has become normal to abuse the system we have, and the minority that abuse it do so very well...!!!

The problem with that is that some innocents are going to get caught up in the changes. That said, if your children are at school age, then you have NO reason not to work so rightly it is a move that should be made, you don't have a RIGHT to stay at home just because you have children...!!!

And this brings us back to education, and if you choose not to take education to the next level because you are having a family then you have to think about the consequences, and in the past it has been all to easy to live off others...!!!

A prime example is football players, they spend a lot of time drunk in nightclubs, propositioned by women, and a few have been caught out holding there cheques books in there hands to pay for it, now they don't "earn" money, they are contracted to a company they own that pays for everything but gives a lesser income, thus resulting in a reduction in liability for earnings...

My point is, change is overdue, and i think once the !!!! hits the fan and we see lots of homeless and people committing suicide and all the other !!!! that goes with the wrongs the government does, then maybe we will see just how dependant we have become as a society...!

And i have no sympathy... The reason this happened, is because consecutive governments overtime BOUGHT VOTES with there welfare state...!!! And now we have a government strong enough to do something about it, i don;t like them, but they are trying...!!! And it needs to happen...

As for that video, maybe it is the extreme, but there are many many people out there like that, i used to come across them on a regular basis as a bus driver...! And they really do expect everything for free, including travel...!!!

FBaby

I wonder the reason why some nrps entitled to tax credits struggle with the concept of paying towards their children from previous relationship is that on one hand, they have children that bring them additional income, whilst the others incur outgoings, so unconsciously, the children from the current relationship are considered (unconsciously of course) beneficial whereas the others are seen as restrictive.

vodkaburner_2

This is the point!! I wouldn't be entitled to any tax credits if I wasn't married. It's only thanks to my wife that we can get anything, so why would tax credits be counted as MY income for CSA? It's a bit like making my present wife pay for the kids I had with someone else.

kevin137

vodkaburner wrote: »

This is the point!! I wouldn't be entitled to any tax credits if I wasn't married. It's only thanks to my wife that we can get anything, so why would tax credits be counted as MY income for CSA? It's a bit like making my present wife pay for the kids I had with someone else.

If you don't want it considered as YOUR income, then remove your name from the claim...

Oh no, you can't do that can you, as then she would not be eligible to claim it...

Which is why it is considered to be at least in part YOUR INCOME...

vodkaburner_2

I can't remove my name because we are married, so she can't put a claim in her name only as that would be a fraud.

krashovrload

++

I still see it as taking from one child to pay towards another (and I've never seen any justification that will make me see otherwise).

I still remember being told by the CSA (when I was on CSA1) that things like the Internet, cars and holidays were luxuries and that not everyone had them. I also remember asking her what was the point of working 40hrs a week if I wasn't allowed some luxuries? She just said that I 'didn't need to get like' and that was the matter closed.

++

365days

vodkaburner wrote: »

This is the point!! I wouldn't be entitled to any tax credits if I wasn't married. It's only thanks to my wife that we can get anything, so why would tax credits be counted as MY income for CSA? It's a bit like making my present wife pay for the kids I had with someone else.

I can understand your annoyance. It is will be just as annoying to your ex to have some of your earnings 'protected' due to having her child living in your house.

As someone has said earlier, the only fair way is for wtc not to be included, but also other children living in the nrp's house disregarded too.

shoe*diva79

365days wrote: »

I can understand your annoyance. It is will be just as annoying to your ex to have some of your earnings 'protected' due to having her child living in your house.

As someone has said earlier, the only fair way is for wtc not to be included, but also other children living in the nrp's house disregarded too.

Thats exactly what I said. No response from the OP about it tho!

shoe*diva79

krashovrload wrote: »

++

I still see it as taking from one child to pay towards another (and I've never seen any justification that will make me see otherwise).

I still remember being told by the CSA (when I was on CSA1) that things like the Internet, cars and holidays were luxuries and that not everyone had them. I also remember asking her what was the point of working 40hrs a week if I wasn't allowed some luxuries? She just said that I 'didn't need to get like' and that was the matter closed.

++

I only get luxuries after my children have everything they need and sometimes want. In fact, I go without all sorts of things, luxury and non luxury, so my children never go without. And I'm a PWC working 40 hours a week.