Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

365days

Just my 2p's worth.

When my NRP moved in with his new partner and her child our assesment was drastically reduced.

I really have never understood this. He was better off - He had her income coming into the house, She was better off - she received CM from her child's NRP and also was now sharing bills etc. So how and why did our assesment reduce. Never ever understood the logic of it.

As far as outgoings should be taken into account. I think there should be questions asked on how the outgoings have changed as a result of splitting up. So if travel costs have increased due to access they should be taken into account. If significant debts have been run up due to having to rent while the sale of house etc have gone through then again this should be taken into account. If however you you've chosen as a NRP to buy a bigger house, take on someone else family, or whack £10k's worth of gadgets on your Credit card then that is down to you and the decision to do that should be considered in the knowledge that your CM will come first.

One scenario that I am not sure about is when the NRP has a family already and the child is the result of an affair. Then a certain amount of income should be protected for the original family.

In short, children should have a 'claim' to money in order of birth.

sfm82

365days wrote: »

In short, children should have a 'claim' to money in order of birth.

Er...I don't think that subsequent children should be seen as financially less important than the first born.

It would be ridiculous to take into account every conceivable scenario related to a break up and divvy up the money fairly.

Breakups can be messy emotionally and financially but when there are children involved it should be up to the parents as adults to split the assets amicably instead of relying on a government body to pick up the pieces and make everything better.

I also disagree that the income of the new partner should be taken into consideration, they should not be made financially responsible by law for children that are not biologically theirs.

Cally_Smart

40% is a lot to lose of your income when the going rate is 20% for 2 children especially when you are only in 'arrears ' because of what the pwc is saying to the CSA & you paid that all along !!(& more !)

365days

sfm82 wrote: »

Er...I don't think that subsequent children should be seen as financially less important than the first born.

It would be ridiculous to take into account every conceivable scenario related to a break up and divvy up the money fairly.

Breakups can be messy emotionally and financially but when there are children involved it should be up to the parents as adults to split the assets amicably instead of relying on a government body to pick up the pieces and make everything better.

I also disagree that the income of the new partner should be taken into consideration, they should not be made financially responsible by law for children that are not biologically theirs.

So in your scenario, a child that is the result of an affair could feasibly leave the original children worse off?

And if you don't think NRPP should be made financially responsible for children that are not biologically theirs why should NRP's be.

If you don't agree that the 'first born' family should have first dibs do you think that every time a new child is born/taken on CM should be reduced?

cakeforbrains

sfm82 wrote: »

Er...I don't think that subsequent children should be seen as financially less important than the first born.

It would be ridiculous to take into account every conceivable scenario related to a break up and divvy up the money fairly.

Breakups can be messy emotionally and financially but when there are children involved it should be up to the parents as adults to split the assets amicably instead of relying on a government body to pick up the pieces and make everything better.

I also disagree that the income of the new partner should be taken into consideration, they should not be made financially responsible by law for children that are not biologically theirs.

In an ideal world, yes. But in an ideal world we wouldn't need court cases, employment tribunals, or anything else. Why shouldn't parents and their children benefit from a standardised system, especially when it's likely that there will be power inequalities between the two parents.

Can you explain what you mean by your last paragraph - genuinely not sure.

Marisco

365days wrote: »

As far as outgoings should be taken into account. I think there should be questions asked on how the outgoings have changed as a result of splitting up. So if travel costs have increased due to access they should be taken into account. If significant debts have been run up due to having to rent while the sale of house etc have gone through then again this should be taken into account. If however you you've chosen as a NRP to buy a bigger house, take on someone else family, or whack £10k's worth of gadgets on your Credit card then that is down to you and the decision to do that should be considered in the knowledge that your CM will come first.

Yes I agree with this. Normal outgoings should be taken into account, but not extra outgoings i.e huge house with massive mortgage, latest gizzmos etc. I also think 40% of income is way too high, that's nearly half of the NRP's income, how on earth is anyone supposed to move on with that kind of expense to pay? The PWC's can claim all sorts of extra benefits that are not available to the NRP's as well, even if they have shared access.

365days

Does maintenance paid get taken into consideration for Tax credits.

Say. NRP household earns £20k but pays 4k in CM. Is income for tax credit purposed £20k or £16K?

DUTR

cakeforbrains wrote: »

In an ideal world, yes. But in an ideal world we wouldn't need court cases, employment tribunals, or anything else. Why shouldn't parents and their children benefit from a standardised system, especially when it's likely that there will be power inequalities between the two parents.

Can you explain what you mean by your last paragraph - genuinely not sure.

I'm not sure what you don't understand with the post you were reffering to.
I as a NRP pay my CSA, if I went on to co-habit with a partner, then her income is NOTHING to do with my history.
If the new partner has children it is deemed that the new partner is partly responsible and hence a reduction, however I'm not sure why some of you are jumping up and down about 1st and subsequent children. If you were together then the 2nd and subsequent children have to make do with the income of the parents, Daddy doesn't suddenly magic more money for the whole family.

365days

DUTR wrote: »

I'm not sure what you don't understand with the post you were reffering to.
I as a NRP pay my CSA, if I went on to co-habit with a partner, then her income is NOTHING to do with my history.
If the new partner has children it is deemed that the new partner is partly responsible and hence a reduction, however I'm not sure why some of you are jumping up and down about 1st and subsequent children. If you were together then the 2nd and subsequent children have to make do with the income of the parents, Daddy doesn't suddenly magic more money for the whole family.

But can't you see that your new partners children have NOTHING to do with your commitment to pay for your own children. They are the responsibility of her and her own NRP surely?

DUTR

365days wrote: »

But can't you see that your new partners children have NOTHING to do with your commitment to pay for your own children. They are the responsibility of her and her own NRP surely?

The commitment is not suddenly not irrelevant though. Between the lines it gets to, very little to do with the children, but more to do with the PWC doesn't want the NRP to move on.
There is one pot of money and it has to be shared by all concerned, it like if the rules changed to say if the PWC has a new partner the NRP doesn't have to contribute, as he can now assist with the PWC family