Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

clearingout

Marisco wrote: »

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.

Not all pwc have the benefit line open for them. You don't have to be earnong huge amounts for those options to be closed.

And the 40% is a huge amount of money to be taking, particularly from a household woth children and if the csa is the one to have made the mistake in the first place. On the otherhand nrps who willfully avoid payyment and have a partner who helps with that frankly deserve some hardship. Afterall, there's a pwc who has had to manage for weeks, months, years....

clearingout

*earning....

Bluemeanie_2

clearingout wrote: »

Not all pwc have the benefit line open for them. You don't have to be earnong huge amounts for those options to be closed.

Slightly off topic, but this is very true. It's often assumed on these boards (all of them, not just CSA) that because you have kids your automatically rolling in tax credits. I live in Leicester where the cost of living isn't that high and wages are about average compared to the south etc and you really don't have to be earning that much before you no longer qualify.

cakeforbrains

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.

I don't understand. The NRP partner's income is NOT taken into account when making maintenance calculations (with CSA2). In fact, the NRPP could be a millionaire, send her children to private school, and taken them on four foreign holidays a year but the fact that there are children in the NRP's household will automatically mean a deduction in the maintenance liability (whether the children are blood related to the NRP or not). I'm not saying that this is fair or unfair, but this is how it stands at the moment.

If the PWC gets a new partner, however his (let's just say 'his') income IS taken into account and deemed to be for the upkeep of the children. Tax credit claims, for instance, will take the PWC's partner's income wholly into account and so, technically, the PWC's partner is forced to be financially liable for somebody else's children. Of course, this is usually not a problem within households because one would hope that the new partner would be happy to 'take on' the children as part of the relationship (I know my husband is happy to).

I'm just pointing out that while the NRPP's income isn't expected to pay for the children, the PWCP's income is.

Bluemeanie_2

cakeforbrains wrote: »

I don't understand. The NRP partner's income is NOT taken into account when making maintenance calculations (with CSA2). In fact, the NRPP could be a millionaire, send her children to private school, and taken them on four foreign holidays a year but the fact that there are children in the NRP's household will automatically mean a deduction in the maintenance liability (whether the children are blood related to the NRP or not). I'm not saying that this is fair or unfair, but this is how it stands at the moment.

If the PWC gets a new partner, however his (let's just say 'his') income IS taken into account and deemed to be for the upkeep of the children. Tax credit claims, for instance, will take the PWC's partner's income wholly into account and so, technically, the PWC's partner is forced to be financially liable for somebody else's children. Of course, this is usually not a problem within households because one would hope that the new partner would be happy to 'take on' the children as part of the relationship (I know my husband is happy to).

I'm just pointing out that while the NRPP's income isn't expected to pay for the children, the PWCP's income is.

This is all true, but on the flip side, the outgoing maintenance from the NRP's household isn't accounted for in the tax credit/benefit calculation for the NRP's household. Also the PWC can ask for CTC to be taken into account from the NRPP's children (whether biological or not) so there is an argument about what is fair from every angle.

cakeforbrains

Bluemeanie wrote: »

This is all true, but on the flip side, the outgoing maintenance from the NRP's household isn't accounted for in the tax credit/benefit calculation for the NRP's household. Also the PWC can ask for CTC to be taken into account from the NRPP's children (whether biological or not) so there is an argument about what is fair from every angle.

Yeah, I can see that.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

I think that if NRP's expect a reduction in their assessment because they have a new family then they have to also accept that tax credits will be considered a form of income.

DUTR

cakeforbrains wrote: »

I don't understand. The NRP partner's income is NOT taken into account when making maintenance calculations (with CSA2). In fact, the NRPP could be a millionaire, send her children to private school, and taken them on four foreign holidays a year but the fact that there are children in the NRP's household will automatically mean a deduction in the maintenance liability (whether the children are blood related to the NRP or not). I'm not saying that this is fair or unfair, but this is how it stands at the moment.

If the PWC gets a new partner, however his (let's just say 'his') income IS taken into account and deemed to be for the upkeep of the children. Tax credit claims, for instance, will take the PWC's partner's income wholly into account and so, technically, the PWC's partner is forced to be financially liable for somebody else's children. Of course, this is usually not a problem within households because one would hope that the new partner would be happy to 'take on' the children as part of the relationship (I know my husband is happy to).

I'm just pointing out that while the NRPP's income isn't expected to pay for the children, the PWCP's income is.

Bluemeanie answered earlier,
I think they do ask, but not obliged to furnish the information, but that could be for CTC WTC etc, perhaps if the new NRPP is doing that, it could also be sponsored by the NRPP's NRP.
Holidays n stuff do not have to cost much, I'd say my daughter's Mum prolly pro rata earns more than I do, but is less prudent with money than me.

justontime

cakeforbrains wrote: »

If the PWC gets a new partner, however his (let's just say 'his') income IS taken into account and deemed to be for the upkeep of the children. Tax credit claims, for instance, will take the PWC's partner's income wholly into account and so, technically, the PWC's partner is forced to be financially liable for somebody else's children. Of course, this is usually not a problem within households because one would hope that the new partner would be happy to 'take on' the children as part of the relationship (I know my husband is happy to).

I'm just pointing out that while the NRPP's income isn't expected to pay for the children, the PWCP's income is.

If the NRP gets a new partner who has children the NRP has his/her full income (before CSA is taken off) taken into account when calculating the needs of those children or young adults (tax credits, bursaries, university funding etc). So the NRP is 'forced' to be financially liable for those children too.

I am sure that some people will say that NRPs and their partners should consider this before becoming a family unit. That is a fair point, but I don't think most people really understand how these things work until they have to deal with them. Separated parents have to be allowed to move on with their lives (while still fulfilling their responsibilities to their children). Step parents and step siblings can can enrich the lives of the children involved and it shouldn't be forgotten that in many cases both parents provide a home for their children.

Bluemeanie_2

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

I think that if NRP's expect a reduction in their assessment because they have a new family then they have to also accept that tax credits will be considered a form of income.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was just bringing what I see as a valid point into the equation.

I earn too much to qualify for tax credits on my salary alone (and it's not particularly high), so if me and Hubby split up and I got a new partner, who already had kids. He would get a discount for my child but there'd be no tax credits to class as "income" for his PWC to get. So in that case I can see the argument for unfairness. But whichever situation we debate on this site, it seems unfair to someone in one particular situation.