Should NRP Outgoings be Taken into Account?

DACC

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Isn't it similar to terms and conditions at a job?
People who started working at my place 10 years ago have got a cushier set of terms and conditions than people who started when I did 4 years ago. They pay smaller pension contributions, have a shorter working week, and have a few other perks. Likewise, there have been changes to terms and conditions since I started, so any new entrants get a day and a half less leave than others.

No it most certainly is not. How preposterous. Give me a satisfactory reason why one person should pay more maintenance % than another?

DACC

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

There are an awful lot of NRPs on cs1 assessed as having nothing to pay who would actually have to contribute more on Cs2. Funnily enough you never seem to hear much from them complaining about being stuck on CS1.

Could you explain that please? Thanks.

Mr.Whitey

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Isn't it similar to terms and conditions at a job?
People who started working at my place 10 years ago have got a cushier set of terms and conditions than people who started when I did 4 years ago. They pay smaller pension contributions, have a shorter working week, and have a few other perks. Likewise, there have been changes to terms and conditions since I started, so any new entrants get a day and a half less leave than others.

Not at all...If I was to apply for a job at your place I would be able to read the terms and conditions of my (possible) employment, and accept or decline the contract depending on what I thought of them, in other words, I would have a choice...

That 'choice' factor makes it about as far away from 'terms and conditions' for a job as you could get.

sfm82

365days wrote: »

Apologies not that great at quoting skills.

Everyone has their own take depending on their circumstances, but as I've said before I just can't see how a NRP should have money protected for CM to children they have had beofre due to taking on someone elses kids.

I'm sure many NRP would be peed off that their children who they were paying for were letting the PWCP off their own CM liability, while not getting any reduction in their own payment.

All these PWC/NRP get confusing so.

Janet and John have a child.
MIke and Mary have a child.

Janet splits with John and moves in with Mike.

Mike has to pay less CM to Mary due to having Janet's child living with them.

John still has to pay the same.

Mary loses out.



Not fair!

Yes I contribute but I contribute what I want to not what someone tells me I should, I also know where my money is going.

IMHO the feelings you have with the PWC losing out for the sake of the financial obligations of bringing up other peoples children has a major flaw in that it can prevent the NRP from moving on.

jacklink

cakeforbrains, i only read your original question, and your question was should NRPs money be taken into account? my answer to this is yes, however this isnt what the law says, and the law doesnt take it into account, which i feel is unfair. most nrps have little or no money but the government doesnt care, as long as they can get some money even if it causes hardship and starvation they are not bothered. imagine your father starving ? having nothing, would you be happy?

clearingout

jacklink wrote: »

cakeforbrains, i only read your original question, and your question was should NRPs money be taken into account? my answer to this is yes, however this isnt what the law says, and the law doesnt take it into account, which i feel is unfair. most nrps have little or no money but the government doesnt care, as long as they can get some money even if it causes hardship and starvation they are not bothered. imagine your father starving ? having nothing, would you be happy?

'most' NRP's have little or no money? where is your evidence?

jacklink

solicitors, barristers, judges and lawyers make a hell of a lot of money you know, ? yu do know that dont you ?you do realise thats what its all for dont you ?

jacklink

well if you want me to do research give me a little time please, but on the other hand where is the evidence that NRPs are rich ? wish i was

cakeforbrains

So, Jacklink, how would you fix the Child Support problem? How would you make it fair if you were in charge?

clearingout

jacklink wrote: »

well if you want me to do research give me a little time please, but on the other hand where is the evidence that NRPs are rich ? wish i was

I am not suggesting NRPs are 'rich'. But I am not aware of any studies with empirical sampling that demonstrates 'most' NRPs are 'poor'. There is an awful lot of information on the poverty experienced by single parent households, however, which by default would suggest at least some PWC are 'poor'. There is plenty of evidence that most PWC are female and evidence that despite legislation, some women earn less for doing the same jobs that men do; there is also evidence that demonstrates having babies and taking time out of the workplace to raise children has a negative impact on women's earning power.

I would therefore make an educated guess that more PWC can be considered 'poor' than NRPs. However, a single, minimum wage earning NRP will of course be worse off (on a £ for £ basis of income coming in) than a single, minimum wage earning PWC because of the premium added to earnings by way of child benefit, tax credit and maintenance. I would guess that unemployed or minimum wage earning NRPs mirror the percentage of the wider population who are unemployed or minimum wage earning.

All of which, when you add it together, probably means that we are unable to make generalisations about NRPs/PWC generally because the money they have coming into their households will vary wildly - just like it does across the population as a whole.