Child Maintenance

FBaby

supersaver2 wrote: »

I'm finding it slightly baffling that parents that earn 80k between them are entitled to 15k in benefits towards the upbringing of their children!!

That's the problem with the system, it doesn't take into account the income of parents when it comes to children benefits, but that of the household the child happens to live in. Doesn't make much sense to me, but it does to many others.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

That's the problem with the system, it doesn't take into account the income of parents when it comes to children benefits, but that of the household the child happens to live in. Doesn't make much sense to me, but it does to many others.

But what is the point of taking his income into account, he doesn't live with her! He pays his maintenance (presumably the right amount) and then benefits are calculated on her income alone, as it should be. I do think CM should be counted as income though, as all an NRP's income i.e WTC, CTC, is counted for CM purposes.

tea_lover

Gavin83 wrote: »

I doubt his income is considered when it comes to benefits, he isn't living with her after all.

Well nor am I.

shoe*diva79

Marisco wrote: »

But what is the point of taking his income into account, he doesn't live with her! He pays his maintenance (presumably the right amount) and then benefits are calculated on her income alone, as it should be. I do think CM should be counted as income though, as all an NRP's income i.e WTC, CTC, is counted for CM purposes.

The only problem with CM being treated as income is when the NRP does not pay on a regular basis.

I have previously had an assessment at £464 per month from the CSA. That didn't mean I got that tho. Some months I did, others I may have received £82 and one month I received just £13! If my tax credits were worked out that I was getting that 'income' every month then my children would have suffered.

supersaver2

I understand that is the system and people should claim what they are legally entitled to. But at the end of the day 2 people have made the decisions to have children, earn 80k between them, yet are still entitled to 15k in benefits to help pay for THEIR children.

peachyprice

supersaver2 wrote: »

I understand that is the system and people should claim what they are legally entitled to. But at the end of the day 2 people have made the decisions to have children, earn 80k between them, yet are still entitled to 15k in benefits to help pay for THEIR children.

No, one parent earns £10k and is entitled to benefits, the other earns £70k, and pays £9600 in child maintenance.

You cannot leave a divorced woman financially dependent on her ex husband.

rpc

supersaver2 wrote: »

I understand that is the system and people should claim what they are legally entitled to. But at the end of the day 2 people have made the decisions to have children, earn 80k between them, yet are still entitled to 15k in benefits to help pay for THEIR children.

So you cut tax credits for the PWC and increase maintenance from the NRP. But to have the effect you seem to want, the payment from the NRP would have to be linked to the PWC's income.

PWC earns more, they need less support so maintenance goes down. PWC earns less or quits work and the NRP finds that their maintenance has gone up completely out of their control and their carefully planned budget is broken leading to potentially dire consequences just because PWC wanted to screw with them by dicking around with the maintenance amount.

Unworkable.

Tax credits is down to the household income, its the only way to make it a workable system. Mess around with it too severely and it will be the child that suffers. It's easy to say "cut this benefit" "cut that benefit" but it will end up hurting children who are innocent.

I actually think that benefits should be less generous but high marginal withdrawal rates force people out of work and in many cases you will be pushing children into poverty. So then I think that if parents can't provide for their children (I have 3 btw) then the state should take the children into care rather than leave them in poverty. Then I realise that's a :mad:outcome for the kids and reason myself into the position that (extreme daily mail cases excepted) a benefits system that is a bit too generous is better than the alternatives.

It's easy to criticise the current system, - there's a lot wrong with it. It's far far harder to come up with an alternative that isn't a steaming pile of :eek:.

lazer

peachyprice wrote: »

No, one parent earns £10k and is entitled to benefits, the other earns £70k, and pays £9600 in child maintenance.

You cannot leave a divorced woman financially dependent on her ex husband.

She should be entitled to benefits for herself, but not child related benefits, unless she would otherwise be entitled to more than £9,600 in child related benefits

peachyprice

lazer wrote: »

She should be entitled to benefits for herself, but not child related benefits, unless she would otherwise be entitled to more than £9,600 in child related benefits

Isn't benefits for childcare for herself? The alternative is she gets no help with child care so doesn't bother going out to work. Great.

These aren't benefits so that she can sit at home being a SAHM, they're benefits so that she can do the right thing and go out ton work.

And lets face it, with £990 tax free coming into the home each month it would be very easy for OP to say sod it.

supersaver2

peachyprice wrote: »

No, one parent earns £10k and is entitled to benefits, the other earns £70k, and pays £9600 in child maintenance.

You cannot leave a divorced woman financially dependent on her ex husband.

You say 'no' but what part of my point was wrong? These children have 2 parents that earn 80k between them, yet are entitled to 15k in benefits to benefit their children seeing as the main benefits mum will be entitled to are child related.

Mum will get the 15k regardless that Dad earns 70k and contributes nearly 10k himself - absolute madness! Mum would still get the 15k if Dad earns 500k and contributed 50k!

Another solution would Dad being the main carer, it would appear he can afford the 3 children, but can't imagine that being a popular option on these boards! Mum would then receive next to nothing in benefits, perhaps a little extra in the way of working tax credit.