Child Maintenance

janninew

clearingout wrote: »

Exactly. This thread makes for terrifying reading. :money:

I must admit what made for terrifying reading was the sheer amount of benefits people are entitled to and no matter how much maintenance you get you are still treated by the state as receiving nothing. No wonder the benefits bill has spiralled out of control.

peachyprice

janninew wrote: »

I must admit what made for terrifying reading was the sheer amount of benefits people are entitled to and no matter how much maintenance you get you are still treated by the state as receiving nothing. No wonder the benefits bill has spiralled out of control.

Child maintenance is exactly that though,100% for the children, not spousal maintenance.

I really don't see the problem with working single parents receiving enough benefits to remain in work through out their children's school days, at least they will be able to carry on working, get a better job by the time their children have grown up and hopefully eventually been in a position to put back into society what they received when they needed it. The alternative of single parents not being able to go to work because of childcare costs is pretty bleak.

liney

I personally think that maintenance should be included in the calculation. Her benefits should be calculated on £24k which is the amount she would need to earn to net her current wages plus £800 per month: £1600 per month net. This would be on par with what happens in a two parent household.

shoe*diva79

I am astounded by the number of posters who think just because someone has a CSA calculation, that they will be in receipt of that money. Pop over to the CSA board and see the sheer number of PWC who are fighting to see a single penny of their exes child maintenance despite what they should be receiving.

bloolagoon

liney wrote: »

I personally think that maintenance should be included in the calculation. Her benefits should be calculated on £24k which is the amount she would need to earn to net her current wages plus £800 per month: £1600 per month net. This would be on par with what happens in a two parent household.

So a parent who never married/partnered doesn't declare the father gets more (the tax credits is higher than maintenance) than someone like OP who I doubt planned a separation as most never set out with that in mind. My OH has an income similar to her ex and if we split up why should I end up with the same amount as someone who doesn't have a partners income. By that I mean if my OH wasn't earning so no maintenance. Surely it's to help the child maintain a level of living that they had prior to separation.

However, I don't understand the whole tax credit system full stop and lay the blame for low wages firmly on its shoulders. As I posted last week when a part time NMW earner gets £5 an hour more than a professional on a full time comparison we went wrong somewhere. People also criticise the disability elements and why they give higher tax credits and how the hours required are so low at 24 hours per couple and how it pays for SAHP until their "children" are 20 with no need to seek work. That's in addition to the fact they can have savings and capital and still receive them. It's a mess but I'm not convinced there is a fair way to treat maintenance without it backfiring.

janninew

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

I am astounded by the number of posters who think just because someone has a CSA calculation, that they will be in receipt of that money. Pop over to the CSA board and see the sheer number of PWC who are fighting to see a single penny of their exes child maintenance despite what they should be receiving.

But the op who we are discussing on this thread does receive her child maintenance as stated in her post. Didn't maintenance use to count as income? How was the system run then?

shoe*diva79

janninew wrote: »

But the op who we are discussing on this thread does receive her child maintenance as stated in her post. Didn't maintenance use to count as income? How was the system run then?

But what many posters are suggesting would affect people who do and do not receive maintenance. So how would you suggest it works for those who dont actually receive the money due to them?

Previously if a PWC was in receipt of Income Support then they would be able to keep the first £10 then the rest went towards covering their income support bill.

I believe the reason the law changed in 2010 was to ensure all the children this put in poverty were given a better standard of living.

Marisco

bloolagoon wrote: »

So a parent who never married/partnered doesn't declare the father gets more (the tax credits is higher than maintenance) than someone like OP who I doubt planned a separation as most never set out with that in mind. My OH has an income similar to her ex and if we split up why should I end up with the same amount as someone who doesn't have a partners income. By that I mean if my OH wasn't earning so no maintenance. Surely it's to help the child maintain a level of living that they had prior to separation.

However, I don't understand the whole tax credit system full stop and lay the blame for low wages firmly on its shoulders. As I posted last week when a part time NMW earner gets £5 an hour more than a professional on a full time comparison we went wrong somewhere. People also criticise the disability elements and why they give higher tax credits and how the hours required are so low at 24 hours per couple and how it pays for SAHP until their "children" are 20 with no need to seek work. That's in addition to the fact they can have savings and capital and still receive them. It's a mess but I'm not convinced there is a fair way to treat maintenance without it backfiring.

But that cannot happen, unless the NRP is earning a lot of money. People have to accept that when a split happens, everyone will have a lower standard of living. No one should expect the NRP to still keep the "ex family" in the same manner, when he has to live himself! (I'm meaning your average earner here, not the highly paid)

GobbledyGook

janninew wrote: »

But the op who we are discussing on this thread does receive her child maintenance as stated in her post. Didn't maintenance use to count as income? How was the system run then?

Badly.

My father was told he had to pay my grandparents maintenance every week. I can't remember if it was £63 or £86 off the top of my head, but it was ordered anyway.

He never paid a penny. Yet when my grandfather had to give up work for health reasons my grandparents were treated as if they had that income and the result was that we were skint. Seriously skint.

If the CSA was the least bit effective then perhaps the current system could be changed, but its no more effective now than it was then and it ends up being the child/children who suffer.

shoe*diva79

GobbledyGook wrote: »

Badly.

My father was told he had to pay my grandparents maintenance every week. I can't remember if it was £63 or £86 off the top of my head, but it was ordered anyway.

He never paid a penny. Yet when my grandfather had to give up work for health reasons my grandparents were treated as if they had that income and the result was that we were skint. Seriously skint.

If the CSA was the least bit effective then perhaps the current system could be changed, but its no more effective now than it was then and it ends up being the child/children who suffer.

Terrible that this happened to you and your family. And exactly why counting CM as income is not the answer.