Child Maintenance

bloolagoon

Marisco wrote: »

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)

Exactly so if maintenance was included unless the NRP is super rich they'd all get the same as benefits are so high so a Gp's and a workshy sterotype would have the same. To me that seems wrong but I don't know the answer. Plus I've read under the old system they just didn't officially pay and just bought the children items. I don't agree not including it is fair on tax payers but I also don't see a workable alternative.

maman

Amara wrote: »

If she works 30h per week (it counts as full time) on £6.50/h, it's £10140/year.

Thanks for that. I naively assumed that full time meant 8 hour days or similar.:o

Lieja wrote: »

I'll never understand why people criticise the low paid worker for claiming what they can, when those who are actually to blame for keeping wages low and benefits a necessity are laughing all the way to the bank.

Taxpayers will pay their taxes no matter what the government decides to spend it on. Better in the pockets of low paid workers than in the expense accounts of the 1%. I know I'd much rather my taxes were spent on helping people to feed their kids than some of the awful stuff that gets funded instead.

But your taxes are allowing that 1% to laugh all the way to the bank with their profits. If they paid proper wages then our taxes wouldn't be needed for tax credits to jack up low pay. Taxpayers are subsidising employers.

FBaby

I'll never understand why people criticise the low paid worker for claiming what they can, when those who are actually to blame for keeping wages low and benefits a necessity are laughing all the way to the bank.

I would think those who are laughing the most are those who have the perfect work-life balance, working 24 hours between two of them, and yet with benefits, managing a disposable income probably similar to someone earning twice as much working full-time.

lazer

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

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.

The alternative is simple - the CSA amount as due by the NRP is paid to the PWC by the government, and the NRP pays the CSA to the government - therefore the parent with care gets the money every week, and if the NRP doesn't pay he owes the government the money - not the NRP.


The PWC - gets the same income they would have on benefits and the government pays out far less!

maman

FBaby wrote: »

I would think those who are laughing the most are those who have the perfect work-life balance, working 24 hours between two of them, and yet with benefits, managing a disposable income probably similar to someone earning twice as much working full-time.

That's absolutely true. There are abuses on both sides. I just get the feeling that govt chase benefit 'scroungers' far more than they do tax dodgers but that's just my opinion.

liney

lazer wrote: »

The alternative is simple - the CSA amount as due by the NRP is paid to the PWC by the government, and the NRP pays the CSA to the government - therefore the parent with care gets the money every week, and if the NRP doesn't pay he owes the government the money - not the NRP.


The PWC - gets the same income they would have on benefits and the government pays out far less!

What a sensible suggestion.