Wife's income and child benefit

13Kent

FBaby if I recall correctly on the calculation it states the amount of maintenance needed for the qualifying children, then it states that the PWC's income is nil and therefore the pwc's contribution towards the maintenance is £0 therefore the NRP's contribution is the full amount of the maintenance needed for those children.

So from that I am assuming that if the income of the pwc was assessed to be an actual amount rather than nil then the maintenance payable by the nrp would be reduced by a percentage representative of the proportion the pwc could pay towards the maintenance needed. (which of course the pwc wouldn't actually pay but the calculation would show an equivalent reduction of the maintenance payable by the nrp) e.g. the pwc is able to pay 30% of the maintenance needed, and the nrp pays 70% so the pwc recieves from the nrp 70% of the maintenance needed for those children as calculated by the CSA.

So in answer to your query, yes, if the pwc was contributing say 30% of the maintenance needed, and the nrp 70% and then the pwc's circumstances changed - in our case the household started getting the childcare element of WTC (which of course enabled them to work) -their income was then automatically assessed as 'nil' as the CSA deemed them to be 'on benefits' then the maintenance payable by the NRP increased to 100% of the maintenance needed therefore increasing his contribution whilst the pwc then pockets the extra 30% CSA payments and also the extra WTC benefits and continues to earn the same wage as before.

Also the benefits claimed by the NRP - such as child benefit and WTC are added to their income before it is assessed for the maintenance needed, they are not assessed as being on benefits and having a 'nil income' if they are recieving WTC as the pwc is. Any benefits like Child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit are not included as part of the pwc's income when an assessment is made but are included as part of the nrp's income - so how is that fair?

It is outrageous and an absolutely ludicrously unfair system.

FBaby

The PWCP is not told how much he has to support step children, so why should the NRPP?

They are not forced to pay anything, but they don't have a choice where there is nowhere else to get income. When the nrpp doesn't pay, nor does the nrp, then it becomes the problem of the pwc (and/or her partner) and it will be up to them to make up the difference of the maintenance lost. The nrp and nrpp can get on with their lives unaffected.

The other way around and the pwc can turn to the nrp/nrpp to say that from now on, they will have to pay more maintenance to make up the difference of them giving up their job.

I should imagine that unless the NRP has given up work specifically to avoid paying, then most NRPP's will be contributing something anyway.

Contributing how? If they have enough income left over to financially contribute somehow, then why not pay maintenance? It then becomes an issue of control and that's wrong too.

FBaby if I recall correctly on the calculation it states the amount of maintenance needed for the qualifying children, then it states that the PWC's income is nil and therefore the pwc's contribution towards the maintenance is £0 therefore the NRP's contribution is the full amount of the maintenance needed for those children.

Then the system was changed rightly, but it is a pity that the same rationale was not applied when it comes to pwcp who still have no choice but to pick up the tab if the pwc stops working.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

Contributing how? If they have enough income left over to financially contribute somehow, then why not pay maintenance? It then becomes an issue of control and that's wrong too.

Well I'd have thought that was obvious! By paying something to the PWC.

Because they might not be able to pay say, £400, but could possibly afford £150/200. People go on about the PWC's household not being disadvantaged by divorce/split, but they forget that sometimes the NRP's household is disadvantaged because the CM is set too high to keep two households, and without the advantage of the benefits a single household gets. And if the NRP does get benefits, i.e CTC, WTC, they are then counted as income for CM purposes.

I know kids in the NRP's household are counted to reduce CM, but if they weren't it would be even more unfair, unless they did away with counting NRP's benefits as well. It's never going to be "fair" to everyone, but at least it's better than CSA1 that oh was on, and what caused us to nearly be homeless!! Unless someone has been on CSA1, I don't think they appreciate how horrendous it was, Kent has given an idea of how awful it was!!

seven-day-weekend

FBaby wrote: »

So she's happy that you shouldn't contribute in anyway towards her child from her previous relationship too then?

Understand the frustration on the basis of no contact, but ultimately, you can't think it is fair that the system should expect one step parent to contribute but not the other.

I don't see why the anyone should be expected to pay for someone else's child. Someone may chose to, but it should not be assumed. It is for the child's parents to provide for that child.

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't see why the anyone should be expected to pay for someone else's child. Someone may chose to, but it should not be assumed. It is for the child's parents to provide for that child.

FBaby's point is though, that the PWCP is "forced" to pay for the NRP's kids, so why shouldn't the NRPP be the same. I think it would be very difficult for the NRP's kids not to benefit, but that is only because they live in the PWCP's household, it would be virtually impossible for some of the money a PWCP puts into the household, not to benefit the kids.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

FBaby's point is though, that the PWCP is "forced" to pay for the NRP's kids, so why shouldn't the NRPP be the same. I think it would be very difficult for the NRP's kids not to benefit, but that is only because they live in the PWCP's household, it would be virtually impossible for some of the money a PWCP puts into the household, not to benefit the kids.

I agree that what the pwcp contributes towards their step children is very subjective, hence difficult to put an actual amount to it. However, there are cases when it is very black and white, such as elligibility for CB taking into consideration the income of the pwcp but not the nrp's. How this is morally right, especially when the nrp doesn't work and is supported by their partner and therefore pays no maintenance?

seven-day-weekend

Marisco wrote: »

FBaby's point is though, that the PWCP is "forced" to pay for the NRP's kids, so why shouldn't the NRPP be the same. I think it would be very difficult for the NRP's kids not to benefit, but that is only because they live in the PWCP's household, it would be virtually impossible for some of the money a PWCP puts into the household, not to benefit the kids.

But that is their choice, isn't it? They had the choice not to live with the child's resident parent (and therefore the child) and not have any of their money support the child.

The NRPP does not live with their partner's children and should not be expected to contribute.

IMHO.

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But that is their choice, isn't it? They had the choice not to live with the child's resident parent (and therefore the child) and not have any of their money support the child.

The NRPP does not live with their partner's children and should not be expected to contribute.

IMHO.

But what people would argue is, that a NRPP also knows when they get with someone, they have kids that need paying for, whether the kids live with them or not. I'm seeing all sides here, but still don't agree that an NRPP should be forced to pay for the NRP's kids. I do think it's somewhat different when the kids are resident with one parent though, because the NRP, rightly or wrongly can feel that they are paying for the PWC's household bills. I know folk say, well they need shelter, heating etc, but surely that would be the PWC's contribution to the kids upkeep. The CM should be soley for things the kids need, i.e clothes, trips etc etc.

I think my sister had the right idea (going back 20 odd years now) She took no actual money, but her ex paid for all the kids clothes, uniforms, shoes, trips, other "stuff" that benefited the child. Everyone was happy, ex because he didn't shell out cash, that could be "wasted", and my sister, as all the kids clothing, trips etc "needs" were catered to.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

I agree that what the pwcp contributes towards their step children is very subjective, hence difficult to put an actual amount to it. However, there are cases when it is very black and white, such as elligibility for CB taking into consideration the income of the pwcp but not the nrp's. How this is morally right, especially when the nrp doesn't work and is supported by their partner and therefore pays no maintenance?

Ah, now that is a different thing completely, what I'm saying is that legally an NRPP should not be forced to pay, what they do morally is entirely up to their own conscience.

seven-day-weekend

[QUOTE=Marisco;67060283]But what people would argue is, that a NRPP also knows when they get with someone, they have kids that need paying for, whether the kids live with them or not. I'm seeing all sides here, but still don't agree that an NRPP should be forced to pay for the NRP's kids. I do think it's somewhat different when the kids are resident with one parent though, because the NRP, rightly or wrongly can feel that they are paying for the PWC's household bills. I know folk say, well they need shelter, heating etc, but surely that would be the PWC's contribution to the kids upkeep. The CM should be soley for things the kids need, i.e clothes, trips etc etc.

I think my sister had the right idea (going back 20 odd years now) She took no actual money, but her ex paid for all the kids clothes, uniforms, shoes, trips, other "stuff" that benefited the child. Everyone was happy, ex because he didn't shell out cash, that could be "wasted", and my sister, as all the kids clothing, trips etc "needs" were catered to.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but paying for them is the parent's responsibility, not their partner's.