Relying on child support

justme111

But if they have £400 left for child when they are with them, commute , pick ups, presents, insurances, holidays, dental/optician expenses, hobbies, clothes, house repairs and maintenance (or endless rental fees if renting), emergencies etc what would they be supposed to caugh up?

Sambella

springdreams wrote: »

So the paying parent shouldn't have to cough up to support their child, but the taxpayer should ??? If the paying parent coughed up, then there should be no need to claim any benefits ...

The taxpayer does top up regardless of maintenance in the situation where benefits are paid to RP so RP gets BOTH .

Sambella

justme111 wrote: »

But if they have £400 left for child when they are with them, commute , pick ups, presents, insurances, holidays, dental/optician expenses, hobbies, clothes, house repairs and maintenance (or endless rental fees if renting), emergencies etc what would they be supposed to caugh up?

The answer to this lies in whether there is a real NEED for maintenance when the state already provides a sizeable amount to the RP. Is it paid on principle rather than need in this scenario? Is it a punishment?

Bearing in mind the state is paying the RP the same as what a couple would get but there is no third person to clothe, feed or have two pints every Friday down the pub!! The state kind of partly replaced the wages of the NRP. Not totally of course as it's always best for a child to have both parents there.

FBaby

The taxpayer does top up regardless of maintenance in the situation where benefits are paid to RP so RP gets BOTH .

Indeed, and many don't agree at all with this change and believe that any benefits should be subject to maintenance received. If they can adapt Universal Credits to sudden changes, why can't they do so when maintenance stops?

The issue with maintenance and whether the RP is better off or not is that it is dependent on so many factors. I agree that using the above scenario, there is a significant disproportion between what the RP is left with i terms of diposable income compared to the NRP.

However, do the same comparison with a higher income, and children who are in childcare, the sum being just above what would trigger some working tax credits. You suddenly have an RP who gets no tax credits, but needs to pay over £300 a month childcare. If the NRP only pays £200 a month, it is likely that the NRP will be worse off.

What I do no agree with at all is that debts should be taken into consideration. Yes, in some cases, debts have been accumulated through to unexpected circumstances and were used to fund emergencies, but much too often, debts are the results of carelessness with money. Why should children be penalised as a result?

Sambella

I agree that NRP's should pay something but only where it is affordable for them to do without causing hardship to the RP.

Let's say something like all NRP's should be able to keep the first £13,400 of their income and maintenance calculated on anything above that at say 20% but NRP's earning over a certain amount could possibly be on a different rate.

£13,400 is the rate at which a single person can no longer claim tax credits.

This sounds much, much fairer.

Sambella

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, and many don't agree at all with this change and believe that any benefits should be subject to maintenance received. If they can adapt Universal Credits to sudden changes, why can't they do so when maintenance stops?

The issue with maintenance and whether the RP is better off or not is that it is dependent on so many factors. I agree that using the above scenario, there is a significant disproportion between what the RP is left with i terms of diposable income compared to the NRP.

However, do the same comparison with a higher income, and children who are in childcare, the sum being just above what would trigger some working tax credits. You suddenly have an RP who gets no tax credits, but needs to pay over £300 a month childcare. If the NRP only pays £200 a month, it is likely that the NRP will be worse off.

What I do no agree with at all is that debts should be taken into consideration. Yes, in some cases, debts have been accumulated through to unexpected circumstances and were used to fund emergencies, but much too often, debts are the results of carelessness with money. Why should children be penalised as a result?

The problem here is that maintenance is fully inclusive and is not based on childcare costs alone. in effect it is up to the RP how they spend this maintenance. Some would say it's actually going on the child in that first £200 of childcare comes from maintenance to which the RP adds £100. They would also have family allowance.

Should a NRP pay maintenance AND half of childcare costs, or should maintenance help towards childcare costs? A low income RP wouldn't be afble to afford both.

If RP is getting help with 70% of childcare costs that leaves 30% to be paid if NRP pays 15% of that then RP's cost is only 15% of 100% so again RP comes out best really when you look at it that way.

copperclock

Hmm, really interesting replies so far.

I can see that it's a conundrum. Sambella, in your illustration, I can see how the RP ends up with a lot more money. One 'solution' is that the state reduces how much it pays out, in effect, bringing maintenance into means testing, but I can see how that would leave RPs in very vulnerable situations.

Another 'solution' would be, as you suggest, to reduce what the NRP has to pay, but that doesn't seem morally fair on the taxpayer or on the RP.

Another side of this that doesn't seem fair is those situations where the NRP pays very little or nothing, leaving the RP's new partner (the children's step parent) to foot the financial bill for bringing up the child(ren).

I'm absolutely positive that my children's father pays much, much less for their upbringing than he'd need to if we were still together. And that's also much, much less than they cost to bring up.

Sambella

With the NRP paying someone on benefits maintenance there is no gain to the taxpayer. As they keep maintenance in top of the benefits.

I agree with you totally that there are many scenarios my concern is mainly only for those NRP's on low incomes. RP,s on low incomes get state assistance. The government can't afford to support NRP's so the only solution seems to be reduced maintenance payments for NRP's in this situation without extra cost to the taxpayer and without removing any of the single parent benefits for RP's. Maybe a level needs to be set where maintenance begins for some NRP's

It's a mess!!

pollyanna24

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but the resident parent might also have childcare to pay for.

What my ex gives me, I pay out in childcare, so I guess we are "equal," although not really as I then have the children 85% of the time and have to pay for all their school uniforms and trips and what nots.

But I do receive child benefit, so I get more in that respect to pay for things.

Sambella

pollyanna24 wrote: »

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but the resident parent might also have childcare to pay for.

What my ex gives me, I pay out in childcare, so I guess we are "equal," although not really as I then have the children 85% of the time and have to pay for all their school uniforms and trips and what nots.

But I do receive child benefit, so I get more in that respect to pay for things.

What you are implying is that if he pays you £300 - £400 per month which you use for the childcare costs that you are spending from your own wages MORE than this each and every month on your kids then there is family allowance .

The ex also has costs when the children are with him, do you match this spending as well?

Childcare usually stops when the kids become teens and can stay at home by themselves yet the ex continues paying until they are 18+ So when childcare stops will you be spending close to £800 each and every month on the kids?

Somehow I think not.

The only time I would have spent hundreds a month on my kids would have been Xmas. Uniforms are once a year with the odd replacement in between and school trips are not monthly.