To think maintence payments should be cal

[bytheMoonlight]

Before you flame me, please read! I am fully willing to accept IABU if this is the case but please read before jumping to conclusions!

If a lone parent income is means tested and then he/she is given benefits to bring their income up to an acceptable level, why should that income then be topped up with extra money (that isn't means tested) from maintenance? A couple on a low income, who income is means tested an is in receipt of similar benefits wouldn't be able to have their income topped up this way.

Surely all the income should be calculated for means testing? A couple on a low income, who income is means tested an is in receipt of similar benefits wouldn't be able to have their income topped up this way.

I understand the previous problems faced by lone parents under the old system, where the NRP didn't pay the maintenance and the RP was then short of money as the benefits had already been calculated as if they were too receive it and agree this is a big flaw in the system.

I think the maintenance should be calculated so the lone parent receives means tested benefits, based on all income including maintenance. The maintenance payment and the benefits should be paid by the government, thus guaranteeing the RP receives the required amount of money each week.

Then it is up to the state to chase the NRP for the money they owe the state (not the RP). I'm sure if the NRP owed a government department money (rather than an individual) there would be far better success rates in receiving the money owed.

AIBU?

Big typo with title - sorry!!!

Why should government be guaranteering payment??

I hope you a wearing your stab string vest this morning.

Someone will be along shortly to facilitate you i'm sure.

YABU

Maintenance should be paid by NRP for their child. End. Of.

But by paying benefit based on income excluding maintenance the government is paying more out in benefits?

Include maintenance in the calculation, then benefits bill would be less. Pay the maintenance to guarantee lone parents receive the maintenance.

Then, do what the CSA are not doing, chase the NRP's for monies owed to the state. The NRP are still paying. Just directly to the state.

YANBU.The govt should not be rewarding couples for splitting up, when we know that children living with both biological parents do better in terms of health, education and behaviour than those in single parent families.

In my theory, the lone parent would recieve les money than they do now (providing they already receive maintenance) so how would this be rewarding people for splitting up.

The current system allows the RP to keep benefits + maintence.

The new system, goes back to the old system, where RP, could be left short of benefits if maintenance is not paid by the NRP.

I think the theory I have suggested is the middle ground.

Spierpig, children shouldn't be punished if parents split by living in poverty to teach their parents a lesson

They bought this in (not counting maintenance in benefits calculations) because in cases where the NRP is less than reliable with payments, the parent with care would be left up the creek without a paddle. It does lead to some very very big differences in income to those on benefits, but the alternative is far worse imo.

Zukiecat-No I am deadly serious.

Moonlight-In a couple living together all household income is being assessed .A lone parent could be earning the same as the couple but the maintenance element is disregarded.Why?

And OP hjave you ever had dealings with the CSA? If this government, or any for that matter, was really bothered about collecting maintenence then it would be relatively easy for them to do so. The fact that they can't just shows how lone parents are bottom of the pile. I do agree that if they can collect student loan repayments and have a PAYE scheme, maintenence should also be easy to collect. But you're not taking into account all the cash in hand people will do to dodge the CSA

fuckity - read my op, I address that issue.

Spiderpig -Exactly, maintenance shouldn't be disregarded. If an NRP earns £100,00 an pays 15% of this to an RP, this money is complelty disregard and the LP still receives all benefits .

This money should be included to calculate benefits. Thus reducing the benefits bill

fuckity yes I am still dealing with the CSA. I know how unfair the system is, from both sides of the coin.

The worst organisation I have ever dealt with by far.

As for cash in hand and the self employed - Well I cannot solve all the problems on one thread

well when 100% of nrp pay what they should pay and on a regular basis then yes some of the money should be taken into consideration

but when only 20% of rp recieve the amount they should do and on a regular basis this can ot be done as rent etc has to be paid

and they you have to deal with those that cheat the system that is a different issue

and really do you think all single parents who receive good maintenance get benefits no they do not becasue not all view the system as getting everything you can, some like myself view it as it is ther when you have a real need for the extra income to buy food, pay bills not everyone is take take take what they can

Yabu.

The maintenance we get from XP means we aren't financially crippled, the kids have warm clothes, days out, cosy house and nice food. Take that out of the equation and means test benefits / tax credits and we're screwed. I have not had a single problem with the CSA. My XP might be a raging psycho but he pays every month. If he lost his job or decided to mess us about I really don't know how we'd cope.

I am just brainstorming here so feel free to pull my idea apart.

I think that where the NRP does not pay maintenance, the age at which they (the NRP) becomes entitled to pension credit or the state retirement pension should be put back by an equivalent amount of time. The state could pay the child maintenance in the meantime.

Knowling that you may not receive a pension until well into your 70s may concentrate the mind.

spiderpig me and the children wouldn't have been better off with XP. There's a chance we'd be dead.

100% of NRP will never pay maintenance under the currant system as it's too easy not to pay.

The best way is for the payments to be considered debt to the government then a lot more than the current 20% would be made to pay.

In this theory though Freudian, RP's would receive maintenance regardless if the NRP paid so no need to worry about not paying rent, buying foo, paying the water bill etc.

And no, I do not believe LP's are scroungers and I haven't once in this thread, talked them down. But it is a fact that when receiving benefits, maintenance isn't included, so even if mentioned the system will ignore it. It is the system I am criticising not the rp

Meglet, that's more an argument towards the amount of money that is considered enough for people to live on. There are many single parents who live on the same benefits you receive but are not lucky enough to receive regular maintenance.

'children living with both biological parents do better in terms of health, education and behaviour than those in single parent families.'

so my three healthy, well educated, polite, respectful children would be far better off if my alcoholic waste of space Xp still lived under our roof? Children who are adopted are unhealthy, ill educated and have behavioural problems, do they? I presume you think children where one parent has died and the remaining parent has happily re-partnered are at a similar disadvantage?

Taking maintenance into account against benefit calculations leaves little incentive for absent parents to contribute financially. OP YABU.

And under the new system Meglet (Universal credit) you will be forced to declare that maintence you recieve and it will be taken from your benefit.

See this from another thread :

Some income, such as maintenance payments from former partners (which are
particularly important for lone parents), currently does not count as
income for the purpose of tax credits. This income will be considered as
income under the system of Universal Credit, and therefore will reduce
entitlement pound-for-pound.

What has never getting ill got to do with anything?
That's a serious question btw.

I am not in receipt of any means tested benefits, where would I stand? Should exp still be made to grudgingly hand over a pitiful bit of his income or should he just carry on with his plan to impregnate every female on the south coast of England without consequence for himself?