Child Maintenance-Should fathers on benefits pay more?

Or the Daily Mail ?

There are three places you can report him -
CMS, DWP and HMRC.

That wasn't the question. Should the Government provide a no-nonsense, quick to bring case to resolution with measures and penalties moat would choose to avoid? Absolutely. Unfortunately we are miles and miles away from that.

Workhouses ?

Claim it and follow @MademoisellePraline’s excellent advice. Hopefully they will then retrospectively revise the amount. I suspect they can’t if you’re not claiming.

Ok, so no more benefits paying rent. What will you do with all the homeless people? Many including children.

Rent via benefits shouldn't be a thing. Creates an attitude that it doesn't "count" as income "because it goes straight to the landlord" and results in the taxpayer subsidising people to live in expensive areas

No need. I'm a grown up.

The best way to deal with some less sparky folk is to take their "idea" and push it further, pointing out what a snowflake they are when it goes too far. As soon as you hear something like

"you know what I meant"
"Not like that"
"I didn't mean that"
"Now you're being silly"

then you know they've folded.

IF we say that a benefit is any money paid by the government that hasn't been hypothecated from taxes, you realise that the second a pensioner claims more than they paid in, they are a benefit claimant. (Don't forget to subtract hoiw much they have cost the state before they retired too ....)

Not that reason and logic do well on MN. More letters than "meme" you see.

No. PIP is not a work-related benefit, although it can be taken into account if you have a motorbility car and want access to work to provide funding for transport to/from work, but that’s not a given.

PIP is there to cover the additional costs which relate to having a disability, and these can depend on the disability you have.

So for instance I have a visual impairment, buying a screenreader for my personal laptop is an additional cost. Having to sometimes get cabs to/from destinations where public transport is not available is an additional cost which would be covered by PIP.

But adaptations for my job would be covered by access to work, although the government is cutting that back to the bear bones and it’s not being made public knowledge so the government are in fact making it harder for the disabled to remain in work but that’s a different discussion. But in my personal case my employer have covered the cost of my adaptations.

WRT whether CMS should be taken from benefits, it’s a difficult one as it would be the primary caregiver who receives any child related benefits so it’s a grey area. That being said, I do think that benefits should be taken into account on both sides.

Disability benefits are one which you need to tread carefully, but unemployment benefit should be taken into account with regards to paying CMS.

By the same token, IMO if you’re receiving CMS this should also be taken into account if you’re claiming benefits. Because while for some it is minimal, there are certainly people who do receive CMS to the tune of a few hundred pounds every month but this isn’t taken into account and they still receive maximum benefits which is hardly fair.

Hard to read tone on here, and there genuinely are people on here who think rent via benefits should not be a thing at all.
Apologies if I misread you as being one of those people.

I get the feeling that humour is dead.

I get the feeling that is what you want to happen anyway.

Not if we stop the housing element of UC ?

In fact why stop there. Just scrap all benefits.

I agree with this approach. If the govt paid child maintenance direct to the resident parent and then reclaimed it from the non-resident parent, I'm sure they'd be better at going after the fathers. I think this is the approach in Germany and other places.

Does he have child maintenance arrears? Has he not been paying the amount he’s been instructed to pay?

I don't agree. Primary residence means the home you live in. People who own their homes are not claiming the housing element of UC.
Make them sell up, and eventually they will be.

It takes two to tango
Pleanty of women have children they can ill afford.

But it can be sold to cover CMS arrears, as long as the arrears are a certain amount and they obtain a liability order, which is then made into a charging order.

There's probably a rule that you can't do it if there's a pip claimant living there though.

In this case it appears to be paying for him to be able to snort stuff up his nose

Whatever the recipient needs ?

I agree about the system being broke. Those who don't pay have no meaningful sanction (bankruptcy or no passport would be options I would consider), and above all we are almost the European capital of cash in hand jobs. The latter is one of the incentives for people to come here in small boats.

How about mothering them?
Are people on benefits (40% of UC claimants work) not allowed to have kids?

Primary residence is not capital for benefit purposes.