To think Tax Credits should be means tested

[bittertwisted]

I know I am going to come across as jealous and bitter with this one, but doing it anyway as fancy a rant, and willing to take the abuse for that privilege
My husband left me with 3 children to bring up, so far no maintenance because he is a f*wit. I am lucky enough to have a part time job that pays well, but still means my children have to go to childminder 3 nights a week and in school hols.
I find it really galling that I get the same child tax credits as women I know who get £3000 + a month in maintenance, plus private school fees. I think this is so unfair, particularly on my children who do not have their mummy to pick them up every day because I have to work.
I know they are doing nothing fraudulent, totally entitled to those benefits, but why is this fair? I am sort of in the middle because I am one of the few with a well paid part time job, what about women who have to work full time on the minimum wage, why should they get the same as women with these huge maintenance payments? I do not understand why more tax credits should not be directed to single mums in that situation.
This is not a 'single mums all have it easy living on handouts rant'. I am a single Mum and I know that is not the way it is. I just think it is incredibly unfair. And yes, I am only human, sometimes a bit jealous when I here they are off to lunch/ beauty treatments/ shopping whilst I am working then picking my kids up from the childminder.
rant over

exactly - so without TX - if I had to pay childcare as well - I couldn;t work - no way and we'd loose our home

TX aren't there to provide a champagne lifestyle for feckless single mothers -I wish!

They support families who need them to work

Look at it another way - with an ex paying maint you as a household are entitled to the same tax credits at the moment (with your income and your maint) than you both as a household would be if you hadn't split up and you ex had lost his job and couldn't get another one and therefore only had your income and not the maint.

Why is that fair?

He did loose his job actually - and set up his own company...

I wouldn;t have to pay childcare though would I Squirrel as he could be a SAHD - so problem solved !

So because the system screws people over the people should starve and be on the streets. I don't think so maintenance is not reliable, an ex can leave you literally penniless on a whim. I speak as someone who's DH has lost his job, gets no benefits and has lost their home as a result. I at least have the sense to know that is not the fault of low paid, hard working single mothers and I would have no desire to see them suffer the way we are.

god - are you me?
my ex left, earned a significant amount, just lost his job, set up own business (although I don't know how that is going to go).

hahaha possibly - I am not totally disagreeing with you - I do think there could be a better way of ensuring families can live and work but I personally need the TX we get right now to work

I was quiet taken aback by how generous there where - but they just cover my childcare bills - which will be going down soon thank goodness!

OP, TBH you just sound jealous of others that you see being able to collect their DCs from school everyday, rather than just some days.

What about all those working parents who get no tax credits whatsoever and can't collect their DCs on any day of the week?

"but maintenance is disregarded."
I thought it asks for you to list all payments into the family coiffures. Are you saying they disregard this payment then? I really didnt know that either.

PMSL at the thought of tax credits supporting champagne lifestyle for single mums!!!! If only ....... Bugsy drifts off into champagne fuelled reverie of her glamourous lifestyle ...........

maint is definitely not included - see page 23

Really obviously didn't explain myself very well. I am indeed one of those single Mums who gets tax credits because my wage is not considered enough to live on. What I am saying is if you do not work you do not get wtc, but you do get ctc. You get the ctc irrespective of the maintenance payments you may receive from an ex. I have no idea how we would survive without our tax credits, I am absolutely grateful that they are available and make it worthwile me going to work. I am also a net winner because my credits are more than I pay in tax. My point is, with CTC, I get the same as someone who gets £3000/ month, plus mortgage paid, plus school fees. I'm sorry, I don't think that is fair, and I do appreciate there are women working full time and never get to pick their kids up from school, that is the point I am making. Turn this around, CTC is 'meant' to prevent child poverty, so why does the child of a full time working single Mum with no support from their father get the same as a child at private school, with a supportive maintenance paying father? This is not a bash at working mothers who receive tax credits, it is a discussion of the inequalities of a system that does not take in to consideration maintenance payments when calculating the income a family receives. If I earned £3000 after tax, plus the amount of my mortgage I wouldn't get any tax credits, so why is it different if I was given (in a dreamworld) that amount in maintenance?

The problem is not the system, per se. It is absolutely right that WTC/CTC should be available to support families, single or otherwise.

The problem with this situation is that your friend has a slightly skewiff moral compass (but only if she genuinely does not feel vulnerable; if she in any way suspects that her ex-h may cut her off without a penny, she is right to ensure a source of income independent of him). She may well be "entitled" to TC according to the letter of the law, but it does sound as if she does not need the money. It is up to the individual to make sound moral decisions in these instances (given that your friend is no doubt a rarity - I'm sure few single parents receive so much in CS). That your friend feels comfortable taking this money says more about her than about "the system".

However, it is much. much better, in the grand scheme of things, for one or two people to receive money they don't need, than for many, many more people to be left without reliable sources of income to support their families.

The problem is though bitter is twofold. Most single mums don't get that much in maintenance.

Secondly and more importantly if you earn £3000 per month in hand you are likely to get paid that. If you are made redundant then redundancy payment to tide you over until benefits kick in. As a final safety net there are crisis loans.

OTOH if the NRP suddenly decides not to pay there is no redundancy payment, people I have known who this has happened to have found it impossible to get crisis loans and the CSA can easily take months to fix it. In the mean time innocent children suffer. While we shouldn't support parents to be feckless neither should we allow innocents to suffer. I know in this extreme case 3k pm should allow for savings to be made but people receiving much less in maintenance would be in a position of just meeting outgoings and therefore be snookered if the NRP decided to go AWOL.

Meant to add that if I received 3k pm I wouldn't make a claim but that's a different issue.

Another way of putting my point is:

until the NRP is penalised by law for non-payment of CM, that is, until we have a system which ensure 100% payment of CM, it is right and inevitable that these kinds of irregularities should exist in the TC system.

It is ASTONISHING that we can send someone to court for non-payment of a parking fine, but we are unable to prosecute NRP who don't pay CS. It is an outrage.

I think you have explained yourself very well. You believe tax credits should take maintenance payments into account when deciding how much income a RP has to live on, and should not give tax credits to RP's who are in receipt of X amount of maintenance or more.
Maintenance cannot be relied upon 100%, every month, every year. If the NRP suddenly decides he isn't going to pay anymore, it can take a long time to get an attachment of earnings, if at all possible. Depends on the individual case. If tax credits were to view maintenance as related income, and NRP stops paying, tax credits wouldn't just start paying straightaway.

You could find that some RP's would be waiting months with no tax credits and no maintenance until they discover that their XP has stopped paying maintenance. The CSA works slowly.

Imagine if what you are suggesting was implemented. Supposing you are receiving maintenance so tax credits say you are not entitled to tax credits at all. This is all very well and good whilst you are receiving regular maintenance, but how would you feel if your expected maintenance payment on 10th December doesn't show up in your bank account? You might contact your XP, if you get on well enough with him. He may not answer his phone, or he may hang up on you...so you phone CSA. They wont do anything until after January 20th 2012. They wont even tell you if your XP is still working or phone his employers.
You have no money to pay your bills or buy your shopping so you phone tax credits. Tax credits say you are down as receiving maintenance so you wont be eligible for any tax credits. You try to explain that you've had no maintenance this month...but tax credits tell you that until CSA confirm you are not receiving maintenance anymore, they can't help you.
CSA wont tell you anything because they wont investigate until after January 20th 2012. How are you going to feed your DC and pay your bills until at the very least..January 20th 2012?? Just imagine if that happened to you?? What would you do OP?

Penthesileia I totally agree. I do not know of any other responsibility a person can have which they can dump on the govt's door whenever and for however long they please. CS is the only one I can think of.

I am also a single mum to 2 children and work part time as I also study part time. I am constantly exhausted and some months things do get a bit tight re money. Unfortunately my ex refuses to get a proper job so I only get a small amount that is deducted from his jobseekers as maintenence.

My friend also has 2 children and gets full rent and council tax paid, child tax credits, income support and £700 a month maintenence. She did previously work 25hours a week but quit her job as she realised that she would be better off not working.

I do think she is in a very lucky position as she has a good income and gets to spend lots of time with her children but I also see that she has such a hard time as her ex was physically abusive towards her and her mum doesn't help her at all wheras mine has my children whenever I need. I know that she would rather have help and support from a family than money every month so it doesn't always equal happiness.

Speaking from personal experience the fathers who refuse to financially support their children are to blame for lack of money not the government.

OP I have often wondered the same thing. Maintenance should be counted as income so that people with loads of money are not paid support meant for the really hard up and vulnerable. Surely the idea of a NRP paying for his/her child is so that the state doesn't need to?

I totally agree with you that this isn't right OP.

And tbh I can't believe most of the other responses you are getting. It seems like some people are incapable of saying yes the benefits system is wrong, even when it is really obvious.

And for all those saying if the maintenance wasn't paid this would leave the family in a mess. That already happens in lots of other situations that have nothing to do with maintenance. I was working full time and because of lack of money where I work I was suddenly moved to part time - the alternative was to have no job. Do you think the benefits system suddenly increase the amount of wtc? It can take months and months and left me in serious financial problems.

And i know lots of other people who have had to borrow money to eat, have nearly been made homeless, etc because the benefits system is so slow to react to any sudden change in income. This needs reforming. But it is not an excuse to give benefits to someone who so patently doesn't need them.

lesley we have ended up homeless due to the benefits not wanting to help with DH being made redundant. The reason I expect to be able to keep eating is my mum has offered to help and has taken us in. That does not mean I want other people to suffer.

Have I said I want other people to suffer! I said that the slowness of the benefits system to respond to changes in circumstances desperately needs reforming. But I don't see this as an excuse to agree that someone who so obviously doesn't need it - 3000 a month maintenance - should get benefits.