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?

Snape - The incentive is given to the government to chase absent NRP's and force them to pay. Leaving the choice to the goodwill of the NRP clearly isn't working given how many don't pay.

DingDong - Of course you should still be helped in order to receive maintenance.

This isn't a Get of Jail free card for NRPS.

Look when Universal Credit rears it's ugly head, the governement is going to put the emphasis on the NRP to keep his family afloat. All well and go for those that pay. What about those that don't?

This is to reduce the benefits bill. Take away benefits and tell the NRP they must pay instead. It's a dangerous policy that could put many children in poverty.

The other way to reduce the benefits bill is to test RP's income fairly, possibly taking some people off benefits altogether, by guaranteeing their maintenance payments and then chasing the NRP for those payments, I mean seriously chasing them. Not the half hearted efforts of the CSA. Recoup most of the money that is paid out in guaranteeing maintenance payments

why does it bother you so much that a few and it is a few might be getting more than what they should on benefits

what about all the nrp that pay nopthing or very little, if this was not the case we woudl not have over and over again these threads because it would not be an issue

again it just a bit of single parent bashing really isn't it

My point, Freudian, is that under the new system they will not be getting more than they should. They will be asked to declare maintanance payments and this will be taken from the benefits. POssibly putting many children in poverty.

I have suggested a way which I think would work better for RP's and ensure many more NRP's are made to pay.

Hardly single parent bashing - as much as you may want it to be

but you seem to forget that very few receive regular and the correct amount of payment from a nrp this is why it can not work so its fine to say it shoudl be taken into account but what about those that receive £400 one month and nothing the next

and you do declare what you receive it is not calculated

the problem is not the benefits system it is that so many are not receiving anything or very little and that it is not regular

Oh Freudian, read my posts! I know it cannot work if the maintenance is taken from the benefits, this is my point! We are agreeing with each other! But that is what is going to happen when the government bring in Universal Credit.

Yes it is the irregularity of the payments which is the issue, I agree. Which is why I am saying the government should pay the maintenance payments to the Lone parent (then they will be paid each week on time without fail). Then the government should make serious efforts to chase the NRP so many many more them pay than are currently paying atm.

Then the NRP pay the money to the government (instead of paying it to the Lone parent) so the government can make back (hopefully most of) the money it has already paid out to the lone parents in maintenance each week.

I think OP's idea is pretty fair and reasonable. For that reason it'll never happen

Basically what you are proposing is moving the risk to the government. So they still give the PWC what they are entitled to and then just chase the NRP for maintenance. If they get it, great. If they don't then bully for the govt.

I do understand why Labour introduced the maintenance disregard. On balance it wasn't a bad thing to do. Except it has created an anomaly whereby some single parents get both a sizeable maintenance and full benefits.

So for example, my friend pays his ex-wife £500 a month without fail as well as paying towards holidays, clothes etc. he doesn't begrudge this and takes his responsibilities seriously. And so he should. But now the taxpayer is in effect giving a lot of money to someone who really doesn't need it. At a time when the taxpayer is utterly skint and the money could be better targeted elsewhere.

Oh thank the heavens for someone that can explain it much more clearly and succinctly than me.

Thank you niceguy2

Doesn't maintenance get taken into account when benefits are claimed

think this is wher eim lucky that i never ha dmore than £10 a fornight rom my x so not really going to notice that

Not anymore DEMeter. So say your ex is Paul McCartney and he gives you £100k a year. You would still get full tax credits, income support, housing benefit and ofc free school meals.

Obviously most LP's won't have Sir Paul as an ex but you see the anomaly it's created? My mate's worked out that his ex-wife now has the annual income of about £45k after her part time job (3 days a week), benefits and tax credits.

I don't begrudge people who need them getting benefits but you have to wonder if this is the best use of our money.

Right now as I understand it, there's a lot of confusion over if maintenance is counted for Universal Credit. Some press reports say it is but then a briefing document from the DWP last month says it won't be. Who knows right now?

Ok I don't think YABU to think that. I think you are quite right but there is a major flaw in your idea and that is that in many cases the NRP just simply does not pay and the CSA (and what is going to replace it) just doesn't do enough.

Should NRP pay for their children? Yes of course.

Do NRPs pay for their children? No, not always.

What sanctions are there for those who fail to pay? Erm, bugger all.

Until there is a replacement for the CSA that has real power it is not going to work. If we can sort the CSA out (and not with this crock of shit where poor people have to pay to use the service and a commission is taken from children) then this idea just isn't going to work.

I am one of those who gets benefits (and also work a few hours a week) and maintenance from ex. That maintenance is from my eldest two childrens dad and I get NOTHING from the younger childrens father (which annoys me a bit as he pays regular maintenance to his other children, but he works full time, privately rents and is in debt so he is completetly skint)

niceguy I use every penny of the maintenance I do get, without it I am screwed as I use it to support my younger children as well as my eldest two. and I know I shouldnt be but I have too so there we go.

spiderpig how can you say that children are better off with two parents when you quite clearly havent thought about the effects of dv on children who live in these household. My life is so much better without my ex in it and ultimately my children are better off too.

opps sorry didn't read all your posts

those receiving more than they should are few (i could if i wanted to be one of those, like i said before not everyone is out for everything they can get) and if those that do not comply with teh csa they are not going to be bothered about another agency

and how do you work out what the rp should get when you do not know what the nrp is earing do you work out the lowest amount when the rp may some months get a higher amount than others so is able to live a slighly higher standard of living do we really begrudge a few that

for every single parent that is getting a little more than they perhaps should becasue they receive benefits on top of a good amount of maintenence they are many more that really struggle to get by yet we focus so much attention on us the few i woudl like to see the min amount raised on what single parents are able to live on

maybe thre need be a comprimise say the first £30 a week os not counted towards beenits and only if there is a very solid setting for the payment .Eg direct from wages or similar

The reason the disregard was put in place (for the 1000th time) is because of the difficulties caused by irresponsible fathers.

If a mother was on Income Support or Jobseekers allowance, or even the (original) Working Families Tax Credits (from 1999) and the father was meant to pay her £50 a week maintenance, she originally was allowed to keep just £10 a week of that. The other £40 a week was still paid to the mother, but the DWP deducted £40 a week from her Income Support.

If the father then decided NOT to pay, or never paid what he was meant to, the DWP STILL DEDUCTED the £40 a week from her Income Support / JSA / WFTC.

The computer system at the DWP did not understand that a maintenance assessment could be made, without the money being collected. Which left a lot of Lone Parents living significantly BELOW the poverty line, or even no longer being entitled to ANY financial support AT ALL. Even though they weren't actually RECEIVING the maintenance that they were meant to be receiving.

The last Government looked at the costs of replacing the DWP's computer software, and realised that it would cost the Government LESS in lost revenue to apply a total disregard to maintenance than it would to get a new computer program that could adjust in REAL TIME so as not to leave anyone with no income.

So the disregard was put in place because it was the CHEAPER OPTION FOR THE COUNTRY.

HTH.

yanbu
I don't see why the parent is made to pay. and why it isn't taken in to consideration, things like carers allowance are. and that leaves vulnerable families very poor.

Wouldn't heather mills and other ex wives of wealthy men be over the savings limit to receive benefits such as income support tax credits and housing benefit?

The proposal is such (simplified numbers):

Max level of benefit £200 per week

Currently person a receives max benefit plus no maintenance. Person B receives max benefit plus 100 pounds maintenance as the maintenance isn't counted as income.

In the op's proposed system both people still get 200 pounds per week from the government. In person b's case £100 is 'benefits' and £100 is maintenance. The government then recoup the 100 pounds from the NRP.

Benefits bill is reduced, but resident parent is not at mercy of nrp maintenance payments on coming through. Even if no money is recouped from nrp the government still don't pay out anymore than under current system.

. After reading your OP - That is one of the most SANE AND SENSIBLE ideas wrt maintenance that I have come across.

Why the FUCK don't they do this? Maybe allow a certain disregard, of, say £40/£50 a week - seeing as IS has only risen by £20 in 15 years, so what £47.50 bought in 1996, £67.50 doesn't even cover HALF of in 2011 (Seriously - that is the difference between IS in 1996 and IS in 2011), and then anything over that is taken out.

And YES, I AM adding in a disregard - which has been in place either as a £10 disregard or a £20 disregard for over a decade - but a higher one, to allow for the fact that IS hasn't kept pace with inflation. But, after that £40/£50 disregard, anything over and above that should be PAID to the RP by the Government, but taken out of their IS.

I know it might piss some people off - I personally CAN'T afford to lose the £60 a week I get on top of my IS or I would be unable to pay the bus fares to get my dc to school - but if you ARE getting £400 a week on top of your IS - why the fuck are you CLAIMING IS??

(And I DO know someone who is in that position, and I actually don't talk to her anymore, as it frustrates me so much!)

That's why I propose an amendment to your suggestion of leaving a reasonable disregard on top before taking the rest out of the IS.

If it helps, you could have bought 237 loaves of bread with £47.50 in 1996. You can only buy 56 loaves of bread with £67.50 in 2011. Does that give you some idea of how small the uprates in benefits are? To have the same buying power with IS as there was in 1996, IS would need to be set at £235.00 a week...

And people are saying that benefits are too generous - it was Labour who didn't let IS keep the same buying power, that it had when the Conservatives were last in power. Surely anyone can see that there is something wrong when people are saying that benefits are too generous when to have the same buying power as they did 15 years ago, they would have to have an overnight raise of £215 a week!

So the disregard was put in place because it was the CHEAPER OPTION FOR THE COUNTRY.

The problem with that logic Hunty is that it would be cheaper for the country to simply scrap the CSA entirely and not waste their time at all.

@Winter. my example was obviously exaggerated, I doubt Heather Mills is bothering with trying to claim any benefits. (although I could be wrong!). But my point is that some LP's will be getting a lot of money they don't really need and right now we need to be spending our tax money wisely.

I think if OP's idea was implemented, it would also give the government more of an incentive to sort out the CSA. Right now it's a shambles, despite the best efforts of several government's. But when it fails, it's not really them who get hit in the pocket. It's the LP's and the kids who suffer. For example I have a friend who is a regular MN'er. CSA have been chasing her waste of space ex for years. Nothing, nada. If the government was out of pocket instead of her, I bet they'd soon buck their ideas up.

The simplest thing in my mind would be to merge CSA into the HMRC. An organisation designed from the ground up to collect money off people who don't really want to pay. Collect payment's via tax code and if people are in arrears, move them to the higher rate tax rate.

The problem is that until the CSA is a dept to be feared people will try to dodge them since there's little to lose right now.

Can't you all just fuck off with this nonsense about 'rewarding' people for splitting up? Do you seriously think there is even one person who would not rather be in a happy relationship, with a supportive non-violent partner than have a tiny bit more cash? If you are a person who would split up just for that, then you should know that most people aren't that shallow. Stop trying to force lone parents further into poverty with your idiotic ranting.