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?

Oh RATS. IS needs to be set at £282 a week, not £235, to have the same buying power. Which is still a raise of £215 from the current level of £67.50. I read 235 off my calculator - but it was 235 loaves of bread.

Not that a raise like that is EVER going to happen - but I was trying to illustrate WHY a maintenance disregard is necessary - because the Government LIKE the disregard for Lone Parents as it SAVES THEM MONEY. Instead of having to raise the IS by £20/£30 a week or more, for every claimant - they put that onus on the NRP.

Basically it is the Government's tacit agreement that IS levels are set BELOW the poverty level, and this is a way to make it appear at a slightly more reasonable level.

Hunty, would you be in favour of having payments made to RPs for the total amount deemed as being needed for the family to survive (ie 250pw let's say) of which the NRP has to make a contribution. But that contribution is made and collected by the state and if the NRP fails to pay he owes the state, not the RP because she still gets the money?

I think in that scenario the collection of NRP payments would improve immensely, with payments collected directly from pay via HMRC.

The only reservation I would have is the possible cost but surely it can't be more now than multiple claims going in due to feckless NRPs failing to pay up?

Kate - Yes, to my uneducated eye, that looks like the best-case scenario. except for the tiny fact that the Government can't afford to pay those benefits rates! Maybe if they set IS/JSA at, erm, £130 p/wk, as a midway point between what the levels would be if IS had held it's 'buying power' from 1996, and what it currently is.

But that will NEVER happen...

Hunty, the last person who told me she was a poor single mum who was so destitute she could only afford to put money in her gas meter for 4 days a week also had a 20 a day ciggy habit.

Now if it were me and I had a choice between heating for the kids or £8 a day on fags, I know what I'd choose!

Could everyone just ignore Spiderpig's ridiculous comment. He/she is always posting shite like that, I think to get a rise out of everyone.

OP
You are not being unreasonable

I was talking to DH about this a couple of weeks ago and that is what he said would be the best option.

If the government was the one owed money, you can be damned sure that they would chase it up.

niceguy not every single parent is like this though. I certainly can't afford to chuck loads of money at my gas meter and I don't smoke or drink or go out on the piss. I didnt switch it on at all yesterday because Ive only got 3 pounds left on the meter to last till tomorrow.-

I have known people like this however, a friend of mine used to upset me by buying fags and leaving her 3 kids without decent coats in the winter and hardly any food in the cupboards. She could find money to fund her fag habit though.

It is more state interference though isn't it? Which doesn't sit well with me.

I think the disregard is vital tbh. The last thing that you need when you are going through a messy divorce or break up is ambiguity regarding finances. And I don't think that it is right that RPs should be totally at the mercy of NRPs in terms of cash.

I know that it could mean that a single parent has more cash than a couple with similar income, but when you are a couple you can share childcare and one of you can work evenings/weekends/nights while the other does 9-5 ish to increase income if that is what is needed. By and large a single parent doesn't have those choices.

In reality, the number of people receiving significant amounts of maintenance isn't going to be very large.

but surely whilst other families are being targeted by the cuts, why should this money be disregarded?

YABU.

Yes Niceguy I do understand it was an extreme example. I do wonder how much the ex wives of middling wealthy men are hiding in order to circumvent the savings limit. I can't quite see Ms Mills down the social but can see her giving it a try

In theory though, the money isn't household money - it is for the children. The benefits are paid based on household income - ie. the income of the RP.
If the RP then starts cohabiting with another person, then the benefits are adjusted which is absolutely right.

I think it sets up more problems, like the NRP using it as justification to not pay regularly, but to buy things and pay for 'stuff' which never materialises.

sevenfold - for the same reason that it would be better to raise the level at which income tax is paid and do away with a whole layer of TCs and associated admin. Because it is cheaper to just pay it, rather than have loads of fiddly, different and ever-changing claims.

So when the Universal Credit comes in, my maintenance payments of £30 a week will be taken into account when they calculate my working tax credit, or I suppose universal credit. At the moment I have a CSA agreement but they do not enforce any handover of money. My ex is in arrears. So what will happen in that case? Surely they can only take the payments into account if someone like the CSA takes them at source, from the paypacket or benefits payment of the NRP?
Or will I have to be ringing the tax credit helpline (last few calls involved 25 minutes minimum on hold and cost a blooming fortune) every second week when the Ex tells me AGAIN that he's skint? And they will have to amend my claim every second week. How can that be effective?

To highlight a point made somewhere:

Parents who receive maintenance are not lucky, paying for a child should not be seen as a sign of a better than average or good parent, it should be seen as normal.

Parents who do not receive maintenance are not unlucky, I do not feel hard done by, I feel angry that a person is getting away with not facing up to their responsibility.

Absent parents should be reviled.

A point was raised somewhere that children in single parent families do not do so well, is it any wonder when only one person is taking responsibility for raising the child and the rest of the world instead of blaming the absent parent, put the blame on the parent who takes responsibility and does their best, with government support which is claimed without any fraudulence in line with the rules and regulations set down by the government itself.

Why is it that we are always trying to remove money from those in difficult situations, instead of looking at those who are getting away with not facing up to their financial responsibilities?

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

Oh do fuck off. My kids are model children, behaviour is impecable, never any trouble at school or at home. Worst illness for eldest Acne, worst for youngest glandular fever. Eldest did not drink until aged 19, youngest 18. When they went to Uni. Eldest got a first in Maths, youngest currently taking Maths.

Been a single parent since they were 7 and 2.

Alibaba, your position is a bit illogical. On the one hand you say you don't like state intervention, on the other hand you argue that the state should continue with the disregard which in effect is intervention. If you don't like state intervention then surely the CSA and benefits should be abolished and people left to sort themselves out?

What OP proposed is state intervention but just moving the risk from NRP to the Treasury. I can't see how anyone would say that's not a good thing. NRP's would continue to get whatever the going rate is, the RP would get chased. The child never goes without.

As for saying it's not household income, that's just bending the truth isn't it? Of course it's household income. You can't say that it's for the children, anymore than you can say that national insurance is purely for pensions/NHS. Once it hits your bank account it all goes into a pot and what you spend it on is entirely your business.

I might write some bollocks on here but it's far less than I read.

At the moment people keep their maintenance over and above their benefits, she is moaning because she obviously gets none so gets less money. But thats life.

Thanks for the reply niceguy.
Getting benefits whilst having a hefty regular allowance of child support does sound like wasted money to me.
Feckless absent parents making irregular payments or none at all wouldn't make a difference if the RP is still getting full benefit entitlement.
I can understand where the OP is coming from now.

I am a lone parent with no maintenance. I am actually not coping at the mo and have been on the phone to payplan credit counseling.
If I was getting the maintenance I "should" be getting we wouldn't be in clover. We would just be able to by both food and pay the bills.

BTW sueburblybilt, if it helps I have got a plan with Virgin Media where I pay an extra £2 a month and get 200 minutes a month free 0845 calls.
It has reduced my phone bill a bit actually, and take the stress of being on hold with the Tax Credits/N pOWER/ every other fucker away.

Aw, thanks nativity but I live in the sticks and 99% of the cheap phone/broadband deals don't work for my postcode. I'll check it out though.