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?

YABU, I pay tax, and I would like to think that should I ever need to claim benefits, then i would be entitled to do so and receive the same rate as everyone else. Also if I was a NRP, again i will have paid taxes to contribute to the benefits bill, and by making me pay my maintenance as benefits for an ex, i would take this as being extremely unfair, like being taxed twice iyswim. Maintenance is for the children, not so the government can shrink/shirk their responsibilities for the those in receipt of benefit.

Does anyone know if universal credit will be dependent on applying for maintenance? Since DS2 arrived we have qualified for some help with childcare which makes a huge difference. But when it all goes to UC I cannot and will not apply to DS1's dad for money (not that I'd get any anyway as he's on the social and spends it all on drink and computer games). When I was on IS for a short time they accepted that my reasons for total non contact (DV and threats of further harm) were valid. But after time going by I may not be believed anymore. Re the OP I agree that people with huge maintenance should not then get benefits too. Some disregard is reasonable but I know someone whose payments from her loaded ex are more than my salary! She gets free everything while the rest of us pay up.

Rootietootie. The principle is that the parents support the children first and only if they cannot/will not then the state should step in.

Therefore it's entirely logical and fair that in principle a father should be asked to pay maintenance and that money is deduced from any benefits received. After all, why should the taxpayer pay for the children if the father is already paying???

In practice there are problems with collecting maintenance from feckless NRP's so there is a case for having a system which is flexible enough to deal with that.

But it's far from being 'extremely unfair' and isn't anything like being taxed twice. If anything a full disregard with no limits is like paying the RP twice.

Haven't read the thread, will get too worked up - has anyone been on to explain about the important reason for maintenance disregard yet?

And that a couple have either two incomes, or free childcare if one SAHP's?

ffs.

Spiderpig- what a load of shit.

I can kind of see your point OP.
The CSA is shit, but if the government paid the RP the maintenance, and then recovered it from the NRP thru HMRC then the RP would not need to have any dealings with the CSA , or the Ex at all.
The NRP would owe the government money, which is a bit more scary than owing an individual.
Many many men wriggle out of paying maintenance to an ex, but not so many avoid taxes completely (Philip Green excepted.)

And yeah, spiderpig, fuck off and do your trolling somewhere else.

MissMogwi/Nativitywreck- What delightful eloquent 'ladies' you are NOT.Just because you don't like a (very relevant) fact does not make it 'shit' or 'trolling' or justify telling somebody to 'fuck off'
If you bother to google, you would find reams of research backing up the fact that married biological parents in a stable reationship generally have happier healthier, better behaved, higher achieving children.This is very relevant to the debate about how the tax system should be structured

Funny that

I think that saying a parent is rewarded for splitting up is shit actually.

So parents in unhappy, volatile or violent relationships should stay together? I'm pretty sure it's a relevant FACT that it damages children to be in such families.

Agree with niceguy2
It makes sense OP, but it's not something I can see this govt doing.

There are too many RP's who receive no maintenance, too many NRP's who would do whatever they could to evade paying, and therefore it would more than likely cost a fortune to get very little out of the non compliant NRP's.

As for the poster who asked whether the wealthy parent's ex partners (ie: Heather Mills) would be over the savings limit for IS/JSA as a single parent, the savings limit for a single parent before benefits are reduced currently stands at £6K...so effectively, a single parent could legally claim full IS/JSA and HB/CTB and receive £5K+ a week in maintenance, so long as they spent it rather rapidly before the next weeks maintenance was paid into their account, otherwise I suppose it could tip them over the 6K savings threshold.

Is a child who is abused by one parent at more of a disadvantage in life if the other parent leaves the abusive parent and becomes a lone parent to the child, or are they at more of a disadvantage if they are still in a 2-parent family, with an abusive parent?

I'd like to see the stats both ways...

Spiderpig You are exactly the kind of person that makes me determined to bring my DS up to be polite, well behaved, considerate, to ensure he takes his education seriously, and give him a rounded, happy life. I'm looking forward to proving people like you wrong.

OP, YANBU. I actually thought about a similar system several years ago and mentioned it to the CSA during one of my numerous phone calls to try and chase up my errant, non-compliant lazy, cheating, lying scumbag of an ex. I even followed up with a letter to my MP suggesting the same. Unfortunately I received a letter back saying that the CSA/HMRC/IR aren't linked and as such the CSA worked as a separate entity, blah, blah, blah. I still think it would be a much better system though. Just a shame that the government seem intent on flogging a dead horse, and letting hundreds of thousands of RPs get away with paying very little maintenance or even none at all, along with it.

Anyone with half a brain could see that the current system does not work. The best way to ensure that all RPs get the maintenance their children are entitled to - not just 2/5, or whatever the latest figures are - would be for the government to pay maintenance to the RP then deduct this money from the NRP. The fact is, they would be much harder on those NRPs that didn't pay back this money than the shower of shit CSA are, and would most likely be very successful in retrieving the money if they made examples of some that didn't pay (loss of driving licence, removal of passport, prison etc).

I currently get £25 per month maintenance. I should be getting over £150 per month but the CSA have failed to collect this from my ex. He also owes me £6k in arrears. If we had the system above, this would not have happened. I wouldn't be in debt, I'd be able to afford new school uniform for my DS who has grown out of his and I wouldn't be worrying night and day how I'm going to pay for our food shopping. This is not right. The system needs to change.

Interesting point in the OP. In theory sounds fair but in practice I think it would penalise people who really need help if the NRP didn't pay.

About 10 years ago, when dd was a baby, a divorced friend told me what her monthly income was taking into account part time wages, maintenance (which was paid every month on time), benefits, tax credits etc. She worked 4 hours a day and when her wages, tax credits, maintenance were added up she got more than me every month on my full time teacher's salary. She also got 70% of her nursery fees paid as she was on certain benefits / tax credits. Oh and her ex DH was paying all the mortgage. She had way more disposable income than me.
Her advice to me was to split up with my husband as I'd be financially better off.

System does need looking at IMO.

At this point in the discussion - can I point out that the CSA will be changing soon.

It will soon be changed over to CMEC. WHo are in the same office building as HMRC. CMEC stands for Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission. They will be able to access the HMRC computer systems in real time, and (hopefully) this should sort out some of the issues that there currently are with the CSA.

Problem being, that in order to use this service, they are going to charge £100 to both the NRP and the RP, AND they will then ADD between 15-20% ONTO the maintenance figure for the NRP to pay. CMEC will then take that 15-20% as a 'cut'. THEN they will take between 7-12% of the maintenance figure out BEFORE they pay it to the RP.

Thread Here with figures to show the effects of this.

But travesty, it wouldn't penalise the NRP-s/he would get the money whether the NRP paid or not.
If the NRP didn't pay, they would have to answer to the government, who would be keen to recoup their money.

Just wondering what the reward is for splitting up, because I must be yet to receive mine.

Was that biscuit to me, OpinionatedMum?

yabu, income support isn't alot of money........ i would struggle to live off this.

what you are proposing will mean children already on the poverty line are worst off

Any partner of a NRP who is enabling and supporting him to avoid paying the legal minium for his child, must be someone with deep issues, and is as much to be stoned socially, as the NRP!

Children not growing up are disadvanted, they are more likely to have behaviour issues, do less well in school etc as has been said earlier. That doesn't mean that all disadvantaged children don't do well in life.

Take care of the disadvantaged, as it is how your society is viewed, internationally and in the future!

BlissfulMistletoe- read the thread. That may be the case anyway when Universal Credit is introduced.

Time will tell I think Hunty as to how effective CMEC are. I hope they are the force to be reckoned with that this country so desperately needs. If they are so then the 'cut' they take may well be worth it.

Look at it this way, the default is to get people to sort their own arrangements out. If they can't then CMEC step in. The 'incentive' for the NRP to sort something out privately is the 15-20% increase if they had to pay via CMEC. The 'incentive' for the RP to sort things out is that they'd receive 7%-12% less.

And if your ex is being trying to wriggle out of it and is going to mess you about then I'd argue that a small cut as above to guarantee regular payment is a small price to pay.

However........that all hinges on the fact that CMEC are effective. Given I heard they are using the same staff as the CSA, at this point I will hold back on the champagne since it sounds to me like more of a rebrand than a complete reboot.

lubeybaublely - You couldn't even be bothered to read the threa yet thought your comment would be relevant???!!

Of the many wrong points in your short post, the only one I will address is that you said a couple will have two incomes - my point was that in my example couple with a joint income of the same amount equal to a lone parent would receive the same amount in benefits but the LP would receive a top up of maintenance which would be disregarded.

I suggest you do read the thread, you may be pleasantly surprised that it doesn't anger you as much as you think

Next time though, I would advise not commenting before reading the thread. If we all did that MN would collapse into a heap of mumble jumble in less than a day.