to wonder why the minimum amount of maintenance paid through CSA, £5 per week, has not increased?

[maristella]

Everything else has gone up: wages, benefits, rents, utilities, driving expenses, food.

Yet somehow my benefit scrounging claiming twat of an XP pays a lower proportion of his income than he did (or was supposed to) 10 years ago.

And there is said to be a cost of using CSA being introduced.

Is this not important enough for politicians?

So if an NRP is on JSA and paying £5, this would get reduced by say £0.71 if they had the child one night a week. Plus absolutely nothing else towards the child. And less than what is deemed necessary by the state to enable an adult to live.

What I'm saying is that the pwc gets child benefits etc. towards the care of the child, whereas the nrp paying £5 gets absolutely nothing. I personally wouldn't want my child staying overnight with someone who can only afford £0.71 to look after them for one day a week.

Not only that. The NRP will be paid the one bedroom or even the room share rate of HB (depending in his/her age). If they rent a 2 bed place so that the children can stay, they need to fork out the difference in rent out of the £70 per week.
Are you finally starting to understand maristella why it's £5 per week and not more?

Allnew, if an NRP on benefits has the child overnight at least once a week, they get a nil assessment from the CSA.

Has anyone ever been to a tribunal regarding CSA payments? I want to go to one.

www.childsupportlaws.co.uk/how-much-will-i-have-pay.html

It states here that the CSA can take into consideration extra costs if a child has extra needs.

Tribunals seem to be made up of judges that cannot read, write or understand basic concepts of law ime. And you aren't allowed legal aid as its deemed you don't need it but the other side will turn up with their solicitor and a text book the size of a brick.

alltake it would be ridiculous to suggest that a parent on benefits would only be able to allocate 71p to care for a child. Benefits and JSA are the same as wages in that responsibilities are to be met from that money.

Just because I work does not mean that my tax credits are all that I spend on DS! Sometimes I have less at my disposal than I would have if I did not work; I drive thousands of miles each month for work and costs are escalating etc but while that means we have much less money, I would never restrict DS to his tax credits and child benefit only.

Being a parent means that the child's needs are put first, not just limited to their allocated funds.

olimpia I understand why you feel the minimum needs to stay at £5, but I still believe the minimum should have increased with the benefits raises over the years. The proportion paid in maintenance should have stayed the same. Yes, the RP can access means tested tax credits, benefits and child benefit, but why should the NRP be absolved of financial responsibility because the state steps in?

But the Jsa or whatever is the the minimum amount an adult is deemed to be required to survive as a single adult without dependents. Anyone with resident dependents will receive more, recognising that children cost money. The state will ensure that a pwc receives adequate money to house and feed a child. An NPR will not. So like origami says, the NPR will really have nowhere for the child to sleep as the state does not recognise they have any right to financial assistance for a dependent.

My ex has recently left his job deliberately because after almost six years of -me-- chasing it, they finally caught up with him. He didn't want to pay so left his job, went on benefits and now only has to pay me £2.50 per week (£5 divided between me and the then-teen he screwed behind my back). That will just about cover DS's Dr Who Adventures magazine each week. Big fucking wow.

Then there are avenues you can take. Diversion of income and wilfully leaving a job ARE matters the CSA can look into They may deny it but there have been successful cases.

I feels as if the NRP's income has been increasingly protected by policy

How so?

The fact of the matter is no CM payment will change unless there is a 10% shift in income, whether that be employed or not.

JSA is not "the minimum amount an adult is deemed to be required to survive as a single adult". It may have started that way when it was introduced before the first world war, but is now not linked to minimum living costs.

It is now increased in line with the CPI (previously RPI), the lower measure of inflation, which includes things like the change in cost of a new car.

The 'minimum income guarantee' applies across all benefits, so as the benefits increase so does this, that is why there is no change.

Benefits for those without children are set at subsistance levels, taking a larger amount out of benefits would be unfair and where the NRP is having contact, could stop that because they cannot even afford bus fare.

There are genuine NRP's who cannot find work and are doing the best that they can, these would suffer (as would their children) if the system was different.

Birdsgottafly - which country are you in?

UK.

Have wages gone up?

JSA is not linked to "a minimum amount required to survive" but it should be.

JSA has not risen in line with the cost of living for the last 15 years except one. It has been effectively cut every year.

There is no "minimum income guarantee" in the UK, unless you are talking about the minimum wage?

The term 'minimum income' came into being in 1999.

That is why the figure 67.50 is featured across benefits for single people (or was, i don't 'do' benefits anymore). It stops people going into absolute poverty.

There are levels that people cannot be allowed to drop under, similar applies when setting means testing rates.

This was brought in by Blair, but in line with what was required by member states of the EU. Not all countries do what they should,mind, in terms of social security benefits.

Across all regulations, such as 'the protection of vulnerable people' which applies to debt agencies and baliffs, there came a fairness in what was allowed to be taken from welfare benefits.

My ex gave up his job and now pays a generous £5 from his benefits.

It's divided between the 3 women he got pregnant then fucked off and left. I'm sure you can do that maths :o

Do you have a link for that Birdsgottafly?

Captainhetty I assume you were number 1 of the 3?

I was number 2, he conveniently omitted the fact that he had a 3 month old child when I started seeing him.