to be bloody pissed off that the CSA...

[fanjangolo]

take child tax credits from one set of children living with the Non resident parent, to give to their other child regardless of the resident parents income.

Child Tax Credits are given to lift children out of poverty and then the CSA take them, shoving them back into poverty - even if the child they are giving this money to lives in a wealthy household.

Instead of considering £200 wage consider an income of £315 both as earned income and part earned and part tax credits.

£315 wages
No tax credits
2 resident children
NRP pays £38 to other child.

£315 made up of 200 wage 115 tax credits tax credits taken into account
2 resident children
NRP pays £38 to other child

Both these scenarios leaves the nrp the same figures for the children resident with him and non resident.

£315 made up again as wages and tax credits but this time tax credits not taken into account.
2 resident children
NRP pays £24 to other child.

Is it really fair for the other child to receive less because the government makes up for low wages

I have never understood how a NRP get a reduced CSA bill for living with another woman's children but his children don't get enhanced CSA due to his new partners salary.

You missed out the context of Orange's comment though, which is that maintenance is reduced as a result of resident step children which is totally one-sided.

Personally I don't think the new partner's income should be taken into account, but at the very least the reduction for step children needs to be removed so that it only applies to the NRP's bio or adopted children (as I said, I think it should be removed entirely, but that's unlikely to happen).

I also think the minimum payment of £5 for those on benefits or low incomes should be increased and/or made per child, even if it's not actually paid it can accumulate as debt. Given child benefit and tax credit rates, the Government assesses children to need about £70 a week minimum, not including housing costs or childcare. So I'd set the minimum at maybe a third or half of that per child, and if the NRP can't afford to pay it then debt accumulates.

What I'd like to see, in all honesty, is that child maintenance be guaranteed by the Government, ie they assess the NRP's income, pay the PWC and then claim the money back from the NRP. That way the PWC could rely on receiving the money (which also means it could potentially be deducted from tax credits which is an area that seems to annoy a lot of people) and the NRP would actually owe the money to the state which might make them a damn sight more invested in getting hold of it. Their complete inability to get money out of resistant NRPs is ridiculous.

Whereas the way I see it is that paying the CSA rate of maintenance is providing the bare minimum in financial support for your child, and if you can't afford to have more children without reducing that bare minimum amount then you can't afford another child. Just like if the PWC or a together couple can't afford another child without reducing the amount they feed their existing child, then they can't afford another child either.

I say bare minimum while bearing in mind that the average CSA award the last time I checked was £35 per week (that's per award, not per child, and discounts all the zero-payment assessments - there are so many of those that they pull the average down to £25). If we assume that £35 is for one child (even though it is often slit between more) then that is half of what the Government thinks is the minimum that one child needs (based on CB and CTC levels). So yes, that is a minimal contribution. If the only way you can afford to have more children is to reduce that minimal amount, then you really cannot afford more children.

*split

Have I got this right?

If the OP's household income of £x was made up solely of her husbands's salary, then he would be expected to pay £y maintenance for his other child.

Their income however is made up of his salary, plus tax credits - of which some is awarded for her and his two children. As such, OP argues that he should be paying less than the £y he's obliged to pay, despite their income being £x.

I'm confused.

The RP will still be getting less than before the ex NRP had another child.

The whole system is shit. I honestly don't think anything works.

I was getting maintenance from my ex, then he moved in with his new gf who also has 2dc.
My maintenance was reduced as a result, despite the fact that she was already receiving full benefits and CSA from her ex.
He then jacked in his job, so the CSA made a nil assessment. Yet he magically has enough money to get his cbt and a bike.
They've just had a baby together so ill be intersted to see how that affects CSA. Assuming they even find out about the baby that is!

I was thinking about this this morning and wondering (now this IS controversial- I know it wont be loved by all) if the system could be changed so that when a baby is registered at birth, both parents are automatically subject to a 'tax' (for want of a better word) payable to the Govt, of which a portion is returned in the form of CB to the parent who claims it even if the parents are in a relationship together. the rest could be used to provide things like free school dinners for all children and all ringfenced for things specifically for under 18s which my brain cant think of right now. almost like a NI payment for things for children, like for uniform allowances etc. and also treated by like a debt for those that didn't pay. this would however mean both parents would have to be named on the BC unless one parent wished to legally take on the other parent's payment for the life of the child til 18. it could also be made so that if one or both parents died the Govt took over responsibility for the payments.

obviously that's just a few minutes though and there are probably lots of reasons this wouldn't appeal to everyone some people but I think something better than the current system is possible if the right people were in charge.

few minutes' thought

The original CSA assessment gets reduced the more children the NRP has, tax credits may be taken into consideration however the NRP is still financially responsible for all the children they've had so a reduction in tax credits to pay towards CSA makes sense, an NRP still pays well below what they would be paying for a child living with them.

To get around it the parent who is not an NRP can claim tax credits.

If paying towards the upkeep of a child for at least 16 years is unpalatable to a person they should take steps to ensure they don't have children.

the NRP gets a reduction for the increased amount of time a child is with them overnights.

Then the NRP gets a further reduction for each child they have living with them.

The NRP then pays CSA if they hate having CSS deducted from tax credits then the other parent can claim tax credits.

All in all the NRP is not paying a huge shedload to the RP for bringing up their child.

That's an interesting idea StephenFry but for parents who are out of work, would they take this 'tax' from their benefits? As an unemployed single mum I know I couldn't afford to pay it.

I think (if I was PM ) it would have to be part of the massive overhaul I talked about upthread, where wages and benefits reflected the actual cost of living. it wouldn't work with the system we have at the minute. quite frankly I don't think the current system even works now. people are going under on benefits ATM and UC will see that increase so unless benefits were massively changed then no it couldn't come from people's benefits.

I know you've had a work through the figures now, but I just looked on the calc and it says only WTC is taken into consideration?