AIBU to think that maintenance SHOULD affect benefit entitlement?

[IJustCantBelieveIt]

Don't want to drip feed, but don't want to go on and on.

My dh and I have been together for 4 years (married for 2) he has a 7 year old ds from a previous relationship. He has always paid maintenance, even though his ex is very difficult with contact. When we met, it was £53 a week. It is now £78 a week (these are based off of the statutory amounts, but elevated a little) We don't have a problem with paying. It is after all his ds.

His ex has had 2 more dc since they split, both have different fathers, who she is also no longer with. She works part time (well 24 hours a week) at weekends when her dc are at respective fathers' or with her mother. Both other fathers pay maintenance for their respective dc.

Now what has got me thinking is that we have just reviewed payment amount and increased it. I said to dh to make sure she lets her benefits' offices know as we don't want her getting stung. She got back to us saying that maintenance has no impact on her benefits.

How can this be? Out of curiosity, we did a benefit calculation with her circumstances and it shows as eligible for almost £500 a week. Plus her weekly earnings and maintenance payments from dh (haven't a clue what the other fathers pay, so we didn't include it) she is getting over £3000pcm.

Surely, maintenance payments should be counted as an income for her dc if nothing else. I thought benefits were calculated to make sure that families had enough money to live on. I don't begrudge that we pay maintenance, but she shouldn't also be receiving money to pay for her children from the govt, as I believe over £10 per day is sufficient for keeping a child? I don't know what to think. Anyone understand why this is like it is? Or am I just BU?

Benefits such as income support either replaces or supplements low income. It is calculated for one person and any children they look after. Are you suggesting he should pay less, or that her and her child should live on less? Child maintenance is a percentage of the parents income and is for their child. It has nothing to do with the other parent and nor should it.
Would it also be fair for example for child maintenance to be reduced just because the other parent gets a promotion or gets into a relationship that puts them into a higher income bracket.
a friend of mine recieves sparadic child maintenance. If benefit had to be recalculated everytime the maintenance payer changed jobs or stopped paying then the cost to the benefit system in overpayments, back payments and crisis loans would be far greater than it is by single parents getting an extra £75 a week!

There is no need for the collection of child maintenance to cost a lot even given frequent salary changes. PAYE and student loan repayments vary in amount according to earnings and the variance doesn't mean the collection cost is much more than if earnings were static. The problem is that the current system doesn't work and is expensive to administer and could potentially leave the RP without income if the NRP doesn't pay and benefits have been reduced based on his payments, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a new system which works better and reduces the capacity for NRPs to refuse to pay or pay late. If we had a new reliable system then the RP could get her (or his)welfare state benefits and the NRP could have an amount deducted directly from his salary which reduces the burden on the state by repaying some of the amount paid in benefits to the RP.
The current system means that taxpayers are paying for children whose NRP might be earning substantial amounts and could easily afford to cover some of the costs of their children. RPs shouldn't be able to get state benefits to pay for their children if the child's NRP is earning enough to pay for his child so that they do not need state benefits. State benefits are a safety net for those in need and that is who they should provide for, they shouldn't be an enabler for feckless NRPs. The system needs change.

Spousal maintenance is very common where one person doesn't work and looks after the children

ha ha really,i dont know of one person that has ever got this,in my circles your lucky if you get CM

I know loads. A friend of mine's wife gets £60k a year. She has no incentive to remarry or cohabit as then the £60k stops. That is on top of what he pays for the children and her capital settlement. My ex wanted maintenance for life too from me and had a very large capital settlement from me to buy out that claim.

Of course if you marry a man who earns very little or you earn very little then neither of you is likely to pay but plenty of people earn above average amounts and pay a lot of maintenance for their lower earner spouse.

That's not child maintenance, Flower, that sounds like spousal maintenance. Child maintenance doesn't stop if the RP marries someone else.

Have not read all the messages. I also discovered this recently and was astonished.

It's such a disincentive to work and actually makes separating from your partner more economically beneficial.

I completely agree with the OP. Yes it should be taken into account (although I understand the difficulties of implementing it, what happens if it stops etc etc) At the end of the day it is income coming into the household. It would be counted if the father was there, why not when he isn't? As it stands I would be substantially better off being single. My husband would have to pay me (according to CSA) about £250 a month for our 2 children. Then I'd have benefits of £461 per week to cover our costs. That's 2k a month before I get the child maintenance, more than we currently earn. How on earth does it work that I'd have nearly £300 per month more to feed and house 3 people than to feed and house 4?

You wouldn't be better off. You'd have to pay all of the rent/mortgage yourself, all of the household bills yourself, pay for all of the food yourself, buy all of the furniture yourself, pay for all of your children's clothes and toys yourself. When you're working and your child is sick, you'll be the only one to care for it. You'll either lose the day's wages or be forced from your job because you've taken too much time off with your sick kid. How far do you think 2k a month goes? If you're in London or down south you'll run out before the end of the month.

It's such a disincentive to work and actually makes separating from your partner more economically beneficial.

The average child maintainence assessment is something like £28pw, so I find it unlikely that it either disincentivises paid employment or incentives divorce/separation, TBH nihat.

I know loads. A friend of mine's wife gets £60k a year.

Flower's conception of "common"/usual/widespread is, as usual, rather skewed.

Flower less than 10% of the population earn eonough to pay higher rate tax. The average UK salary is something in the order of £27kpa.

The fact that you, in your rarefied, high-earning milieu of £60kpa spousal main., islands, million pound divorce settlements etc etc 'know loads' does not mean that spousal maintainence is 'common'. It isn't. And it is getting less and less common.

Why do you keep outing yourself with this stuff?

It is ironic that maintenance from from the father of children is disregarded, yet the income of a new partner (who a mother could be regarded as 'in a relationship with' if he stays over regularly or even just seen about together a lot) is taken into consideration, and can have a serious impact on the family income even though the mother may have no access to her new 'partners' wages at all .

It's not at all Ironic.

Maintenance payments are for the child they aren't there to pay all the rent, or cover the bills, they are there to contribute towards the additional costs that a child brings to the household, (i.e. an extra rent incurred by having an extra room for the child to sleep in, extra food that's consumed, extra energy used). not to buy food for the child's parents, or child's parents new lover, not there to pay for a new car or any other things not pertaining to the child...

Benefits payments are to provide income either solely, or in addition to earned income.
they are not there in order to make up for people who run away from their responsibilities and don't pay maintenance, they are not there to allow people not to pay maintenance, they are the bare minimum needed to survive, (and for some people [for whatever reason] are not even that)

A second adult entering the house would be living in the house and paying towards the household costs.
It makes sense that if a household needed less help with household costs (due to a second income inside that house) that benefits would be reduced.

A second adult in the house does not affect maintenance payments. because it does not affect what the NRP earns, or how much of that they should share with their offspring.

I can see how it seems really stupid in cases where the NRP earns in the order of £1,000,000 per year, and are paying maintenance at £392 a week to the RP that benefits wouldn't be needed (and yet could still be claimed) but that's really rare cases.

Also most of those people getting spousal maintenance tend to have received some capital sums (although maintenance for the spouse is paid if the other spouse cannot afford enough of a capital sum to buy it out so it is for people more in the middle than for those rich enough to afford a clean break - I paid enough for a clean break - the person I know paying £60k a year did not have enough capital in the house and savings to pay off his wife on a clean break despite having a very high income).

If you have over £16k I think you don't get some benefits although you can have a car worth that which is very silly. you might have 4 £20k expensive cars and you get benefits and if instead you sensibly kept the money as cash you don't get the benefits.