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?

Her benefits might be her responsibility but the state is paying money to subsidise her children whilst the OPs DH is also paying money to subside her children. Benefits should be there to meet people's minimum basic standard of living, not as a top up to provide a better standard of living. I don't think the OP is saying that she wants her DH to pay less, just that it seems a waste of scarce public funds to provide benefits without taking into account other sources of income. I agree with the OP.
I also see the difficulties in deducting maintenance from benefits due to the NRP possibly being unreliable and not always paying which is why I and several others think that the maintenance should be paid to the state and the resident parents should get benefits as normal. That way NRPs have to cover part of the cost of raising their children but the RP doesn't go without if the NRP fails to keep up with his payments.
Other income is taken into account when a single parent is raising a child and receiving benefits, so why shouldn't child maintenance?

This is very much the OPs business, she is the wife of one of this child's parents. Not a complete random.

And even if she was a complete random, if she or the person she is married to is a taxpayer, then she is entitled to an opinion about how taxes are spent.

The benefits system belongs to the citizens of this country, and it is good for people to have opinions on how taxes are managed.

Well then lets reduce the benefits of all those (thousands of people) who may or may not receive the basic £21 per week, so that we definitely make sure we don't give anything to the few hundred that have a wealthy and reliable ex partner

Basic £21 pw hmm it's more like £5 pw via Csa or £7 pw via CMS

So as tax payers can we all make judgments on what everybody else earns, what benefits they get and what they shouldn't need?

Yes I'm sure we can all have our general opinion but to then start listing as a fact exactly what someone else's house hold income is is ridiculous. Unless of course the op is in possession of the ex's bank statements.

I would hate it to have someone poking around in my life like this. The ex never chose for the op to be involved in her life, yet there she is with a full statement of affairs declaring what the ex needs to live on and sharing tips so she doesn't get into trouble! It's just so intrusive.

No, not on what everyone else earns etc, on what we spend taxes on. And once we've chosen to have a benefit system, which I assume most people want, how do we want that to be administered.

Her benefits might be her responsibility but the state is paying money to subsidise her children whilst the OPs DH is also paying money to subside her children.

whilst the OPs DH is also paying money to subside her his children.

there, fixed that for you.

why don't the Govt take money due in maintenance from the non resident parents PAYE. Like the student loans are done.

I know this would only work for parents employed but would'nt it be a start?

They used to be able to do that LasVegas - I'm not sure they have those powers anymore

yabu. and children do not cost £10 a day.

Woowooowl... so my incomings and outgoings are the business of my ex's wife because she is married to him? I don't think so.

Don't get me wrong, I do think they should be included to an extent- a relative of mine pays his ex wife £800pcm in child maintenance alone...

I just can't believe the extent the OP has gone to, to poke her nose in, it's completely disrespectful to the mother of her DSS.

the Government stripped me as a single full time working mother of all child benefit so they could ensure they had more money to spend on women who choose not to work or work short hours

Are you sure? Are you sure they aren't using that money to fund their foreign wars or to bail out the banks?

In this new system, where NRPs PAYE and RPs receive what are perceived as benefits (I assume that this is just paid as a larger CB amount)...

What happens to the RP who's NRPs were earning 100K PA and paying ~£200 per week? will RPs then continue to get this? amount, perhaps with an "admin overhead taken"?

What about the NRPs who earned, and paid considerably less? do the RPs there get the same amount of the RP or NRPs with better jobs?

What about the NRPs that were happy to pay above and beyond the calculated payments? do the RPs just loose out?

Is this essentially just a tax on NRPs and additional benefit of RPs (paid equally according to and from means, in a progressive way IE NRPs with good jobs pay more than NRPs with bad jobs, everyone gets the same amount at least, special cases may get more?).

Basically, I think it's unworkable.
instead, non-paying NRPs should go to prison.
and prison should use work as a part of rehabilitation, (e.g preparing meals for sale, building office furniture, stamping license plates, doing community litter picking as is done in the states).
in this way they may gain skills, and earn money, deductions can be taken from their wages and paid to RPs

What I'm saying is, I already pay, and don't feel that I should be inconvenienced by systems brought in to deal with the people who don't.

thanks unpronounceable. it would make sense.. There could be a reckoning at end of tax year or whether over or under paid, if employee had differing amounts earned each month.

This would also help as then the child would get a share of any bonus paid.

That's not what I said Cake.

agree woo woo i will vote for you if you stand.

Woo woo I asked what business it is of hers to calculate what she is and isn't entitled to (No comment there a to whether its any of her business should maintenance be included as income for benefits calculations)... you responded

This is very much the OPs business, she is the wife of one of this child's parents. Not a complete random.

I apologise if there has been a misunderstanding and you're not referring to the Ex's income and outgoings as being of the OP's business but it reads to me as you saying that it is the business of the OP as she is married to the childs father.

So having one comfortable or well off parent paying CM should not lift a child out of poverty?

And woowoo we already have laws and the ability to step in when RP do not feed and support their children they come under child protection.

YABU.

You seem to know an awful lot about her to know how much she earns to be able to put it through a benefits calculator, and why would you even bother?

My husband had an affair and left when my kids were 2 and 3, the day I got into the police. They had to go full time to nursery, at a cost of around £800. If I hadn't have got tax credits and 70% of my childcare costs covered, I would never have been able to afford to work.

After my initial 2 years, I had to find a job with more regular hours within the force, as my numpty ex would announce the day before that he couldn't have the children when I was due to be on nightshift. He also refused to have them in school holidays, nor would he help when they were ill as he said it was "my problem". Eventually I had to go part time, working 30 hours, and shock horror, getting tax credits still.

I have had to settle for jobs that fitted round the kids within the force, rather than concentrate on my own career, and I have happily done that. However, you don't seem to have much concept of how difficult it would be for your husbands ex to try and arrange for all 3 kids to be with their respective Father's at the same time in order for her to be able to work etc. I'm sure arranging to do stuff isn't a walk in the park, and I imagine she must have a fair few childcare costs. Fair play to her for doing as many hours as she can at weekends.

Also, your husband must be on a fairly good wage to pay what he is paying. I get less than that a month for 2 children.

I have just done a sum if we divide our family income by the number in our family it leaves £8.54 per person per a day. All bills, food, petrol, clothing has to come out of that. So in our home we have to survive on under £10 per child. It is doable - we manage to get all necessities for the children. Clothes are handed down/second hand in some cases and the adults dont get clothes very often. I think we have each had a new item once in last 2 years. We do manage to get new shoes for the children, and even manage to buy xmas and birthday presents, and a short holiday at least every other year. it is about managing a budget and expectations.

Notauniquename, you wouldn't be inconvenienced, you'd just pay maintenance into a different account if your ex is claiming benefits.

What the RP gets would depend on the benefits they claimed. It would not affect parents whose children aren't paid for out of benefits. Maybe it could just be related to child tax credits, IS and the proportion of HB that funds a room for a child.

What the NRP has to pay would depend on whether they also provided a suitable home for the child combined with their earnings compounded with a realistic calculation of how much it actually costs to feed and clothe a child.

I don't think high earning NRPs should have to pay more than low earning NRPs, because children don't cost vastly different amounts to raise unless parents choose to spend extra on things that aren't essential.

The NRPs that were happy to pay above the calculated amount could presumably still give cash in hand or pay for things directly for their children if they wanted to, so the system could never be foolproof, but it would reduce the amount that the government has to pay on behalf of parents that can easily choose not to bother the way things stand just now.

well said sheep

YABVU. As other posters have said, the money your DH is paying will barely touch the surface of what his DS actually costs on a day to day basis. To begrudge her anything else is dreadful.

Maybe it could just be related to child tax credits, IS and the proportion of HB that funds a room for a child.

Think it would be better to take IS out of that since that is not supposed to be funding the child just the adult, if you start reducing IS you are forcing the rp to spend maintenance money on themselves not the child.

Until we can get maintenance right it would be harmful to the most vulnerable to go back to taking it into account when calculating benefits and I don't see any realistic way of getting it right for all cases.

Do you really think an NRP earning, say, £150k shouldn't be paying more than one paying the bare minimum on a salary of £15k WooWoo?

Really? Really really really?

I don't think high earning NRPs should have to pay more than low earning NRPs, because children don't cost vastly different amounts to raise unless parents choose to spend extra on things that aren't essential.

I don't earn £100k or pay £200 a week.
but if I did I would (not unreasonably) expect that my child should be afforded the same luxuries in life that I was able to afford due to a high paying job. (without needing to subvert the system or make backhanded payments to give an ex income that should be measured against their benefits, with the assumption that they will not declare it.)

I'd also, (not unreasonably) expect that if I was paying £800 a month in maintenance that the government would not use this as an excuse to avoid paying benefits, forcing well off NRPs to pay for everything in the RPs life.