How would you change child maintenance?

[CountessaExplainsItAll]

I’d make it direct pay as standard, coming from PAYE wages, like an unavoidable tax which is paid when they are.

I’d make arrears payable over the next tax year. If unpaid, assets should be seized.

I’d increase the percentage of salary paid by NRPs with no overnights significantly. NRPs who do weekly overnights have much higher costs than those who don’t.

I’d stop the reduction for NRPs living with other children they haven’t created or adopted.

I’d make maintenance count towards means-tested child benefits. If the NRP legitimately can’t pay (for instance because the parent is dead) then the state should.

I’d punish self-employed tax evaders more severely (not sure exactly how).

You?

Yep, it's the elephant in the room when talking about how much the welfare state has increased since people stopped having personal responsibility and morals!

Heaven forbid the money is actually spend on the child...

Especially when the Reform voters with multiple kids they don't pay for by dozens of different women all wang on about "foreigners using the NHS" and taking jobs.

So, you think we should shop for their food separately? How do we work out what percentage of heating and hot water they used? What about the difference in rent/mortgage for their bedroom? Petrol use for driving them around? You want auditors to come in and itemise all that for every single parent household?

It is utterly idiotic. Are you one of those who things that a resident parent who buys themselves new clothes, or goes out for a glass of wine, or goes on holiday is spending their child maintenance on themselves?

My ex is like that. He thinks that if I have any money to spend on myself, then I shouldn’t need child maintenance so I’m using his maintenance payments on myself. No. Idiotic, and lacking in critical thinking.

This is a big problem within families a the housing market.

More and more separated people/families. Means more housing needed before the population even expands. Housing goes up, it costs everyone more and then we all need more.

Add In some types who see to need a baby in every relationship and you’ve got men and women with multiple baby parents split across multiple houses. None of them properly supported really.

I’d make it a standard amount to be paid per child by age per month regardless of income. Likely based on foster care allowances which is supposed to reflect a weekly income sufficient for the costs of the child.

Every parent is liable for half this amount per child. Everyone with a child on benefits gets half child related benefits eg child benefit/child related element of UC.

Parents who don’t do 50/50 pay the relevant proportion of the money to the parent doing more. You pay whether you work/claim benefits/ live on air

Don’t pay, it’s docked from pay or benefits or it’s a CCJ and they come and sell your belongings.

So for example
two kids ages 9 and 12 outside the South East
Each parent must pay 100.50 per week for 9yo and 113.50 for 12 year old.

If non resident parent does every other weekend they pay £86.43 per week for their younger child and £97.61 for oldest.

This would reflect the reality that you have to pay for your children regardless of what you do. The only way out is 50/50 care. No discounts for dropping the job, hiding money or having another child just pay up.

It actually fairly reflects the cost of raising children

Well I agree with this, but lots of people won’t …

Maybe you've been replying to the wrong poster? I never commented on your proposal.

I agree with this.

There’d be some NRPs worse off, but far more would be better off and it’d be far less expensive to the taxpayer.

There should be exceptions for people who genuinely can’t pay, for instance due to disability. But shirkers and tax avoiders should be forced to pay.

No, I meant to reply to you. We disagree on whether subsequent children should make payments decrease under the current model. But we both presumably see the benefit of a NRP paying half of the child’s average costs.

Why are you picking on me? My experience and those of all my peers was as I described. I now teach teens and we know where they go when they leave us. Its as I described, plus the job market for them is dire. Not a one of them.is financially able to be independent at 18.

I think there are so many babies in new/unstable relationships because there’s little consequence. New baby = more money and a bigger house for many people.

I’m not picking on you 😂I’m replying to you; it’s a message forum. You are welcome to stop posting if you wish.

The problem with making it count towards means tested benefit entitlement is that even co parents who get along well might agree the non resident parent will pay less because they know then that means more benefits.

Sorry cross posted. I don't think an NRP should be having more children at the expense of his existing ones. If a couple make that decision together thats up to them, but not in a split family. Especially when the NRP doesn't really have day to day contact and doesn't see or appreciate the impact on his existing kids.

If you are not paying or significantly in arrears, a ban on leaving the UK until all debts are cleared and then no arrears for at least a year. If you persist, then no driving licence for a minimum period, no exceptions for hardship.

And anyone holding elected office is disqualified.

You don’t think the CMS amount should be reduced when an NRP has more children, or you don’t think an NRP should *have any more children?

This is exactly what my exh did. He got his equity share of 100k in November 2023. Stopped paying maintenance in December 2023. A coincidence? I think not.

But every second child is had at the expense of the first, if you go down that route.

Are you saying that even a billionaire shouldn’t have a second family as it would be financially detrimental to his first child?

Seriously, what's your issue with me? What I'm saying is not original or controversial. If a man can have more children in a new relationship at no cost to his first, go for it. But unlike in a nuclear family, the decision to spread the resources more thinly is not taken jointly and inevitably mum no1 will have to make up any shortfall. No one is actually going to stop their kids' hobbies so they'll find the difference. Dad only sees the kid 2x a month so doesn't notice the issue.

That’s why it should be a set amount that’s not related to any other benefits. The RP gets the money, it comes from the NRP or the government fronts it but the NRP has to pay it back. Would help for things like mortgages too.

Yep
block passport
points on licence
non payment on credit file

and no reduction for 2 partners kids

and no reduction for more kids

as it is there is nothing to stop men / nrp having more kids and this reducing the previous payments

you know you already have one kid

if you have more with partner number 2 or 3
there is no reduction
it might make people think a little bit about who they have kids with

Was going to say exactly this. My DC is disabled has lots of extra costs of quarterly psychiatrist visits, medical needs, weekly therapy sessions, specific foods etc

I take it then that no woman who claims maintenance should be allowed another child either?