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?

To be clear, I worked ft and didn't claim anything except CB. But at some point we do have to factor in the actual parenting. My ex has spent the last ten years blissfully able to get up in the morning, go to work, stay late, do his own thing, seek promotion etc. I've had to juggle everything, both actual and mental alongside work and the emotional needs of two small people. Contribution isn't just about finances and if contact is typically unequal, I'm not going to begrudge state support to the RP so that children can have a parent around with enough headspace to actually build a relationship with them. I would have loved 50/50 but ex wasn't interested. In the vast majority of cases maintenance comes nowhere near 50% of child related costs, especially if you WERE to factor in loss of earnings, pensions etc to the RP. I know thats not practically possible but let's not start expectating the parent actually doing all the heavy lifting AND more than 50% of the finances already, from whatever source, to shoulder even more.

Who is "giving up their children to the state?" Nearly all the children in care are in care because social services has removed the children due to being in an unsafe environment.

That makes sense, from one perspective. From the other perspective, the NRP is in a position where the more financially stable the RP is, the more he pays. I can imagine controlling NRPs sabotaging the RP's job opportunities to avoid his maintenance going up.

I think this is the way to go.

Like any political change, there’d be some “winners” and some “losers” but I think the fundamental concept is right.

Winners

• taxpayers
• RPs who aren’t on UC and receive less than half of their child’s costs from the NRP
• RPs whose NRP has over 3 children, or stepchildren

Losers

• NRPs who don’t pay half their child’s costs
• RPs who are paid by both their ex and the state to raise their children
• RPs who are paid more than half of their child’s costs by the NRP

How are taxpayers winners here?

Because the NRPs are covering half the child’s cost instead of UC.

In the vast majority of cases maintenance comes nowhere near 50% of child related costs,

@RhaenysRocks but maintenance isn’t meant to cover 50% of child related costs. As an earlier poster pointed out:

A lot of RPs think maintenance should cover all the costs of the child, or even half the costs, without considering their own contribution and the fact the NRP is also running their own house.

both parents have to pay mortgage/rent, council tax, travel costs, standing rates for utilities, clothes for their own house, etc.
Maintenance should be a contribution to the extras on top of that. So extra food, extra childcare, extra clothes. Not everything.

I agree with this. Even if my ex had paid 50% of the costs left after UC (which he didn't) I still contributed far more over all. I'm the one who had to make sure work fitted around childcare. I'm the one who had to take days off when they were sick. I'm the one who sacrificed a social life,
not that I regret that for a minute, but let's but pretend that it's just about finances.

As it is I was lucky if he had them for 6 hours per week and he didn't pay a penny for the last 13 years.

So you’d cut UC for single parents? Even if you did, if the maintenance was more than they’d been getting on UC, taxpayers would still be losers. As they have to bridge the gap until the NRP pays (if they pay). If UC doesn’t get cut then the taxpayer is a massive loser.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be having to step in at all, IMO.

What is 'not enough'?

I’m suggesting that a set rate is applied of £200-250 per month per child, reduced for overnights. The NRP pays it into a government account; the government ensures the full amount is paid to the RP. If there is a shortfall, that’s added to the NRP’s arrears which is retrieved via payroll / HMRC / seizing assets / whatever means.

So the single parent shouldn’t be worse off, but the NRP is paying for their share of their child’s costs rather than the taxpayers.

The sum they're paid by their child’s NRP, as a CMS calculation.

Yeah so the taxpayer has to step in. I wouldn’t want to pay this.

Because it quite often isn't.

I have no intention of letting him get away with it.I think he's under the impression that once they age out he will walk away Scott free.
I spoke to a very helpful woman at the CMS, a couple of years ago, who informed me that they will take the arrears from his state pension if they have to. He's only in his 40s so there's a way to go yet though.

They are already paying it. Maintenance is a “nice to have” on top, if the NRP gets it. It’d be a reduction for the taxpayer.

Ok, left field idea here. All these are good ideas but almost impossible to implement without costing a shitload in admin.

sack off cms entirely. Use the savings on administrative costs to increase CB significantly for single parent households so everyone gets a basic minimum for raising the child.

bring back clean breaks on divorce so a high earning adult has to hand over a significant portion of assets to “front load” a higher rate of child support, or sign over their share of a house to the children.

any parent not living 50% or more with their biological child/ren gets an automatic tax increase at source, which is used to also fund the increased CB payments.

then everyone gets cms. And enough to raise their children. Higher income families get a better asset share in the beginning.

then cms payments aren’t needed. Rp gets enough to live on, securely, with no concern about non payment. Cost effective as everything is done through tax codes and benefits.

Your savings on CMS staff would have to be used on staff sorting the tax codes of those not living 50% with their kids surely?

Splitting the administrative costs of CMS (~£250 million net) across all single parent households with dependent children (about 2 million) would give them about £2.50 each a week (per household, not per child).