I've seen the way these threads go and I'm a bit scared...but can't resist asking anyway!

[fourkids]

Scared but taking the plunge...

I just read this: 'The Government?s stated intention is that from April 2010, child maintenance will be fully disregarded when calculating out-of-work benefits.'

I presume this means that even if you have a high-earning exh who pays maintenance of, say, £2,ooo pcm (or £3,000 or £4,000!), you will still be able claim benefits like IS?

Now I'm an exw with an exh who pays maintenance for our children, so i'm not coming at this from any moral highground point of view...and my exh has always paid too much maintenance for me to claim those type of benefits - and I think that's just the way it should be.

We are in a recession. Surely the Government has better things to spend our money on than giving it to those who already have enough?

And to be honest, to some extent, this applies to tax credits and WTC which ignore child maintenance also...

Flame me if I deserve it (obviously I will be upset), but I just don't get this...surely benefits are meant for those who need them?

... Tiff, well we can see why your ex is well, the Ex ... , sounds like the prize twat i divorced. good luck with the job hunting!

It's about time single mums on income support got to keep their maintenance (if it's a low amount). My friend had 20 a week taken off income support because that's what ex was giving her. How cruel is that, not even allowing a single mum to be 20 a week better off. Disgusting.
However, why would someone with a rich ex need benefits? What does Victoria Beckham do with her child benefit?

Sadly BetaDad where I live you're looking at over £1k per month for cheapest rental plus water & council tax!

Sassybeast

despite the wine, that does make sense

I don't know a whole lot about this, but am i right in thinking if you get IS you can get your rent/mortgage interest paid? In which case, say you rent a two bed flat for £1200pcm, then getting £60 pw in maintenence would make you very much poorer than getting £59 pw IS!!

Perhaps all those related benefits should also be means tested rather than related to IS?

CarGirl - where I am in a nice area a nice 3 bed terraced house with a litle garden can be rented for £550 / month.

You can still get housing benefit if you're not on IS it's just means tested instead.

betadad the problem there is that housing costs differ so greatly. Around here the £8K would get you a 1 bed flat.

And personally i think it is very sad that so many people have to move so far away from their roots for afforable housing. Not to mention that the children would have to be uprooted etc.

maybe thr govt could subsidise the rents or something so that you wouldn't end up with vast population movements and possibly an even larger divide between rich/poor areas than we have at the moment. AFAIK the idea of mixing up different types of housing and people works best from a social cohesion POV.

EvenBetaDad 3 bed terrace here in an okay area but one of the poorest towns in Surrey £1,000k per month after hard negotiating down from the £1,200 they were asking.....I kid you not. 2 bed maisonettes are £850 plus

Surely its because so many single parents are relying on maintenance that is paid erratically?

wouldnt make any difference to me if I were claiming benefits, as my ex pays zero.

Actually the most shocking thing I thought was that for those in receipt of IS & HB if they work they can keep £25 without losing benefits but once they earn more than £25 they only effectively get to keep 10% of the additional they earn - that is an insult and encourages people to not bother.

Yes irregular maintenance payers what a nightmare, the people paying out the benefits can't cope with amounts being different every week etc etc, you're better off not receiving anything because at least then you can budget and you only get to "keep" £20 per week anyway (or thereabouts)

fourkids I get what you are saying.

The thing is with benefits though, even if you are entitled to them, you don't have to claim them and you don't get them unless you apply for them.

So maybe someone in the fortunate position of getting £2000 or £3000 in maintainance won't bother claiming benefits?

Most lone parents don't get anywhere near this figure in maintainance though, so you're talking about a tiny minority of people.

EvenBetaDad where do you live?

Round here even a one bed flat goes for a minimum of £700. A two bed property (flat/terrace) is a minimum of £900. I know because I spent 6 months looking for somewhere affordable after my teunt of a landlord hiked our rent from £850 to £1350 for a tiny terraced two bed

Sadly, we where made homeless as a result

" What does Victoria Beckham do with her child benefit? "

She shouldn't be getting it as she's no longer a UK resident

It is interesting how much of the perverse incentive, distortions and unfairness in the benefits system hangs on property prices.

I live in two places about 90 minutes drive away from each other. In one place, a single parent with 2 DCs on £20k would be able to live quite comfortably in a nice 3 bed house close to the town centre but in the other place would have to live in a really rough area in a small 2 bed flat a long way from the town centre.

If we had a citizens income I guess people would have an incentive to move to cheaper areas so they could afford better accomodation - much as people on different income levels now move house to get the right location and size of property.

The citizens income and flat tax system will never be implemented - as I suspect practical issues like property prices would be the 'political' breaking point. People without jobs living outside the South East woud be able to live on the tax free income of the size I suggest but those living in the South East would feel they were being forced to move away from family and friends just to be able to afford to live.

Its not the best decision the Government has made but thats not unusual. It will simply mean more people stay on benefits rather than try and work.

I thought they were going to get tougher by stopping benefits once a child reaches 7 (IS) but then they change another area which means more money being paid out.

What i think is awful is that mums not married to the fathers are only entitled to 15% of his nett income per month, despite living together as if we were married, if we had got married it would be i think 30%, that needs to be levelled before the income support is given without means testing.

It saves money in the long run to just give eveyone the same as it costs loads in administration to calculate and take into account everyone's maintenance payments and offset them against income support.
Same reason everyone gets child benefit. So it's costing less in the long run to do it that way, not more, so YABU.
Also a maintenance payment might not be as reliable in coming as an income support payment, so if your ex H is being awkward and not paying up it could leave a single Mum in a very sticky situation, financialy.
Also if Ex H earns bucketloads, why should ex wife and kids have to live on income support levels? Which are supposedly the bare minimum to survive on, therefore putting Mum on the poverty line (seperate debate if you think income support makes you rich, but seriously it IS supposed to be bare minimum, therefore the lowest you can possibly survive on- I'd class that as on the poverty line)If she's entitled to £150 a week income support and exH pays her £100 a week, then if they took his maintenance into account, her income support would go down to £50 a week and she'd be back on the poverty line. Why should she be? If EXH has money to support his kids, then the kids should be able to benefit from it, not have it clawed back from them by the government.
So if you walk away from an abusive man who you've supported while he worked his way up the career ladder and sacrificed your career to bring up his kids, iron his bloody shirts, hold his hand while he made his way to the top of his career; if you walk away from him then you must live on the poverty line? Bloody hell there are far more shit things the governemet overspends on- get angry about something deserving of anger- don't shit on single parents. Yes I am flaming you, and I'm not even a single parent on benefits.
Benefit payemts are the least of your worries if you're concerned about government spending. Ever notice MP's expenses, or stupid expensive wars??!! So yes, in conclusion YABU and I AM getting all shouty at you.

Nitemare, I agree with you. The media is also involved in blaming the poorest in society for everything. I existed on income support for many years, and it really is the bare minimum, to the point of having to choose between milk and toilet paper (toilet paper won) and trekking miles to the nearest pawn shop because I didn't have bus fare. An extra 20 a week would have made a big difference, but oh no, me and DC's were such scum we weren't even entitled to that, in the governments eyes.

Benefits should be targeted at those in the greatest financial need. That means everybody in need, not just families. The most vulnerable people are often those that live on their own and have no family.

I blame the Government (who doesn't at the moment?) for constantly going on about 'hard working families' in every policy, even though the policies will have an impact on the entire country.

I'd rather see the benefit money go to pensioners on low incomes, young homeless people and people of any age with disabilities.

Totally agree millyR. I am about as opposite in views to abetadad as possible (sorry betadad!).

I don't understand why i should be eligible for money that I don't need (child benefit, tax credits, health in maternity grant, CTF etc) I would rather it was chanelled towards areas and people with real deprivation. Apart from it being the right and proper thing to do, the benefits to society of really sorting out people living in poverty would be immense.

I still claim what I'm entitled to mind, I'm not quite that principled...

There's a lot of common sense on here. Bigbellas, unfortunately you ideas will never be implemented, because if the poor were no longer poor, people would blame the real culprits for the state of the country, and the powers that be wouldn't have that.

oooh nitemare

'It saves money in the long run to just give eveyone the same' - there is some sense in that argument.

'Also if Ex H earns bucketloads, why should ex wife and kids have to live on income support levels?' - well, she wouldn't would she, because if exh earns bucketloads, CM will be substantial - this is exactly the situation I described above.

'So if you walk away from an abusive man who you've supported while he worked his way up the career ladder and sacrificed your career to bring up his kids, iron his bloody shirts, hold his hand while he made his way to the top of his career; if you walk away from him then you must live on the poverty line?' - as an example, this is my situation, except exh wasn't abusive, and so obviously I don't have to live on the poverty line because exh's salary is substantial and so, therefore, is CM. And I think it's a very poor use of taxpayers' money to chuck it at people in my (and many others') situation. How many people would decline the payments would be an ineteresting discussion!

But many single mums do live on the poverty line, either because their exps won't pay CM or because their exps' salaries are lower. My point is that those single mums should get financial assistance, not the ones who already have plenty. As MillyR says: 'Benefits should be targeted at those in the greatest financial need'

I guess what this ruling will also do is make life easier for those who currently choose to deceive the CSA and say that they don't recieve any CM when in fact they do, in order to claim IS as well.

junglist1,

'An extra 20 a week would have made a big difference, but oh no, me and DC's were such scum we weren't even entitled to that, in the governments eyes.'

Surely you are actually agreeing that if there is money available for spending, more money should be made available to those in need? rather than those who are not in need?

There will always be less well off people and more well off people. The point is to try and make sure everyone has enough

Yes totally I know you're not slamming those in need in your OP, I agreed with nitemares stance about fatcats and children benefitting from extra support given. I think it's so out of order that single mums were penalised over a tenner a week, as I'm sure you also agree with.