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?

I think there is probably some middle ground here. Many people would agree that a family should be allowed small payments from the father without being penalised, but if the sums involved are substantial, the income support should not be awarded.

That makes sense, there may still need to be full housing benefit paid though, without the income support award, so that would have to change.

I think MillyR should apply for Alistair Darling's job

In a way I do see nitemare's point that if DCs father earns plenty they should benefit from it. Well, sort of...because they do benefit from it if he pays CM. And surely the point is that if DCs parents are able to support them, it is absolutely their responsibility to do so, not the state's? And if they are in need of financial assistance then the state steps in. If they are not in need of financial assistance the state shouldn't contribute. Because that money could be better spent.

I suspect if I had Mr Darling's job I wouldn't be able to MN at work.

yeah, of course you could...and you could expense your computer, and coffee and doughnuts for enhanced enjoyment

They can't channel the money where it's needed and eliminate payments to those who don't necessarily need it without spending loads in admin, so there'd be less money to go round. They're not doing it because they want to give money to those who don't need it; they're doing to cos it saves them money.

If you paid someone to rush round and put a tenner in everyone's letter box you would get money to those that needed it. If you paid someone to knock on every door and do a full financial assessmemt of each household's income to determine whether or not they needed the tenner, you probably wouldn't have enough money left to give those who needed it their tenners!

fair do's on that aspect of it!

Phew! I thought I'd killed the thread! And I was actually feeling quite pleased with myself for my "Stuffing tenners through the letterbox" style assessment of the situation

The government has pledged to half child poverty by 2010 and abolish it by 2020
To date it has reduced it by a quarter, still a long way to go.
The UK has the highest rate of child povery in Europe, at about 11% compared to Sweden at about 2.5% (which has in fact risen by half) while the USA has a rate of about 23%.

i think ALL household income should be assessed when calculating benefits.I can't see any rationale for maintenance to be excluded.Again it is rewarding parents for splitting up.

nitemare, I thought your stuffing letterboxes description was excellent! TBH I can't argue with it as a reason to go down the route the government is taking on this...but I think they should be able to come up with a way to funnel money to those who need it without chucking it at those who don't. It still makes me cross!