Work for dole

[ReallyTired]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7514513.stm

I think that proposals like these are long over due. Although I think that if you make people work full time for their benefits they won't have time to look for job.

Prehaps they should work three days a week and look for a job two days a week.

There are people who for good reasons cannot work full time, but certainly could do something part time.

Not at all practical.

If the NRP works full time how will they have the child 50% of the time? If they quit or cut hours then the CSA payments will be reduced, would the PWC be happy about this?

If the PWC claims child benefit should that be spilt 50/50? Can the NRP claim CTC and WTC for the child as well or share half of what the PWC receives?

If the PWC is entitled to social housing because of being a lone parent, shouldn't the NRP be as well?

Shouldn't this also mean that CSA payments should be scrapped altogether and the PWC receives no money from the NRP?

In fact there would be no NRP as they would both be PWC.

Who makes the descions when the niether parent can agree? At the moment, in most cases, it is assumed the PWC has the final say. But that shouldn't be the case if custody is 50/50.

A lot of parents work full time and still have to take responsibility for their children! I agree with Xenia on this one. You don't stop being a parent just because you split with your partner.

Findtheriver you have answered none of the questions though:

If the NRP (who is actually now a PWC) works full time, they should be entitled to benefits like child benefit, CTC etc, yes?

Should the PWC's benefits be halfed to supplement the NRPS's claim?

So does this mean the state pays out twice (one to the PWC and then once to NRP) for the same child?

Or should it be that you can only receive benefit if the child is staying with you that week. So one week you receive full benefits, the next week you get nothing and the NRP gets it?

Can the NRP ask the council to house them because they are now a lone parent. Surely they can say the child lives with them, just as the PWC can?
Does this mean two council houses for one child?

Surely everything the PWC is currently entitled to, the NRP should be as well. So the NRP could quit work and claim housing benefit, income support, etc

Does this mean the end of the CSA as who pays who if its shared custody?

Its all good in theory but what about the pracitaiclites???

Sorry, didnt realise answering questions was compulsory on here!
Yes, of course there are practicalities to consider, but the starting point has to be deciding what the best way forward is in theory, and then working the practicalities around that.
There seems to be a general consensus that the current system does not work. There are so many anomalies and loopholes. Just to make a few points from what I perceive/from previous posts:

• the CSA makes huge cock ups. It also doesnt necessarily pursue absent parents who pay nothing towards their children.
• current systems can actively discriminate against couples who remain together. (eg if you are a lone parent, you don't have to look for work until your children are about 12 or something ridiculous, whereas if you are a couple and you can't afford to live on one income, then tough, you just both have to work).

Surely the starting point has to be that the parents of a child should have responsibility for that child until they reach legal adulthood. This should be the case whether the parents stay together or not. You do not stop becoming a parent.
Of course people should be supported to try to make a fresh start after a relationship breakdown. Everyone deserves an opportunity to move on. However, alongside this there needs to be an acceptance that if a couple split up, and are moving from running one home together to setting up two separate homes, in all likelihood, their standard of living will drop. If DH and I split up, there is no way one of us would be able to remain in the home we live in now, and the other partner go off and find somewhere spacious and attractive to live in. We have built up the life we have as a partnership - how could we possibly expect to maintain that standard of living as a single person? There are lots of really huge issues here, and I'm not suggesting there are simple answers. But I still think the starting point has to be accepting that every parent has responsibility for their children.

Suggesting every parent should have responsibility for their children is one thing (and hardly a new idea)

But to agree that NRP's should be forced by law to have 50% of custody is quite another. You agree with this idea but seem to have little understanding of whether it could actually work. Which I find strange, because if I agreed with a theory it would be because I thought it could actually work.

You are also looking at this from a point of view where the couple own their own home and have a high standard of life.
How does your theory work in relation to a couple who live in a council flat and need benefits to survive? Would a PWC in these circumstances be happy to trade her CSA payments for more free time?

Did you know that their are some PWC who actually reduce the number of nights the NRP can have the children in order to increase their CSA payments? I don't think that those PWC would embrace your idea quite so happily.

This thread is a bit heavy at the mo chaps,happy debating, i'll check back in later as im not really up on the CSA thing x

I haven't read the whole thread, but findtheriver:

"current systems can actively discriminate against couples who remain together. (eg if you are a lone parent, you don't have to look for work until your children are about 12 or something ridiculous, whereas if you are a couple and you can't afford to live on one income, then tough, you just both have to work). "

what a preposterous thing to say! I think you'll find that single parents also have to work if they can't afford not to. Their benefits are generally lower than one person's wage. The system does not discriminate in favour of them.

Also the CSA could possibly be improved, but it can't possibly catch all absent non-paying parents. Some don't work for a start, or work cash in hand. It's all very well for us to agree that parents "should" take responsibility for their children, but that doesn't get us any closer to helping partners of the feckless

Thanks Hughjarss - nice to know we're not alone.

I think many, if not most, NRPs would jump at the chance of 50% shared care of their children. But the argument does fall down rather where the PWC doesn't want the NRP's involvement, apart from their money of course (as in our case), and/or when the PWC moves hundreds of miles away.

In answer to the question about what would happen with CTC, I hope that would be split two ways. At the moment what happens is that the PWC gets maintenance plus full CTC (which excludes the maintenance in the calculation). The NRP gets to pay full costs of raising the child, no CTC for that DC(s) and reduced CTC for their other children (because the calculation doesn't take into account maintenance paid). Does everyone think that sounds fair?

Yes TwoIfBySea, at one time they were demanding nearly £90 a week. We were (apparently still are) on the old system which starts from the premise that you pay first for the ex's upkeep and then, if you earn enough, for the DCs upkeep as well. As long as it doesn't take you below IS level you get to keep half what you earn after housing costs and the PWC gets all the rest, up to a maximum of around £300 a week!

Any changes to their assessments on the old system took literally months. Consequently, with a highly variable income there were many many months where DH was having money demanded with menaces that he had absolutely no way of paying in full.

Actually, I think it is the case that NRPs are in effect asked to pay half the costs of their children's upkeep under the new system. The Government calculates that around 30% of a parent's income goes on raising a child. Therefore they split that down the middle and ask the NRP to pay 15%. That is fair, but the old system was punitive to say the least.

We have worked it out, and the CSA has actually demanded over 40% of DH's earnings over the past 18 years. The amount they claim he owes from the period they made no contact is over 60% of his earnings - 60% - backdated!! And people wonder why the CSA forces men to suicide!

Twinklemegan - We are lucky we are on cs2. We we're on CS1 and it is so much worse. I didn't think the CSA could chase debt that was accured prior to the year 2000, am I wrong?
Are you in touch with NACSA? It sounds like they could really help you

Senora - there are aspects to the benefits system which do actively discriminate against parents who live together. That is a fact. hughjarssss - I don't know how you think you know whether or not I have a high standard of living or not!! Each of us will look at an issue from our own perspective, that's inevitable, but it doesn't preclude people from having the right to a point of view. I wouldnt dare to suggest that a single person can't have a valid point of view about relationships!! Yes, I am part of a couple at the moment. Who knows what might happen in the future? None of us know what is around the corner. I am simply stating that parents should be expected to have responsibility for their children. And I don't see any reason why if the parents split up, the child can't spend half the time with each parent. Most of the arguments on here seem to have been reduced to whether the PWC is able to trade off CSA payments against free time etc which personally I find rather distasteful. The issue is about the entitlement of children to be parented, not about whether the parents are able to maintain the standard of living they want.

Findtheriver you obviously have no experience of the CSA or what it is like to have to survive on benefits.

You find it Distasteful? I nearly chocked when I read that.

A PWC is struggling to survive and therfore doesn't want her CSA payments reduced and you find that distasteful??

What about the other questions I have asked that you are choosing to ignore, reg. child benefit, CTC?
Should the NRP be entitled to a council house on the basis he/she is now a lone parent as well?

These are all questions that affect the taxpayer. Taxes might have to increase as now the state has to find double the amount od benefits to pay out.
And where are all the extra council houses going to come from?

All valid questions that you are choosing to ignore

DH has joined NACSA and is currently psyching himself up to dive into it all again. Things had been OK for quite a while, until SD2 left school and the CSA decided to go after the entire arrears (having been happy with payments that we could afford for years). The ex reluctantly agreed to ask the CSA to close the case but has now gone back on her word. The CSA is regularly contacting her encouraging her to demand more from DH, which we cannot afford with a toddler to support.

I think you're right that the CSA can't go to court for arrears incurred before July 2000. But they can still use their own crooked procedures and enforcement. We're hoping we can establish that if the money was never asked for then it isn't owed, or at least only up to a reasonable level. Looking at DH's average earnings per week over the whole period, he would only have been paying £5 a week on the new system. A bit different from up to £90!

We both know that NACSA is our last hope, so we're a bit reluctant to take the plunge in case they can't help and we remain at the mercy of DH's ex for the rest of our lives.

I find it distasteful that a lot of the debate seems to be driven by financial issues between the PWC and the NRP rather than actually focusing on the fact that the child has a right to be parented by its parents!
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'now the state has to find double the amount od benefits to pay out.'
You are making all kinds of assumptions linking benefits/work/income with parenting. Why should parents receive more child benefit if they split up than if they stay together?? The child benefit is exactly that, ie for the child. It shouldnt make any difference whether the parents split or not, the amount remains the same.

"And I don't see any reason why if the parents split up, the child can't spend half the time with each parent."

Neither to I Findtheriver. In fact the only people who would see such a reason is the PWCs who often like to cut the NRP out of their children's lives altogether. Sometimes this may be because they don't want to lose child support (fair enough I suppose) but often they have a new partner and want rid of the old one altogether. In our case, she made it as difficult as she possibly could for DH to see his children. He had no information volunteered about their schooling, their health, nothing. He wasn't even told about a recent very major event - he found out second hand and was very hurt indeed.

Findtheriver - it can't be right surely for one parent to shoulder all the costs and the other to get all the child benefit and CTC?

Exactly Twinklemegan. In the course of my work, I come across many children who are the pawns caught in the middle between warring parents. No, it isn't fair enough for a PWC to want the NRP out of their life just so that they can get more money, or start a life with a new partner and conveniently forget that their child has another parent. I have also witnessed situations where one parent has no knowledge of schooling/health issues etc. It is totally unfair on the NRP who should be able to continue to play a full role in their child's life. The real victims here are the children.

Findtheriver - You don't understand that if the NRP has the child as much as the PWC he/she should be entitled to the same amount of benefits?

So therefore the state either pays out two lots of child benefit or the parents share it.
Hence double the benenfits.

If the NRP works then he should be entitled to claim CTC if he has his shared custody of the child. Hence the state paying out yet more in beneifts.

If the NRP is homeless after the split then he can go to the council and ask to be housed as he/she is now a lone parent. If the PWC can get housed as a lone parent then so should the NRP, hence needing twice as many council houses.

Its not hard to understand.

I am talking about money because it is where the difficulies lie when you talk about forcing shared custody.
You are niave if you think you can force the parent to have shared custody but expect them not to want the same rights as the PWC, that includes the same amount of benefits.

A fundamental mistake of the CSA and the idea which you support is linking contact with maintence. They are two seperate issues and should be dealt with as such.
A NRP shouldn't be theatrened with no contact if he doesn't pay.

No one can make an NRP care about his children or want contact with them. I have addressed the financial flaws with the idea of forced contact, the emotinal flaws are just as great.
What are the long term consequences for the children who are looked after by men/women who don't really want them and are only having them because the law says they have to?

sorry, findtheriver, I won't accept your argument that the benefits system discriminates against couples until you give a proper example. the one you gave doesn't make sense (unless you think that couples have a minimum income requirement, but single parents, magically, can live on any amount)

Twinkle - I really hope NACSA can help you and that everything works out in the end. I have my fingers crossed for you.

'Findtheriver - You don't understand that if the NRP has the child as much as the PWC he/she should be entitled to the same amount of benefits?

So therefore the state either pays out two lots of child benefit or the parents share it.
Hence double the benenfits.'

• Hughjarsss - your argument is illogical. Child benefit is a fixed sum of money paid per child per week. If the child is resident with each parent for half of the week, then why would both parents need to be paid the full amount?! There are 168 hours in a week. A child cannot spend all 168 hours with the PWC AND the NRP! If you are talking about a 50% split in the time spent with each parent, then why not a 50/50 split in child benefit?

Child benefit is exactly that - money paid because for the needs of the child. By the logic of your argument, then why shouldnt couples who live together also receive double the benefit - one lot for each parent?!!

senora - it's been done so many times before. EMA is a good example. Young people in post 16 education can receive up to £120 per month if the income of the PWC is below a certain threshold. I know dozens of cases where young people of between 16 and 18 live with a parent (usually the mother) who chooses to work part time so that she doesnt go over the threshold. The NRP may be earning 200k a year, and the children may be happily moving between the two homes all week, but they are entitled to this money. Why? It makes absolutely no sense. Meanwhile, couple who stay together may both be working full time and earning less overall than a split couple, but the children receive no benefits. Mad world we live in.

Findtheriver - At the moment, even if custody is 50% split only one parent can claim it.

What about CTC'S that the NRP can now claim as a lone parent? Income support? The NRP is now entitled to everthing the PWC was previously entitled to don't you agree? So how do we deal with that if we are not going to pay out more benefits? Are you suggesting that these should also be split

What about council houses? Should these be shared as well? After all the NRP has as much right to social housing now he is a lone parent as well.
The parent's whose week it is to have the child should move in for a week and then move out the following week?

These are all simple basic questions that the concept of forced shared custody throws up. You can't even answer these. There are a lot more complicated issues surrounding the idea.

EMA, my eldest doesnt does get it because we have both worked hard and earn jointly above the threshold. Parents that have never done a days work, well their kids get the full amount. Surely it should be on the childs performance, not parents income related.

I am talking about child benefit on the first line of my previous post.

And then with regard to the rest of the post I am obviously assuming the NRP is entitled to these means tested benfits. I am not implying he is just entitled to them just becaue he is a lone parent.
My point is a low earning NRP should be entitled to claim the same benefits as a low earning PWC if they are sharing custody.

Yes, of course benefits should be split. It's a perfectly sensible solution - far too sensible which is probably why it hasn't been implemented!
Social housing - yes, of course the NPR can go on the list for council housing, as can anyone else.
These issues are not intrinsically linked to being a lone parent anyway. Everyone needs a roof over their heads whether they are single/coupled/split. And every parent should have the expectation that they will support their children. The benefits system is designed to support people who cannot find work who are unable to work for specific reasons. These may be couples or singles.