So how's this for a crazy idea?

[ScroobiousPip]

Thinking on the proposed HB cuts, and how yet again children (of young mothers) will get a raw deal. Especially About an article in the Indie today on young mums and their children living in hostels.

So....The CSA rates paid to RPs are pretty pitiful on the whole and, even with benefits, many RPS can't afford childcare costs so can't work. And the fact that the NRP gets a living allowance before their contribution is deducted sends a message of adults first, children second.

What if the CSA rate was put up to, say, 50% of the first 40k of the NRPs net income (or even higher if there are more than, say, 3 children) then 20% above 40k to $100k? Above that, the NRP gets to keep 100%. No living allowance, no allowance for other children living with the NRP (on the basis that their own NRP will pay the same rates so they won't be disadvantaged). Just the flat rates.

It would mean some NRPs end up financially worse off. But aren't they better placed to work hard, do overtime, move around where the work is etc, than the RP? And wouldn't it make more sense for single NRPs to be living in hostels rather than RPs with their children?

And possibly a bit contentious but I also wondered if it would make some men (on the basis that men are more often than not the NRP) think more carefully about taking responsibility for contraception in the first place?

I'm sure this is a crazy idea. Come and tell me what you think (and please be gentle if it's a totally dumb idea - i'm posting in politics, not AIBU!).

P.s.. I hope my post isn't so dumb I've profoundly insulted anyone. If so, please come educate me....

If you are questioning why the state should be providing then that's a totally different argument but in which case I'd like to make a small correction to your question. BOTH parents should be providing financially and emotionally, not just the 'other parent'.

Yes, I meant both was typing in a rush.

I think it wrong one parents thinks its ok to shrug of responsibility " oh well, the state can bring up my kid for me so Ill pay jack all".

Thats not fair on anyone.

Niceguy

Its just 38% of lone parents that actually get any child maintenance.

Its on the Gingerbread website if you want a look.

That 38% of course includes those who only pay £5 a week.

So how about directing your scorn at those (mainly men) NRPs who pay nothing and who are the ones who in fact are expecting the state to carry the can-the single mum is just trying to get by.

Its ok I don't expect a reply, you never replied to me on another 'welfare reform' thread when I explained after one of your rants that DLA was NOT an out of work benefit and you were mixing it up with ESA/IB.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your point.

Thanks folks, some interesting POV to consider.

I accept that the original idea is too simplistic. I think my basic concerns still stand though, which are I) parents should be paying for their children as far as they possibly can (children first, adults second) and ii) if RPs have their income topped up by the state (rather than the NRP) this results in the RPs being unfairly stigmatized as beneficiaries.

I think it would still be fairer if NRPs paid more to RPs, but then were able to claim benefits themselves on the basis that they are supporting their dependents.

Morning Amber, where is my scorn towards RP's? My main point is that families are complex things and that one size doesn't fit all. And that applying punitive maintenance calculations to NRP's is misguided.

I've clearly said several times that those who avoid paying anything are wrong. That's an easy one. It's those who already are paying which are harder to deal with because fair is a relative concept.

Apologies if I didn't reply to a previous post but I do post on quite a few topics so I don't always have time to ensure I reply to every thread. Especially the fast moving ones.

Morning niceguy and thanks for the reply

And that applying punitive maintenance calculations to NRP's is misguided

I get what you're saying here but given the extremely low percentage of NRPs that support their children financially I can see why scroobiouspip came to that way of thinking.

I know you said you think its wrong that some(most!) NRPs don't pay, but yet its still the parents that bear the brunt of the care that are demonised.

You take an interest and have an opinion on this subject yet you were not aware and in fact were somewhat disbelieving! Of the true levels of NRPs that actually pay.

That says it all really as to where 'blame' is placed on the issue of lone parents/benefit claiming etc.

Harsher enforcement clearly is needed to make NRPs pay, its obviously not working the way it has been and it sickens me that basically the vast majority of people don't even acknowledge that, they just look down on single parents instead!

Yes, it's the blame/stigma issue which seems so unfair, Amberleaf.

NRPs are seen as hard working, doing their bit to support their children, whereas RPs, especially lone parents, are too often seen as benefit scroungers and a drain on the system.

Neither stereotype is true of course, but it would be a lot fairer if NRPs did more to fund their children (and then claimed benefits themselves) rather than the RPs bearing all the stigma.

Hmm, I'm not sure if you are implying that I am looking down on single parents because you couldn't be further from the truth if that's the case.

As for the stats, I've just grown very wary of statistics because of the way they are often biased towards what the organisation wants to show rather than the reality. I actually took a look at the original PDF from the DWP site where I think Gingerbread got it's stats from and it's not clear to me how they arrived at the 38% figure. But regardless I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I agree that harsher enforcement is required. It's shocking that over a decade later that the CSA is about as effective as a chocolate teapot. They need to be as ruthless as the VAT/taxman so that the majority of people will comply at first chance rather than the constant evasion which goes on. If it were down to me, many more errant NRP's would be thrown in prison to send a clear message to the others.

As for your point about those people only paying £5 a week, i'm not sure what the alternative is? JSA is what, £71 a week? Out of that you have to pay bills and eat. To lose £5 already means you have to live off £66 which I'm sure you will agree is not much. And remember that if the NRP has contact then he/she will also need to buy food for them too. It would seem insane to up someone's benefit only then to deduct it as 'maintenance'.

but it would be a lot fairer if NRPs did more to fund their children (and then claimed benefits themselves)

Just seen this. I disagree. As I said above, it would seem quite bizarre to give someone more taxpayer money only to then deduct it as maintenance and give it to their ex.

Firstly it doesn't impact the NRP in reality so it's meaningless to them. Secondly you may as well save the admin headache and just up the tax credits/whatever of the RP.

Lastly I'm not sure that there is a stigma to being a single parent anymore. Twenty years ago undoubtedly. But nowadays it seems pretty much the norm. If anything it would seem it's weird for a child now at school to have his mum married to his dad. I know that my son seems quite accepting of the fact that his mates are often not able to play out cos they are at their dad's (or mum's).

There are two things about the system that are ridiculously unfair and that is the idea that if the nrp has another child then their maintenance to existing children is reduced. Why? Do the existing children suddenly need less support? No. Couples who have not split up will base their decision to have another child on whether or not if will effect their ability to support the children they already have. Why should sperated parents not have to make the same decision?
And also why do nrps get a reduction on the nights they have their children to stay with them? The rp still has to pay the rent/mortgage/council tax/heating bill etc etc whether those children go to stay a night with their other parent or a grandparent or a friend etc, so the costs are not really any less becuase they have gone for one or two nights a week. the house and the heating still have to be there when they get back.

Hmm, I'm not sure if you are implying that I am looking down on single parents because you couldn't be further from the truth if that's the case

Ok well I think its hard to have empathy for someone if you don't know the full facts behind the position they find themselves in.

I'm puzzled that you find the 38% stat hard to believe? It certainly backs up what I've seen.

Re the £5 that a NRP on benefits will be made to contribute; maybe it would be better all round if the government focused on getting that parent 'back to work' rather than the current tactic of penalising and pressurising the RP who also has the confines of having to source adequate childcare and most importantly a sympathetic enmployer in order to get and keep a job?

I think the gov is hounding the wrong parent and they are doing this with the approval of joe public as its the lone parent that is demonised.

There are two things about the system that are ridiculously unfair and that is the idea that if the nrp has another child then their maintenance to existing children is reduced. Why? Do the existing children suddenly need less support?

Oh rosebud! Don't get me started on a NRP getting a reduction based on him living with his new partners children! Children who may well be getting support from their own father!

Agreed on getting the NRP back to work. And that again is where a punitive rate of maintenance won't help. If as per OP's suggestion you applied a 50% maintenance on net income, there's very little incentive for a NRP to go back to work.

As for the stat, you say your anecdotal evidence supports the 38% stated. Fair enough. In my experience it's a bit higher. I'd say about 50-50. But let's not split hairs. I'll agree that regardless of the true figure it's probably still way too low. And that's where the CSA need to kick butt better.

@Rosa. It's a balancing act with a limited pot of money isn't it? Of course existing children need the same support but the unavoidable reality is that the new child also requires supporting too. Or do we just say 'screw the new child, the old children are more important'?

As for a reduction on the number of nights then that's also logical that an allowance is made. The NRP also will have extra costs to meet such as food/clothing/heating etc. and the RP will have a little bit less. A friend of mine has his kids 50-50 with his ex but even assuming it was say 40%, are you seriously suggesting that it would fair to not make a reduction? Despite the fact that almost 3 days out of a week the ex doesn't have the kids?

It seems to me like if there's any demonisation going on here that it's directed towards the NRP's, whom quite often are not to blame at all for the relationship breakdown yet have to face not seeing their kids on a daily basis. All too often it's the man who has to suddenly lose his home, his money and be 'happy' to see the kids alternate weekends.

Modern families is a complex thing and there are no simple solutions.

See you've obviously bought into the demonisation of the single mothers speil! With your paragraph about blameless poor old NRPs! Are they the the ones that form the 38%? The good guy ones?

What I'm demonising is a system where the parent that does nothing for their child is excused by the consistant blame directed at the RP.

As for the stat, you say your anecdotal evidence supports the 38% stated. Fair enough. In my experience it's a bit higher. I'd say about 50-50. But let's not split hairs. I'll agree that regardless of the true figure it's probably still way too low. And that's where the CSA need to kick butt better

Niceguy, the 38% is the true figure! And as I said that includes those that only pay £5.

I know there isn't a simple solution and of course you can't let the new child starve but what I'm saying is, nrps are allowed to make decisions about having a new child because the taxpayer will pick up the tab for the ones they've already got as their maintenance will be be reduced for those existing children. Couples who remain together do not have that decision as they must support their children, no taxpayer is going to pick up the tab for their new child. As those couples who are together are generally the ones paying taxes, then I can see why this annoys them slightly and why their anger is easily directed, by clever politicians, at single parents. This reinforces Amber's point that single rps are easily demonised when, in fact, it is the decisions made by the nrp which ought to be scrutinised. And, harsh as this sounds, it doesn't matter who left who and whose fault it is, the fact is that it has happened and the priority should be the existing children who should be supported by their parent not the taxpayer.

But Rosa. If you want to look at it another way, the woman can also go and have more children safe in the knowledge that they will get additional tax credits and child benefit from the taxpayer. Short of population control laws, I'm not sure what the answer here would be. In reality only the feckless few will go on to have children expecting the state to pick up the pieces.

Amber, I don't think it's the systems fault. It's doing the best it can to balance all the permutations. What we need is a step change in how society raises our kids and view responsibility shirking dad's. You are right, too many men are allowed to walk away and not live up to their responsibilities. They go on to live with other women, have more kids then bugger off again.

Like I said much earlier we need to change our attitudes and treat them like social lepers. Much like we would take a very dim view of a drunk driver, we need to apply the same to an irresponsible dad.

But again the reality is far more complex. For every absent dad you will find a man claiming he's been forced out of their kids lives. What you will never find is someone saying "Yeah, i just can't be arsed"

I guess my point is that you cannot simply wave a magic wand and pass a law which will make any effective difference. We need a change in the way society looks at broken families, not more laws.