Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Jun 14
13:23
Joined:
Date Joined:
09 May 05
For example.
If a non father pays £45 a week child maintenance through the CSA and the recipient (childs mother) is not working and claiming benefits does she get to keep the entire £45?
I was surprised to here of a pal that she does but i queried it because i thought that the CSA was originally set up to recoup the monies paid in benefits to the mother.
If the mother is already receiving HB, Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit then another £45( 15% of net wages) a week off the non residential father then what is to stop her having another 3 kids with different guys? It`s a nice little business if you think about it.
If a non father pays £45 a week child maintenance through the CSA and the recipient (childs mother) is not working and claiming benefits does she get to keep the entire £45?
I was surprised to here of a pal that she does but i queried it because i thought that the CSA was originally set up to recoup the monies paid in benefits to the mother.
If the mother is already receiving HB, Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit then another £45( 15% of net wages) a week off the non residential father then what is to stop her having another 3 kids with different guys? It`s a nice little business if you think about it.
Show More
Sorry ffs
*If a non residential father pays £45 a week child maintenance through the CSA.
*If a non residential father pays £45 a week child maintenance through the CSA.
I would think that the £45 is taken into consideration when working out her benefit allowances.
Just been onto Netmums
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
Just been onto Netmums
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
How do you mean 'does not affect'? I would have thought that income support brings the household 'earnings' up to a certain figure. Are you saying that the maintenance money is over and above that amount?
What if it was £1000 per week?
What if it was £1000 per week?
I spent ages trying to think why a non father would be expected to pay child maintenance then I read the second post 
Angel Gabrial
17 Jun 14 14:00
Just been onto Netmums
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
In that's the case, the law has changed.
17 Jun 14 14:00
Just been onto Netmums
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
In that's the case, the law has changed.
I haven't a clue about kids , but Income support is for the Individual (the Mother) as is Housing Benefit etc
Child benefit is the only thing it may affect (not sure how much that is nowadays but it's not £45 week)
Child benefit is the only thing it may affect (not sure how much that is nowadays but it's not £45 week)
I'd have said that income support is for the household. The maintenance money goes towards the income of the household. I would further say that, in my opinion, it is absolutely NOT for the mother. It is to contribute towards the costs of 'running' a child.
In that's the case, the law has changed.
I believe so Taxi.
I believe so Taxi.
Child maintenance payments will not affect any social security benefits received as receiving parents can keep all child maintenance paid and it will not affect their benefits. Housing Benefit and tax credit awards also won’t be affected by child maintenance
http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/how-does-child-maintenance-affect-benefits
http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/how-does-child-maintenance-affect-benefits
Naydam i am as surprised as your good self on this.
Angel Gabrial
Just been onto Netmums
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
call me a taxi
In that's the case, the law has changed.
Angel Gabrial
In that's the case, the law has changed.
I believe so Taxi.
Most definitely.
Years ago, when they were known as the DHSS, all their letters looked like extracts from a boring novel the same length as War & Peace, but they all ended with the same sentence, which was the only sentence which claimants read, as the rest was all guff, and this was roughly 'This is how much the law states that you require to live on.'
And it would state the total amount required, then subtract any other income from:
child maintenance
rent from any lodgers
wages from any part time work
any other income from other properties, stocks, shares, bonds etc.
You received the final figure as your benefit payment.
The introduction of the CSA saw men being financially caned for money that was above and beyond what was needed to support their child(ren) and ex-wife.
It seemed that if the CSA couldn't find 'Mr Smith' they would track down 'Mr Jones' and make him pay extra to help balance their books.
With technology being what it is these days, they would eventually trace National Insurance and Income Tax payments to an employer, and legally stop the money before he had even seen it, from his nett salary.
This didn't help the matter of reducing the annual 'benefit bill' at all.
Due to the CSA making ridiculously over the top demands for money, some men were left with hardly anything to live on for a full weeks work. And if they had a new family, they couldn't support both families, due to the amounts stopped by the CSA.
So they stopped working legally (and maybe worked illegally) and signed on for JSA and it's related benefits. Therefore the government annual spending on the 'benefits bill', was increased.
And when people watch programmes like 'Life On The Dole' or 'Benefits Britain', you often see a couple with a baby who are not working.
If she has never worked, what we older men called 'housewives', but he has, he is the claimant for the 'family unit'.
Viewers immediate response is 'Stop their money, if they won't work.' Note: stop 'their' money, but she doesn't work anyway, she was a 'housewife'
So they stop his JSA, as if he was a single person,and their total claim of a couples benefit is only reduced by that much. She can still claim housing benefit, council tax rebate, and if they're on income support, as far as I'm aware, exemption from prescription charges, and anything else she can get out of it.
I have no idea how much a couple can claim these days, but one pair on the programme the other night had their benefit 'sanctioned' as she filled in the wrong forms, and he missed a job interview.
They were left with the money the law states was required for their baby.
Which the programme said was £90 a week.
How can a baby cost £90 a week to feed and clothe, when the JSA for a man over the age of 18 is only about £70?
And when their 'sanctions' were lifted, the proramme asked her 'What have you got to do with your benefits now?'
The answer 'Pay the gas bill, top up my mobile phone, and pay Wonga.'
'Pay Wonga' ffs.
How do you get to borrow money from Wonga with an income of only £90 a week for your baby?
Just been onto Netmums
And they confirm child maintenance does not effect Income support
call me a taxi
In that's the case, the law has changed.
Angel Gabrial
In that's the case, the law has changed.
I believe so Taxi.
Most definitely.
Years ago, when they were known as the DHSS, all their letters looked like extracts from a boring novel the same length as War & Peace, but they all ended with the same sentence, which was the only sentence which claimants read, as the rest was all guff, and this was roughly 'This is how much the law states that you require to live on.'
And it would state the total amount required, then subtract any other income from:
child maintenance
rent from any lodgers
wages from any part time work
any other income from other properties, stocks, shares, bonds etc.
You received the final figure as your benefit payment.
The introduction of the CSA saw men being financially caned for money that was above and beyond what was needed to support their child(ren) and ex-wife.
It seemed that if the CSA couldn't find 'Mr Smith' they would track down 'Mr Jones' and make him pay extra to help balance their books.
With technology being what it is these days, they would eventually trace National Insurance and Income Tax payments to an employer, and legally stop the money before he had even seen it, from his nett salary.
This didn't help the matter of reducing the annual 'benefit bill' at all.
Due to the CSA making ridiculously over the top demands for money, some men were left with hardly anything to live on for a full weeks work. And if they had a new family, they couldn't support both families, due to the amounts stopped by the CSA.
So they stopped working legally (and maybe worked illegally) and signed on for JSA and it's related benefits. Therefore the government annual spending on the 'benefits bill', was increased.
And when people watch programmes like 'Life On The Dole' or 'Benefits Britain', you often see a couple with a baby who are not working.
If she has never worked, what we older men called 'housewives', but he has, he is the claimant for the 'family unit'.
Viewers immediate response is 'Stop their money, if they won't work.' Note: stop 'their' money, but she doesn't work anyway, she was a 'housewife'
So they stop his JSA, as if he was a single person,and their total claim of a couples benefit is only reduced by that much. She can still claim housing benefit, council tax rebate, and if they're on income support, as far as I'm aware, exemption from prescription charges, and anything else she can get out of it.
I have no idea how much a couple can claim these days, but one pair on the programme the other night had their benefit 'sanctioned' as she filled in the wrong forms, and he missed a job interview.
They were left with the money the law states was required for their baby.
Which the programme said was £90 a week.
How can a baby cost £90 a week to feed and clothe, when the JSA for a man over the age of 18 is only about £70?
And when their 'sanctions' were lifted, the proramme asked her 'What have you got to do with your benefits now?'
The answer 'Pay the gas bill, top up my mobile phone, and pay Wonga.'
'Pay Wonga' ffs.
How do you get to borrow money from Wonga with an income of only £90 a week for your baby?
Well, I'm buggered! Not literally, of course. 
The whole point of paying child maintenance to enable the other parent (be they male or female) seems to have got washed down the pan. The state pays for the kid anyway, and the absent parent pays for the other one's booze!
Lfc1971's lack of surprise doesn't surprise me.
The whole point of paying child maintenance to enable the other parent (be they male or female) seems to have got washed down the pan. The state pays for the kid anyway, and the absent parent pays for the other one's booze!
Lfc1971's lack of surprise doesn't surprise me.
Seriously this is about a mate
He has a 2 year old daughter with someone that also has another 3 kids to different fathers.
She has turned giving birth into a business.
He has a 2 year old daughter with someone that also has another 3 kids to different fathers.
She has turned giving birth into a business.
Many of them have. It pays very well, and you get to work from home doing Facebook and Bingo all day.
Things aren't like that on here, of course!
Things aren't like that on here, of course!
Its always a pal and never the person writing this, isn't that strange. A lot of intimate knowledge there for a mate.
no i can believe its not him - 1 detail's not quite right
CSA is based on your top line, not your net pay
believe me if you read your pay slip and weep every month, you know that!
incidentally the way CSA is worked out is fundamentally wrong. firstly the amount you pay is calculated as a % of your top line.... so that doesn't take into account ANY of your other expenses (except other children, in which case the % changes). but the worst injustice of all is that you get 1/7th discount for every night they stay with you (it should be 2/7ths). so if you're in genuine shared custody arrangement where they spend 7 nights of 14 with each parent, the father only gets a 50% discount on his CSA. Just in case i'm losing you, in a genuine shared custody arrangement, you should pay nothing (as you're sharing the care 50/50). anyway its all a moot point, they know all this which is why the CSA is being done away with. no one in their right minds will pay the new agency their ridiculous mark ups so it'll go back to the way it always was before the CSA existed
CSA is based on your top line, not your net pay
believe me if you read your pay slip and weep every month, you know that!
incidentally the way CSA is worked out is fundamentally wrong. firstly the amount you pay is calculated as a % of your top line.... so that doesn't take into account ANY of your other expenses (except other children, in which case the % changes). but the worst injustice of all is that you get 1/7th discount for every night they stay with you (it should be 2/7ths). so if you're in genuine shared custody arrangement where they spend 7 nights of 14 with each parent, the father only gets a 50% discount on his CSA. Just in case i'm losing you, in a genuine shared custody arrangement, you should pay nothing (as you're sharing the care 50/50). anyway its all a moot point, they know all this which is why the CSA is being done away with. no one in their right minds will pay the new agency their ridiculous mark ups so it'll go back to the way it always was before the CSA existed
I'd have said that income support is for the household. The maintenance money goes towards the income of the household. I would further say that, in my opinion, it is absolutely NOT for the mother. It is to contribute towards the costs of 'running' a child.
Well You are WRONG & obviously have no clue about Benefits !
Does the Child pay rent & bills ?
No the Mother Does , all a child needs is food to eat & clothes to wear , everything else for them is paid for anyway
We all know the CSA and divorce courts massively favour women.
why stop at the csa and family courts.
the whole world favours women now - its a 2 tier society. 1 set of rules for people with a penis, totally different set of rules for those without.
the whole world favours women now - its a 2 tier society. 1 set of rules for people with a penis, totally different set of rules for those without.
Mc Moonbeam. Those are household expenses. Obviously, the actual handling of the cash will be carried out by the parent, but the amount incurred in rent, heating, lighting and general wear and tear of appliances etc. is higher than they would be for a single, childless person.
I also think that a child needs a little bit more than food to eat and clothes to wear. Of course, I could be wrong again.
I also think that a child needs a little bit more than food to eat and clothes to wear. Of course, I could be wrong again.
NoMoves says:
Its always a pal and never the person writing this, isn't that strange. A lot of intimate knowledge there for a mate.
What? intimate knowledge? in your mind maybe. In my mind all i did was ask a mate `hows it going Pete?` and then it began.....the intimate secrets from within.....
So he shares his intimate secrets `Paying £45 CSA and she gets to keep all her benefits. 4 kids with 4 different blokes now`
Oh the intimate secrets of a mate.
Its always a pal and never the person writing this, isn't that strange. A lot of intimate knowledge there for a mate.
What? intimate knowledge? in your mind maybe. In my mind all i did was ask a mate `hows it going Pete?` and then it began.....the intimate secrets from within.....
So he shares his intimate secrets `Paying £45 CSA and she gets to keep all her benefits. 4 kids with 4 different blokes now`
Oh the intimate secrets of a mate.
CSA is based on your top line, not your net pay
fkqm - Was it ever 15% of your net? or is it roughly that? Or is it something like 25% over the first £100 gross?
fkqm - Was it ever 15% of your net? or is it roughly that? Or is it something like 25% over the first £100 gross?
Naydam
I agree in Principal , but the fact of the matter is that the Mother would still receive the same Income support , Housing , Council tax etc whether she Had a Kid Or Not !
the only thing that really changes is that she receives Child Support TO SUPPORT THE CHILD (as i say i haven't a clue how much this is as i don't have or want kids) but if the father pays Child Support they obv get looked after a bit better (IN THEORY!!!!!)
Obviously in reality it costs a fair bit more for extra goodies , toys , nicer clothes , decent food , but that's why you'll find most fathers with kids go to work , and on the flip side why there are so many single moms about
I agree in Principal , but the fact of the matter is that the Mother would still receive the same Income support , Housing , Council tax etc whether she Had a Kid Or Not !
the only thing that really changes is that she receives Child Support TO SUPPORT THE CHILD (as i say i haven't a clue how much this is as i don't have or want kids) but if the father pays Child Support they obv get looked after a bit better (IN THEORY!!!!!)
Obviously in reality it costs a fair bit more for extra goodies , toys , nicer clothes , decent food , but that's why you'll find most fathers with kids go to work , and on the flip side why there are so many single moms about
You have forgotten about Child Tax Credits Moonbeam. For 4 kids this is about £10,000 a year.
Say
£200 a week Child Tax Credts
£ 72 a week Income Support
£200 a week Housing Benefit
£ 60 a week Child Benefit
£532 a week + child maintenance from the fathers of 4 kids...lets say £45 each a week/total £190 a week for all.
£722 a week
£200 a week Child Tax Credts
£ 72 a week Income Support
£200 a week Housing Benefit
£ 60 a week Child Benefit
£532 a week + child maintenance from the fathers of 4 kids...lets say £45 each a week/total £190 a week for all.
£722 a week
yes Child tax credits , Child support , that's what i meant (as i say i don't have kids so don't want to understand the payments) but the main benefits are the Mothers
4 x kids lol , lets just talk about One , that's 2.5k year , £48 week then , so why does the Father have to pay £45 week
4 x kids lol , lets just talk about One , that's 2.5k year , £48 week then , so why does the Father have to pay £45 week
so why does the Father have to pay £45 week
This is the crux of it Moonbeam, the fathers still get CSA payments taken from their wages. The £45 is just a kind of average amount.
So the state pays the mother with the CTC etc and then the individual fathers are also paying which does not effect the benefits.
Can this be right?
This is the crux of it Moonbeam, the fathers still get CSA payments taken from their wages. The £45 is just a kind of average amount.
So the state pays the mother with the CTC etc and then the individual fathers are also paying which does not effect the benefits.
Can this be right?
£200 week Housing benefit .. where the **** does She Live
I'll put her up for a ton !
I'll put her up for a ton !
What with 4 kids?
She would need a biggish house for 4 kids. £800 a month??
She would need a biggish house for 4 kids. £800 a month??
so if the father pays they get Both or Not ?
and if he doesn't pay , they get paid by the state anyway ?
and if he doesn't pay , they get paid by the state anyway ?
Yes if the fathers pay they get both.
If he doesn`t pay she is covered for everything.
If he doesn`t pay she is covered for everything.
so it's the Government Taxing the fathers in reality
that's what i didn't understand , but understand the rest very well
that's what i didn't understand , but understand the rest very well
Not taxing because the gov don`t keep it or spend it.
It goes to the mother.
It goes to the mother.
If the Mothers worked they wouldn't bloody need it would they !!!!!
It`s the multiple father aspect that is more the issue. The mother would get more in CSA payments from 4 different fathers who all earned lets say £25K a year than from just one father of all the kids.
And then there is the issue of family infrastructure etc...
And then there is the issue of family infrastructure etc...
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539