Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Maintenance on low income
#11
i am right in saying it's being taken to be spoken about mothers provin what the moneys spent on?
Reply
#12
I see Mark is still trying to justify the law without even reading or taking in anything someone says. Instead of replying to how unfair the system is he has done his usual, real of a load of calculations to prove you wrong in the pretence that you are not worse off than the resident parent and it is fair because the law says so argument.

2hanger wrote : Council tax £75 (reduced single person)

Mark then decides to waffle on about how he can get a reduction based on being single adult to try and prove that you are not as hard off as you make out.

Next he will be telling you that the reduction you get in your CMS payment amounts to the same as what the receiving parent is getting in top up benefits. And will also claim that even if you had your children for 104 nights lets say then you will have none of the same costs that the receiving parent does.

"I am not sure where you got your Child Support amount from because I worked it out at £43 per week without exceeding 52 nights a year contact, based on 2 children, reduced to £37 if you have 52-104 nights."

This is what the law says but is it fair? You get a whole £6 a week back of your own money towards looking after your kids for lets say 104 nights, almost 15 weeks. So basically CMS are saying that you only need £20.80 a week to look after your children (even though its you own money) yet the receiving parent needs £37 a week from you for the rest of the weeks and even the weeks they dont have them. And remember they also get child tax credits, and for 2 children they would also be getting £34.30 a week in child benefit again whether they have them or not. Even if you managed to have them for 175 nights they would say you have to pay £8 a week and despite having them pretty much half the time the receiving parent will still get all the benefits based on them having the children full time and you would get no help at all.

Unfortunately they do not care if you can not pay your bills or even have enough money to be able to see your children more or in some cases at all. They dont care that people on low income or benefits are being put below the poverty line and even made homeless because of their insistence that absent parents should pay, no matter what the cost to them and no matter how well off the receiving parent is. Im not sure when the government will actually realise that its the unfairness of the system is why so many absent parents do not pay or are even active in their children's lives. Instead they just want to chase them and force them to pay despite it having no effect on what the receiving parent gets in benefit top ups. As i have said many times before though every situation is different.

Sorry but im ranting again. I do not currently have this problem but it is still unfair. Mark will never answer how unfair the system is he will just keep waffling on about what the law says to you about it, (which he is good at and know his stuff) but this keeps popping up so have a look at the other threads on this topic.
Reply
#13
(03-12-2018, 03:04 PM)Charlielovesyou Wrote: I see Mark is still trying to justify the law without even reading or taking in anything someone says. Instead of replying to how unfair the system is he has done his usual, real of a load of calculations to prove you wrong in the pretence that you are not worse off than the resident parent and it is fair because the law says so argument.

2hanger wrote : Council tax £75 (reduced single person)

Mark then decides to waffle on about how he can get a reduction based on being single adult to try and prove that you are not as hard off as you make out.

Next he will be telling you that the reduction you get in your CMS payment amounts to the same as what the receiving parent is getting in top up benefits. And will also claim that even if you had your children for 104 nights lets say then you will have none of the same costs that the receiving parent does.

"I am not sure where you got your Child Support amount from because I worked it out at £43 per week without exceeding 52 nights a year contact, based on 2 children, reduced to £37 if you have 52-104 nights."

This is what the law says but is it fair? You get a whole £6 a week back of your own money towards looking after your kids for lets say 104 nights, almost 15 weeks. So basically CMS are saying that you only need £20.80 a week to look after your children (even though its you own money) yet the receiving parent needs £37 a week from you for the rest of the weeks and even the weeks they dont have them. And remember they also get child tax credits, and for 2 children they would also be getting £34.30 a week in child benefit again whether they have them or not.  Even if you managed to have them for 175 nights they would say you have to pay £8 a week and despite having them pretty much half the time the receiving parent will still get all the benefits based on them having the children full time and you would get no help at all.

Unfortunately they do not care if you can not pay your bills or even have enough money to be able to see your children more or in some cases at all. They dont care that people on low income or benefits are being put below the poverty line and even made homeless because of their insistence that absent parents should pay, no matter what the cost to them and no matter how well off the receiving parent is. Im not sure when the government will actually realise that its the unfairness of the system is why so many absent parents do not pay or are even active in their children's lives. Instead they just want to chase them and force them to pay despite it having no effect on what the receiving parent gets in benefit top ups.  As i have said many times before though every situation is different.

Sorry but im ranting again. I do not currently have this problem but it is still unfair. Mark will never answer how unfair the system is he will just keep waffling on about what the law says to you about it, (which he is good at and know his stuff) but this keeps popping up so have a look at the other threads on this topic.

Yes your right charlielovesyou' 
Some great points there. thank you for your comments the system sucks!
Reply
#14
(03-12-2018, 03:04 PM)Charlielovesyou Wrote: I see Mark is still trying to justify the law without even reading or taking in anything someone says. Instead of replying to how unfair the system is he has done his usual, real of a load of calculations to prove you wrong in the pretence that you are not worse off than the resident parent and it is fair because the law says so argument.

2hanger wrote : Council tax £75 (reduced single person)

Mark then decides to waffle on about how he can get a reduction based on being single adult to try and prove that you are not as hard off as you make out.

Next he will be telling you that the reduction you get in your CMS payment amounts to the same as what the receiving parent is getting in top up benefits. And will also claim that even if you had your children for 104 nights lets say then you will have none of the same costs that the receiving parent does.

"I am not sure where you got your Child Support amount from because I worked it out at £43 per week without exceeding 52 nights a year contact, based on 2 children, reduced to £37 if you have 52-104 nights."

This is what the law says but is it fair? You get a whole £6 a week back of your own money towards looking after your kids for lets say 104 nights, almost 15 weeks. So basically CMS are saying that you only need £20.80 a week to look after your children (even though its you own money) yet the receiving parent needs £37 a week from you for the rest of the weeks and even the weeks they dont have them. And remember they also get child tax credits, and for 2 children they would also be getting £34.30 a week in child benefit again whether they have them or not.  Even if you managed to have them for 175 nights they would say you have to pay £8 a week and despite having them pretty much half the time the receiving parent will still get all the benefits based on them having the children full time and you would get no help at all.

Unfortunately they do not care if you can not pay your bills or even have enough money to be able to see your children more or in some cases at all. They dont care that people on low income or benefits are being put below the poverty line and even made homeless because of their insistence that absent parents should pay, no matter what the cost to them and no matter how well off the receiving parent is. Im not sure when the government will actually realise that its the unfairness of the system is why so many absent parents do not pay or are even active in their children's lives. Instead they just want to chase them and force them to pay despite it having no effect on what the receiving parent gets in benefit top ups.  As i have said many times before though every situation is different.

Sorry but im ranting again. I do not currently have this problem but it is still unfair. Mark will never answer how unfair the system is he will just keep waffling on about what the law says to you about it, (which he is good at and know his stuff) but this keeps popping up so have a look at the other threads on this topic.

Charlie, if you continue to make comments like this, i will have no option but to restict your posts, untill a Mod or Admin has checked them.

It is not the job of a Modorator, to comment on how unfair the system is.

I did not have to go and do a load of calculations, as I already knew the result, as the income more or less matched mine, when I was the paying parent.

Often people do not know about the 25% reduction for single occupancy, what is why I brought it up.

I had not brought up what beneifts his ex might be getting, and if you continue to introduce that onto threads where it is not an issue the posting member brings up, again resitrictions will be placed on your posts.

I am not going to comment on your opinion about if he has 175 nights, as he never asked about this.

There is a good chance that the member will get something from Council Tax Reduction based on how much it is, and my suggestion is for the member to look at http://www.entitltedto.co.uk  . Depending on his income for the last tax year, and the amount in this year, he might also get Working Tax Credit.
Posts made by me are my opinion and any factual information should be checked out. If you do not have a Solicitor, often your local CAB can get you some initial advice.
Reply
#15
(03-12-2018, 09:28 PM)MarkR Wrote:
(03-12-2018, 03:04 PM)Charlielovesyou Wrote: I see Mark is still trying to justify the law without even reading or taking in anything someone says. Instead of replying to how unfair the system is he has done his usual, real of a load of calculations to prove you wrong in the pretence that you are not worse off than the resident parent and it is fair because the law says so argument.

2hanger wrote : Council tax £75 (reduced single person)

Mark then decides to waffle on about how he can get a reduction based on being single adult to try and prove that you are not as hard off as you make out.

Next he will be telling you that the reduction you get in your CMS payment amounts to the same as what the receiving parent is getting in top up benefits. And will also claim that even if you had your children for 104 nights lets say then you will have none of the same costs that the receiving parent does.

"I am not sure where you got your Child Support amount from because I worked it out at £43 per week without exceeding 52 nights a year contact, based on 2 children, reduced to £37 if you have 52-104 nights."

This is what the law says but is it fair? You get a whole £6 a week back of your own money towards looking after your kids for lets say 104 nights, almost 15 weeks. So basically CMS are saying that you only need £20.80 a week to look after your children (even though its you own money) yet the receiving parent needs £37 a week from you for the rest of the weeks and even the weeks they dont have them. And remember they also get child tax credits, and for 2 children they would also be getting £34.30 a week in child benefit again whether they have them or not.  Even if you managed to have them for 175 nights they would say you have to pay £8 a week and despite having them pretty much half the time the receiving parent will still get all the benefits based on them having the children full time and you would get no help at all.

Unfortunately they do not care if you can not pay your bills or even have enough money to be able to see your children more or in some cases at all. They dont care that people on low income or benefits are being put below the poverty line and even made homeless because of their insistence that absent parents should pay, no matter what the cost to them and no matter how well off the receiving parent is. Im not sure when the government will actually realise that its the unfairness of the system is why so many absent parents do not pay or are even active in their children's lives. Instead they just want to chase them and force them to pay despite it having no effect on what the receiving parent gets in benefit top ups.  As i have said many times before though every situation is different.

Sorry but im ranting again. I do not currently have this problem but it is still unfair. Mark will never answer how unfair the system is he will just keep waffling on about what the law says to you about it, (which he is good at and know his stuff) but this keeps popping up so have a look at the other threads on this topic.

Charlie, if you continue to make comments like this, i will have no option but to restict your posts, untill a Mod or Admin has checked them.

It is not the job of a Modorator, to comment on how unfair the system is.

I did not have to go and do a load of calculations, as I already knew the result, as the income more or less matched mine, when I was the paying parent.

Often people do not know about the 25% reduction for single occupancy, what is why I brought it up.

I had not brought up what beneifts his ex might be getting, and if you continue to introduce that onto threads where it is not an issue the posting member brings up, again resitrictions will be placed on your posts.

I am not going to comment on your opinion about if he has 175 nights, as he never asked about this.

There is a good chance that the member will get something from Council Tax Reduction based on how much it is, and my suggestion is for the member to look at http://www.entitltedto.co.uk  . Depending on his income for the last tax year, and the amount in this year, he might also get Working Tax Credit.

Sorry Mark but firstly see above post by the OP

"Yes your right charlielovesyou' 

Some great points there. thank you for your comments the system sucks!"


The OP pointed out his costs, right or wrong, and asked what would happen if he couldnt afford it. He didnt ask you to tell him his calculations were wrong by a few £ and not give any input into what he actually asked. If it is not the job of the moderator to comment about how biased, unfair and downright wrong it is then dont comment. Please explain why a moderator is not able to comment on how unfair the system is? Strange. 

I didnt say you went and made calculations i said you reeled them off, i didnt state whether you already knew them or not. 

People dont really need to know about single occupancy because if they are already living on their own as the OP clearly pointed out to begin with the council will automatically tell you and calculate it anyway and he already knew this. You were just trying to make out it wasnt as bad as it looks. He already stated council tax was reduced for a single person. Based on him earning £14000 and being single he would not get any council tax or any other benefit help. You are just trying to move the goalposts and consider things based on different scenarios that he didnt even ask about. He told you what his income was. £14000

It is not my opinion on 175 nights, its on the CMS calculator, its a fact. He could still be paying. I just pointed this out and simply did some calculations to explain that they did not care what his costs were or what it did to him and shown it was not fair on the paying parent. And i pointed out benefits to further show how unfair it is on him and they dont care. I also pointed him in the direction of the other threads regarding it. 

Sorry but what i have posted is clearly replying to the point the OP was asking. If you dont like the fact and are upset that i called you out for simply ignoring what the OP asked then so be it, say so instead of going all power hungry on me. 

Do what you have to do. 
Reply
#16
(03-12-2018, 11:15 PM)Charlielovesyou Wrote:
(03-12-2018, 09:28 PM)MarkR Wrote:
(03-12-2018, 03:04 PM)Charlielovesyou Wrote: I see Mark is still trying to justify the law without even reading or taking in anything someone says. Instead of replying to how unfair the system is he has done his usual, real of a load of calculations to prove you wrong in the pretence that you are not worse off than the resident parent and it is fair because the law says so argument.

2hanger wrote : Council tax £75 (reduced single person)

Mark then decides to waffle on about how he can get a reduction based on being single adult to try and prove that you are not as hard off as you make out.

Next he will be telling you that the reduction you get in your CMS payment amounts to the same as what the receiving parent is getting in top up benefits. And will also claim that even if you had your children for 104 nights lets say then you will have none of the same costs that the receiving parent does.

"I am not sure where you got your Child Support amount from because I worked it out at £43 per week without exceeding 52 nights a year contact, based on 2 children, reduced to £37 if you have 52-104 nights."

This is what the law says but is it fair? You get a whole £6 a week back of your own money towards looking after your kids for lets say 104 nights, almost 15 weeks. So basically CMS are saying that you only need £20.80 a week to look after your children (even though its you own money) yet the receiving parent needs £37 a week from you for the rest of the weeks and even the weeks they dont have them. And remember they also get child tax credits, and for 2 children they would also be getting £34.30 a week in child benefit again whether they have them or not.  Even if you managed to have them for 175 nights they would say you have to pay £8 a week and despite having them pretty much half the time the receiving parent will still get all the benefits based on them having the children full time and you would get no help at all.

Unfortunately they do not care if you can not pay your bills or even have enough money to be able to see your children more or in some cases at all. They dont care that people on low income or benefits are being put below the poverty line and even made homeless because of their insistence that absent parents should pay, no matter what the cost to them and no matter how well off the receiving parent is. Im not sure when the government will actually realise that its the unfairness of the system is why so many absent parents do not pay or are even active in their children's lives. Instead they just want to chase them and force them to pay despite it having no effect on what the receiving parent gets in benefit top ups.  As i have said many times before though every situation is different.

Sorry but im ranting again. I do not currently have this problem but it is still unfair. Mark will never answer how unfair the system is he will just keep waffling on about what the law says to you about it, (which he is good at and know his stuff) but this keeps popping up so have a look at the other threads on this topic.

Charlie, if you continue to make comments like this, i will have no option but to restict your posts, untill a Mod or Admin has checked them.

It is not the job of a Modorator, to comment on how unfair the system is.

I did not have to go and do a load of calculations, as I already knew the result, as the income more or less matched mine, when I was the paying parent.

Often people do not know about the 25% reduction for single occupancy, what is why I brought it up.

I had not brought up what beneifts his ex might be getting, and if you continue to introduce that onto threads where it is not an issue the posting member brings up, again resitrictions will be placed on your posts.

I am not going to comment on your opinion about if he has 175 nights, as he never asked about this.

There is a good chance that the member will get something from Council Tax Reduction based on how much it is, and my suggestion is for the member to look at http://www.entitltedto.co.uk  . Depending on his income for the last tax year, and the amount in this year, he might also get Working Tax Credit.

Sorry Mark but firstly see above post by the OP

"Yes your right charlielovesyou' 

Some great points there. thank you for your comments the system sucks!"


The OP pointed out his costs, right or wrong, and asked what would happen if he couldnt afford it. He didnt ask you to tell him his calculations were wrong by a few £ and not give any input into what he actually asked. If it is not the job of the moderator to comment about how biased, unfair and downright wrong it is then dont comment. Please explain why a moderator is not able to comment on how unfair the system is? Strange. 

I didnt say you went and made calculations i said you reeled them off, i didnt state whether you already knew them or not. 

People dont really need to know about single occupancy because if they are already living on their own as the OP clearly pointed out to begin with the council will automatically tell you and calculate it anyway and he already knew this. You were just trying to make out it wasnt as bad as it looks. He already stated council tax was reduced for a single person. Based on him earning £14000 and being single he would not get any council tax or any other benefit help. You are just trying to move the goalposts and consider things based on different scenarios that he didnt even ask about. He told you what his income was. £14000

It is not my opinion on 175 nights, its on the CMS calculator, its a fact. He could still be paying. I just pointed this out and simply did some calculations to explain that they did not care what his costs were or what it did to him and shown it was not fair on the paying parent. And i pointed out benefits to further show how unfair it is on him and they dont care. I also pointed him in the direction of the other threads regarding it. 

Sorry but what i have posted is clearly replying to the point the OP was asking. If you dont like the fact and are upset that i called you out for simply ignoring what the OP asked then so be it, say so instead of going all power hungry on me. 

Do what you have to do. 

While he might of agreed with your comments, it was not part of the thread the member posted. He posted some amounts, what I already new did not add up and that depending on his age (due to Benefit Restrictions), he might be entitled to some Housing Benefit, Council Tax Reduction, and there might of been an issue with his Tax Code. His earnings in the last Tax Year might also mean he can get some working Tax Credit. Examples of this are

a, Housing Benefit is limited to the Local Housing Allowance for the single room rate, if under 35. If over then it will depend on the Local Housing Allowance, as even if Rent is higher, they based it on being that. Someone over 35 working 30 hours or more, after the Local Housing Allowance is taken off, is topped back up to about £115 a week.  Therefore, if he Local Housing Allowance is £175 a week, he might get something.

b, With Council Tax Reduction, you can still get it even if over the thresehold for Housing Benefit. Each Local Authroity does its own calcuation on this, what is why I signposted a website that will check it for him. Note that the 25% Single Occupancy Discount is also only by applicaiton, its not automatic.  In my case, I moved into a new build house just under 1 year back, and my First Bill did not have the discount on it. They had to post me a form, to send back.

c, There might of been an issue with him being on Week 1 Tax, or the differance could of been down to a Benefit in Kind, what then could of affected the Child Support Calculation.

d, Working Tax credit has 2 results. Result A is based on the Income the year before. Result B is paid if there is a change either way by £2500 over the tax year. If he had an income change from earning £11500 in the last tax year, he might of still got Working Tax Credit.

He stated that he might not be able to manage, so what I have done is suggested a few things he might want to check out, in case he can get some help.

Moderators do not have to comment on any thread. We do have to ensure the guildlines are being followed

He did not mention his contact arrangements, but the fact that he was only looking for a 1 bedroom flat, there is no way a Court would of entertained a shared care order. However, he would get typical contact along the lines of every other weekend, and up to half school holidays.  As some ex partners try to get people to pay more to have contact, I explained about the reduction.

What you do was used his thead to Qualify your own view on another one, and instead of giving advise on what might help him, you have just gone on about how unfair you think the system is.  If  you do not like the current system, the starting point should be your MP.  I have made my MP, John Bercow, aware of my views on it.
Posts made by me are my opinion and any factual information should be checked out. If you do not have a Solicitor, often your local CAB can get you some initial advice.
Reply
#17
Mark I like the way you silence me and then want to come back and reply knowing very well you will not let me submit a reply. Well done you.

So the OP agrees with what i stated and then says some great points there, so im guessing it helped the OP understand what he asked? Yet you deem it irrelevant? And then you decide to actually to reply another load of stuff based on ifs and buts knowing i cant reply, again well done you. I know pretty pointless writing this but hey.

I have never applied a single person application, i have just simply told them when moving in as they ask you who is living there. Just because thats what happened to you doesnt mean thats what happens.

The OP asked a hypothetical question, he never said that was the position he was in so i suggest you actually read what people say before continuing with trying to change things to try and suit your argument. We can all change a hypothetical case to change things for the better or worse. You continue to make points about about reduction of CMS like it is some equalising factor. Im guessing by all your previous posts that you think the opposite to me which is why you have a problem with it. You have tried to point out numerous times that CMS reductions are equal to you getting top up benefits and it is fair because even when you do not have contact you still have to costs. It is perfectly clear why you have a problem with me saying what i do. I still dont get why a moderator can not put their points of view out there, that makes no sense at all.

He did not mention contact arrangements?????? Then why did you start by telling him his figures were wrong? He said he was paying £48 a week which means you was able to work out what that amounted to, so yes he did mention it.

I simply pointed out that the system is unfair and based on the facts he posted which means he would probably not get any help at all even if he has contact and that they do not care. That was the whole point of his hypothetical question, in those circumstances he would struggle, simple. If he asked for help and was struggling then i would have offered help the same way as you with all the laws and what he could have got or look into.

Anyway enjoy the read and silencing someone that has a different opinion to you. Again well done you.
Reply
#18
When talking about child maintenance the unfairness of it cannot be avoided and should be discussed.

No amount of advice from us can turn his 14k into an amount he can afford to live on , pay maintenance and pay costs incurred with x amount of days contact plus buy Xmas and birthday presents. Replace his washing machine if it breaks etc.

It isn’t really doable on £14k.

Even the DWP have admitted to Families Need Fathers that there IS an affordability issue here. Whether or not they do something about it remains to be seen.

Besides the more people who talk about it and are aware of it the more people there are who may go the their MP’s.

Talking about stuff is the whole point of a discussion forum.
Reply
#19
Charlieloveyou's Post reinstated. Everyone is allowed an opinion on here (even moderators :-) , it is a forum after all.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Financial separation - income Alibash 6 695 10-23-2019, 11:05 AM
Last Post: Alibash
  High income child benefit charge miker_71uk 3 1,613 09-26-2018, 06:05 AM
Last Post: miker_71uk
  Foriegn Income issues JOHNAQ1 2 1,240 09-21-2018, 01:38 PM
Last Post: JOHNAQ1
  Income and profits from self employment? pretzelzzz 9 3,553 07-19-2018, 07:19 AM
Last Post: warwickshire1
  Sharing my income with ex whilst in same house Riverside78 3 1,633 06-29-2018, 05:46 PM
Last Post: Hazy
  Confused at CSA making up my income! sammac 13 8,807 10-20-2017, 10:00 AM
Last Post: MarkR
  CSA - reducing net income daddyshortlegs 6 9,105 04-20-2016, 12:13 PM
Last Post: daddyshortlegs



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)