[Solved] Child Maintenance Payments vs Child Benefit

Hi There,
.
This is a sensitive subject and I do agree with a lot of your points, but there is another view to think of, Not valid in your case,
.
Think of a father seperated from the mother and needed to pay towards the childrens living, that father earnt a wage of say around 40-50k per year, at the point before seperation that family would be living within the means of that income, when father leaves the home if he were to pay a set amount not based on his wage the children would suffer as a result of the loss of income. That's not to say that the mother couldn't or shouldn't go out and work, and maybe she already was, but they would have still lost the 40-50k income and would struggle to live to the level that they had. Even with a percentage they would have to make changes, but if they were set down to a minimum set payment they could become homeless, when the father then lives very comfortably keeping nearly all of his wages.
.
I do agree that there needs to be some changes to the system, as it doesn't really work for everyone, but there is a firm "one size fit's all" approach, with the exception of reductions for joint debt or long distance travel for contact. I'm not sure that your idea would work in the best interests of the children, and I do agree that there should be a scale that is linked into the wage as that does seem the only way that the children will benifit from the non resident parents income.
.
I do agree also that the CMS system is biased towards seperated mothers, for example, when I contacted them to open a case with my ex wife I was told there was a fee for setting up a case, and it was compulsory, when my wife called them to set a case up for her ex, she had that fee waived as she had been through court and she didn't get on with her ex. Now in reality, my wife speaks to her ex every other wekend and although I wouldn't say they get on, they get on enough to have a conversation at the door when he collects my stepson. Where as I haven't spoken to my ex for years as we really can't get on or speak at any point without issues, but I had to pay and my wife didn't.
.
GTTS

GTTS,

I do see your point, but at the end of the day, when parents split things are going to change regardless. The Mother will receive numerous benefits, and none of them take into account the money they will receive from the Father. For example if i split with my partner who im with now, we worked out with the benefit money she would receive and with my money, her income would exceed £2k a month! Thats a £32k job to clear that money.

My big issue is that the way the system works it prevents the Dad from moving on with his life, regardless of what the mother does with hers. Me for example, my ex has remarried, had another child with her husband yet what i have to pay doesnt change! At one point before i changed jobs my child maintenance worked out at 30% of my take home money (this was because i had a company car and fuel card) i had to change jobs because of this. How are you supposed to move on?

I even spoke to a lawyer about what i could do, as was thinking of doing a job role swap with my partner, so i stayed at home with the kids, but because i wouldnt be claiming benefit they would go after my partners money! Yet they dont take her earnings into consideration when im the one working. The way i see it the CMS are completely out to get the Dad, regardless. Dont get me wrong i believe the Dad should contribute money but why should it be based on what he earns, thats just penalising people for working hard, and baring in mind they now include bonuses, commissions and overtime, all of which are not guaranteed into the calculation, to me thats just a smack in the face!

For me i strongly believe that the Child Maintenance should be inline with the Child Benefit, then if the Dad wants to contribute more, he can choose to!

Hi shortie

You could turn that arguemnt around and say that if you are unemployed, then the government pays unemployment benefit of £70 per week, so that's all you need to live on, so anything else above that could go to child maintenance, however much you earn.
What the government pays is a bare minimum to survive, and not what a child needs to thrive. If someone has been parrty to bringing a child into the world, then they are responsible for ensuring that their child has a good standard of living, and if you remained in the relationship, that would effectively mean that a substantial proportion of your income would go to ensure that. Because the relationship breaks down is a matter between the parents, but it shouldn't impact on the standard of living of the children to that marriage.
I do think that if either parent is a high earner, then a proportion of the maintenace should go into a trust fund for the children when they are older, rather than to support the parent with care's sometimes extravagant lifestyle, but I don't see an issue that the maintenance should be based on income.

Hi Actd,

You can actually turn that right back around if I was on benefits and getting £70 a week, for a start with the benefits you can claim my rent bills and food would be covered by the tax payers money and that £70 would be all mine! I don't get that now. Plus if I was on benefits according to the current system I would only have to pay £9 a week, yet because I work its £72! That proves my point exactly what I earn should be totally irrelevant and the amount everyone pays should be fixed. You then might also find people claiming benefit might get off their arses and get out to work as they would be losing more of their benefit! in terms of the standard of living shouldn't be affected, well sadly in life things change, if you had a £50k job and you lost it does that mean you should still get that money to keep up your families standard of living? No you would have to change your standard of living, sadly that's part of life!

I'd love to know what these benefits are that pay for bills and food on top of the £70ish per week, as I'm pretty sure they don't exist. Housing benefit obviously held towards rent, but there's nothing else. You still have to pay an amount of council tax out of that £70 so you're left with a miniscule amount to buy food and pay the bills.

In reference to your original post, it's not the kids fault when their parents break up, so it's not fair to deprive them just because you think it's "not fair". If you earn enough you should take responsibility and share your wealth with your children.

Also, it doesn't matter if mums partner earns loads of money. It's not their child and they shouldn't have to subsidise someone elses choice (unless they want to).

Sorry Shortie, I agree with all the other's points except your own. There are certain cases that are unfair, totally agree with that and it might be a fairer system if there was a flat rate that went up or down based on both parents incomes.

However, your views on the benefits system astound me though - have you stopped to consider for example, in most areas now, even for people who are eligible for maximum Housing and Council Tax Benefit - if they are renting private accommodation due to the shortage in social housing - this benefit does not cover their rent as the LHA rate is usually hundreds of pounds less than the going rent for a property? Think about that in the context of pre separation, a parent who perhaps stayed home to raise the kids or worked part time to support the family and then receives say £50 pw in Child Maintenance - ultimately their kids will likely be affected.

As actd said, they might survive but are unlikely to thrive.

Im not quite sure you are understanding what i am trying to say. Why should what i earn have to do with what i pay? Why should one dad pay more or less than the next just because he has a better job and earns more money. I have never begrudged paying for my other children, infact i couldnt afford to feed myself at times because of what i was earning compared to what i was paying.
The government pay the same in Child Benefit no matter if the parents earn £10,000 or £40,000, so why should 1 Dad pay more of less than the next, when the government deem every child the same?
And Spotted Tree, for your reference i have looked into the benefit system and if me and my partner split up she would receive £1600 a month in benefits, plus my money, as they do not include that as an income! so your argument is a muted one in my opinion.

I just strongly believe there should be some kind of fixed amount a Dad should pay, not a percentage of what they earn. And add to the fact that the CMS have a 25% tolerance on what you earn, just shows how against the Dad they are! If you had a £40k a year job and lost it and you could only get a £31k job to replace it they wouldn't change your payments as your earnings hadnt gone down by more than 25%, but your take home would come down by £500 a month!

So what would you fix the payment at? When my children lived with with their mother 10 years ago, I paid around £500 per month, so would you be happy paying that? After all, you siad why should you pay more or less than other dads, so you should pay the same as I did. The simple fact is that the system is designed to cover most situations as fairly as possible, and there is the variation system to cover some of the unusual circumstances or abuses of the rules. What you are saying is that the goverment says the level of child benefit is enough to raise a child, and since the mother gets this from the govenment, then they child doesn't need anything extra, so the non-resident parent doesn't need to pay anything at all.

Hi There,
.
I think that you are entitled to your oppinion as we are, and peope aren't really agreeing with you, we understand what you are saying, but in actual fact your suggestion isn't a fair one for the reasons that have already been stated.
.
For the record CMS aren't against Dads, they set a rate for the non resident parent whether that be Mum or Dad, yes I agree that in most cases the non resident parent is the Dad but that isn't down to CMS so how can they be against the Dad when they would use the same system towards the Mum if they didn't have residency?
.
GTTS

Does anyone else not think it's strange that the CMS says it costs more to raise a child or children the more money you earn? This is entirely my point I don't understand why they think we should give the mum more money because we earn more money! And let's face it it wouldn't be so bad if that money actually went to the kids but a lot of the time it's to pay for the mothers lifestyle!

Morning,
.
As we have already said, it's not that it costs more the more money you earn, but if a family is used to a certain way of life is it fair that the children then have to do without becuase the parents have seperated and the income has reduced drastically.
.
Would you think it would be fair that a mother or father left the family home, was the main bread winner earning say 80k a year, set them selves up in a plush home, drove a nice car and took 2-3 holidays a year, while the resident parent lives on, child benifits, a low fixed amount of CMS from the non resident parent as you suggest and could end up struggling to feed and clothe the children?
.
GTTS