Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
Well housing benefit is as much for the child as parent I guess. Child support is not means tested - its just paid to all parents (I think). However people with low incomes and children will get additional child support on top of this standard allowance paid to all.
|
But the person gets the same housing benifit if childless. It's not because they have a child.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
I may be wrong but my understanding is that the amount the absent parent pays is not determined based on 'what the child needs' but on what the state determins is apporiate for the absent parent to pay based on their income. Earn loads and you pay more. That does not mean that a child of a rich absent parent needs more money than one of a poor absent parent.
If you imagine a person leaving their super rich partner and taking their child. Initally the rich partner pays nothing. So the state steps in to help support both the parent and the child (cheaper and better than taking the child into care). Then the missing rich parent starts to cough up £2000 a week in child maintance (to pluck a figure out of the air). You think in such a situation the state should continue to pay support to the parent with the child?
|
There's a max amount, which is why Chris Evans despite having millions pays less than 6000 a year for his daughter.
The CSA money is for the sole purpose of the child, not the parent.
Other benifits are there to support the parent, benifits which they would be entitled too even if they didn't have a child, so why should they lose those benifits when the CSA money isn't for them, but their child, meaning they have to use their child's money to live on, depriving the child.
A woman on benifit getting £400 a month CSA will have less than £400 a month to spend on her child.
A woman earning £20K and not on benifit will have the £400 CSA to spend on her child