Percolo Alio
|
With regard to the first question, the level of care is the care you are likely to have for the assessment period. New assessment means start of a new period which can last for up to 18 months. I am quite sure that due to the changed legislation and also many complaints about how care is recorded and as I understand, that the CSA have been asking workers to work overtime recently, specifically in relation to care and also that they have created a new team, again specifically for care. Care levels appear to be their biggest headache at present. This, I believe is a backwash from when prior to the new legislation they very much changed it on the whim of just the recipient of CS and thus it involved little work, whilst now to make a change they have to go through what can be quite a lengthy process, a process that involves the need to contact both parents and perhaps involve a more senior officer if any decisions has to be made. Perhaps yours is one that hit the pass-the-parcel (more accurately pass-the-in-tray as that's what I believe they call work) routine that I believe is not an in-frequent occurrence within the CSA.
With regard to the second question, the reasoning behind the children from other relationships of a parent affecting CS, is basically the same principle behind CS itself. That is that parents are expected to be responsible and support their children. Therefore if a parent of separation has other children (Relevant Dependent Children), they are expected to support them and thus the amount to support them is taken into consideration.
The calculation uses the same cost of children table(s) as used for CS children, the exception being that only the single parent's taxable income is fed into the table (this for parents earning less than the self-support amount would be $0), the resultant cost of the relevant dependent child(ren) is then subtracted from that parents taxable income prior to adding both incomes (Combined Child Support Income) and also before working out each parents percentage of the combined incomes (Parents Income Percentage).
Although it would appear that you are paying for someone else's child the official line would be along the lines that you are not paying for that child, rather that the other parent has additional expenses associated with the new other child and that is taken into consideration.
|
Percolo Alio
|
Necrocryp,
there is a limit to all cost of children calculations of three children per group (CS children, RDC's and Multi-case children). If the other parent were to have 10 other children to different partners then multi-case scenarios would be very likely. Again when multi-case scenarios exist (i.e. children from another case where CS is paid to or by that parent for the children) then again the parent's income (after relevant dependent children reduction) is fed into the cost of children tables and that cost used to reduce the parent's income again a maximum of 3 children.
With multi-case there is also a calculation made to ensure that the parent pays no more than if the child were living with the parent, this is used to cap payments, this value is called the Multi-Case Cap. An 11th child would rarely make any difference at all, both RDC's and Multi-case.
Again with multi-case, as with RDC's, if the parent is not earning above the self support amount ($18808 for 2009), then the cost of any children other than the CS children would be $0.
The increases are not exponential, they are according to percentages as defined in the cost of children table. These vary according to the age and number of children and also the level of income.
As income increases then boundaries are crossed and the percentages reduce (very similar to how tax is calculated but instead of the percentage increasing they reduce with a higher income). As the number of children increases then the percentages increase but the increases are much smaller than the initial percentage. There is just the 1 age boundary, that being 13, children 13 or over are deemed to cost more.
The 5 incomes bands vary annually according to a figure known as MTAWE (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings), actually the value is the annualised MTAWE. This value is also used to determine the self support amount (SSA=1/3rd of AMTAWE (I call it AMTAWE as it's annualised)). The first income band is between 0 and 0.5 * AMTAWE, the second between 0.5 * AMTAWE + $1 and AMTAWE, the third band is between AMTAWE + $1 and 1.5 * AMTAWE, the fourth is between 1.5 * AMTAWE + $1 and 2.0 * AMTAWE, the fifth is between 2.0 * AMTAWE + $1 and 2.5 * AMTAWE, the sixth band is above 2.5 * AMTAWE where no CS increase occurs as it is capped.
For 1 child under 13 , the percentages for each band are 17%, 15%, 12%, 10%, 7% and 0%
For 2 children under 13, the percentages for each band are 24%, 23%, 20%, 18%, 10% and 0%
For 3+ children under 13, the percentages for each band are 27%, 26%, 25%, 24%, 18% and 0%
For 1 child over 13, the percentages for each band are 23%, 22%, 12%, 10%, 9% and 0%
For 2 children over 13, the percentages for each band are 29%, 28%, 25%, 20%, 13% and 0%
For 3+ children over 13, the percentages for each band are 32%, 31%, 30%, 29%, 20% and 0%
For 2 children of mixed ages, the percentages for each band are 26.5%, 25.5%, 22.5%, 19%, 11.5% and 0%
For 3+ children of mixed ages, the percentages for each band are 29.5%, 28.5%, 27.5%, 26.5%, 19% and 0%
Note that like tax you progress through paying the percentage for the lower band for the income in the lower band.
For 2009 AMTAWE is 52426 (i.e. 3 * 18808)
In regard to you understanding that someone paying maintenance should have a reduction or other children they have to support, then perhaps understanding that the CS calculations actually determine the cost of the children which is then reduced for the the paying according to both the level of care and according to the income split between the two parents. Thus there is often a difference between the calculated cost of the child and what is paid and this is in theory what the receiving parent pays toward the child. So in theory there is a cost/payment for the other parent, just it's not enforced nor is the responsibility (I believe to be fair the legislation should enforce the responsibility of the CS recipient with as much, if not a lot more, vigour than it does toward the liable parent, that is I believe accountability for spending both the money received and the money not received should be enforced).
|
Forums
Rules
Groups
Unread
Recommend
Donate
