Letter: Social benefits with no room for discretion
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The Government's proposals to modify the child support formula will go a long way to alleviate the hardships claimed by some low-income absent fathers. However, the main method chosen to achieve this is seriously flawed.
The Government proposes a significant increase in the protected income level. The result will be that the liability of some absent parents, especially those with new families (including step-families), whose current liability is around pounds 40- pounds 50 a week could be reduced by 50 per cent or more. But relatively small increments in the absent parent's income will incur rapid increases in child support liability, constituting a work disincentive and incentives to conceal (and dispute) income gains.
Worse still, income (and income increments) from the absent parent's partner will have the same effect. Not only will this encourage the partner to believe that she is supporting the man's former family, disputes over the extent of her income are likely. This is a radical departure from one of the foundational principles of the scheme, which was to keep the income of the partners of the parents out of the picture as far as possible. The income of the carer's partner is accordingly ignored, and this will cause further resentment.
There was a fairer and simpler option: to reduce the deduction rate on disposable income from the excessive 50 per cent to lower figures, depending on the number of children to be supported, coupled with a further reduction for step-families. If it is too late to reconsider, the Government is not out of the wood yet, quite apart from the issue of clean breaks.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN EEKELAAR
Pembroke College,
Oxford
24 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments