CSA - they are still great!!!!

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#43
Trevelez said:
I cut out the CSA and pay £500 a month for my children. It's not about luxuries it's about doing the right thing; children come first
Not disagreeing there but there is an element of state giving up its responsibility too isn't there? AIUI the CSA basically exists so that the govt has to pay less income support to single mothers at the cost of working fathers. It is a governmental win-win.

Were the state (fly those red flags brothers) doing its job properly then the CSA would be seeking to bolster the income support with additional payments rather than covering the DHSS's costs.

Of course, giving money to an unemployed ex will count for her as income and so should always be done in cash face to face so that the bast ards don't stop paying her her income support.

The above para's are a little disjointed but my point is that the governement shouldn't be attempting to shift the burden of kids on to absent parents, it should be accepting its basic costs and anything extra for the kids is a punishing equalizer for the absent wage earner - from this, hopefully, a 19 year old dad who earns £200* a week pays £35* as a top up and not the £110* that the CSA says he has to pay because it doesn't want to pay the kids social costs either.

Is that clear or have I buried myself in sh*t again sir?

*£ figures are based purely on having no idea whatsoever.
 
#44
Mr Happy said:
Biscuits_AB said:
Can you see your point of view Mr H, but I'd never refer to mine as 'former'. They're mine. Must be a sh*te situation to be in if you have to refer to them as 'former'.
Quite so mate. Not my own TF but I imagine plenty of others. With regards to the whole 'former' thing, I was probably more trying to point out to Buztybabe that posted that father can be victims as well and the phrase should not be considered used by shag-an'-run tossers solely.

For more discussions on phraseology, see Iraqi Freedom Fighters vs. Terrorist Insurgents... but for gawds sake don't take a dictionary along to that argument with you - you won't like what it says! :oops:
You'll find in my original post I refer to both Father and Mother. Read again, I support any parent who is being unfairly treated.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#45
BuztyBabe said:
Mr Happy said:
Biscuits_AB said:
Can you see your point of view Mr H, but I'd never refer to mine as 'former'. They're mine. Must be a sh*te situation to be in if you have to refer to them as 'former'.
Quite so mate. Not my own TF but I imagine plenty of others. With regards to the whole 'former' thing, I was probably more trying to point out to Buztybabe that posted that father can be victims as well and the phrase should not be considered used by shag-an'-run tossers solely.

For more discussions on phraseology, see Iraqi Freedom Fighters vs. Terrorist Insurgents... but for gawds sake don't take a dictionary along to that argument with you - you won't like what it says! :oops:
You'll find in my original post I refer to both Father and Mother. Read again, I support any parent who is being unfairly treated.
Roger that, but was trying to convey that 99.9% it is the father (or at least once out of the relationship he's the victim - arriving at that situation I suspect is more usually his fault too). Bag of worms there though...

The gender thing is a tricky beast to master when posting frantically inbetween plotting the end of the world on ones office PC.
 
#46
As a "client" (read victim) of the CSA for a few years now, I'd cpmment that the biggest problem, particuarly with the "new" system is its attempt to simplify everyones lifestyle to a simple calculation without any application of common sense or fairness.

My kids live 230 miles away - she decided to move, I couldnt stop her - and since then I've had to travel to see the kids, drive them up and down the country to maintain contact with me and their grandparents etc. I have tried everthing I can to maintain a worthwhile relationship with my kids and have succeeded against mums wishes and best attempts at disrupting it.

Despite looking after my kids for half the school holidays, taking time off work unpaid to do so - the CSA dont want to give me a reduction in my assessed income for the time I'm off unpaid, as they cannot build it into their calculation.

They also refuse to give me a reduction in my assessment for overnight care, as the rules say I cannot claim for both overnight care and travel expenses, although I incur both!

I put in an application for a review of my payments in Jan 2005, I got a response back 2 weeks ago saying that they are going to look into it - two and a half years later!

Basically, theyre shit, and I cant see any reason why I shouldnt do everything in my power to **** them around when they are asking for a completley unreasonable amount because their rules dont allow them to take into account the costs I incur in making an effort to see and support my kids (which is what they are telling me I should do)
 
#47
grrrr.... :roll: CSA...grrrr....that guy was a Lawyer paying £350 for 3 kids!!!!!!! try a Full Screw paying that for one....then you might understand "justice"...my arrse :?
 
#48
I see Fathers 4 Justice are involved. When this group started I had admiration for their support of cases of injustice. However I have lost all respect for them since the "alleged" kidnap plot/stunt of a child to promote their cause.
 
#49
105AVRE said:
grrrr.... :roll: CSA...grrrr....that guy was a Lawyer paying £350 for 3 kids!!!!!!! try a Full Screw paying that for one....then you might understand "justice"...my arrse :?
Do not fall for the CSA propaganda and miss the real point.

This guy is a Barrister and therefore self employed. His marriage ended in 1994 and junior provincial Barristers, despite what people think, do not really earn a huge amount.

His ex wife is fully supportive of his position: the kids live with him 50% of the time. There is no suggestion that they want for anything. So what is his real crime? Well, there are two:

1. Refusing the play by the rules of a failed system.

The CSA, not his ex wife, want the money because a set of rules administered by self interested mongs says so.

What would they do with it? Pass it on to his wife who already says she does not need nor want it. So his first "crime" is bypassing the wholly pointless efforts of the CSA.

2. Being the Legal Adviser to Fathers 4 Justice

That, I submit, is the real reason why the CSA, having failed so many so often, has devoted so much time and effort in bringing a prosecution against a man who actually fulfills all his responsibilities for his children.
 
#50
BuztyBabe said:
I see Fathers 4 Justice are involved. When this group started I had admiration for their support of cases of injustice. However I have lost all respect for them since the "alleged" kidnap plot/stunt of a child to promote their cause.
I suspect the majority of the members were not behind this (I hope I am right). Tarring them all ...........

Blogg, with regards to point 1 - didnt the ex wife say she didnt need his money because she gets tax credits? Not overly educated on the tax credits entitlements but, doesnt the amount of tax credits you get depend on your income - including child maintenance???????
 
#51
Stephanie said:
BuztyBabe said:
I see Fathers 4 Justice are involved. When this group started I had admiration for their support of cases of injustice. However I have lost all respect for them since the "alleged" kidnap plot/stunt of a child to promote their cause.
I suspect the majority of the members were not behind this (I hope I am right). Tarring them all ...........

Blogg, with regards to point 1 - didnt the ex wife say she didnt need his money because she gets tax credits? Not overly educated on the tax credits entitlements but, doesnt the amount of tax credits you get depend on your income - including child maintenance???????
Bloody Tax credits. Apparently they are calculated on the hours you work & not earnings ????? According to my ex anyway. She works 16 hrs a week & takes home a very good wage (full time wage to some people) ontop of that she recives £480 pm TC !!!! this puts her monthly income above mine & this is even before I pay my child maint. She has even admited to me that she feels better off being a single mum than when we were married. The system sucks somewhere. The only thing I recive is a single persons 25% discount on the council tax.

LT.
 
#52
I havent got a clue how tax credits work, does anyone know?
Surely the FIS or whatever its called now worked better?
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#53
LoneTree said:
The only thing I recive is a single persons 25% discount on the council tax.

LT.
Ansd there's another load of bollcosk, 25% discount for 1 person... it should be nearer 66% or whatever the local person per address ratio is.
 
#54
LoneTree said:
Stephanie said:
BuztyBabe said:
I see Fathers 4 Justice are involved. When this group started I had admiration for their support of cases of injustice. However I have lost all respect for them since the "alleged" kidnap plot/stunt of a child to promote their cause.
I suspect the majority of the members were not behind this (I hope I am right). Tarring them all ...........

Blogg, with regards to point 1 - didnt the ex wife say she didnt need his money because she gets tax credits? Not overly educated on the tax credits entitlements but, doesnt the amount of tax credits you get depend on your income - including child maintenance???????
Bloody Tax credits. Apparently they are calculated on the hours you work & not earnings ????? According to my ex anyway. She works 16 hrs a week & takes home a very good wage (full time wage to some people) ontop of that she recives £480 pm TC !!!! this puts her monthly income above mine & this is even before I pay my child maint. She has even admited to me that she feels better off being a single mum than when we were married. The system sucks somewhere. The only thing I recive is a single persons 25% discount on the council tax.

LT.
I hope they are not being worked out like that cos im getting fiddled other wise. The word on the street (or rather out of Gordon Broons when he speaks about them on those very very very rare occassions). Everyone is entitled to them up to the max of something like 50k per annum. If your single with kids you get an extra lone parent award. But EVERYONE who works and doesnt earn more than 50k (or whatever ithe cut of is im not sure) can claim working tax credits.

And I would be so much better off if i claimed as a single parent, apprantly twoa adults in one household means you need a considerably less amount of money to eat??!!

Editted to add link: Entitled to - dont know whether its accurate.
 
#55
BuztyBabe said:
I see Fathers 4 Justice are involved. When this group started I had admiration for their support of cases of injustice. However I have lost all respect for them since the "alleged" kidnap plot/stunt of a child to promote their cause.
Kidnap plot? You mean the one that none of them were ever charged over and a lot of the members quit over, saying it was just pub banter?

Neue Arbeite propaganda.
 
#56
Split the costs of running a kid for a week simple and then there you have it. I think my kids are quite cheap and would cost about £60 a week at the most to run. So £30.00 seems adequate to me.

I wouldn't want an ex partner of mine paying more as then he would think that he is providing a roof over my head and therefore would patronise at every opportunity. At the end of the day if you were a crusty old spinster you would have to provide a home for yourself so the fact that you have a couple of bin lids doesn't mean you have to tax the ex partner who also needs to provide a home for himself.

I think it is all wrong and if they went for the £30.00 rule alot more people would pay it and therefore solve the problem of non-payers etc.
 
#57
EX_REME said:
I havent got a clue how tax credits work, does anyone know?
Surely the FIS or whatever its called now worked better?
Tax credits are worked out on your annual salary, not hours worked.

You have to estimate what your earnings will be a year ahead of yourself, then at the end of that year they look at your P60 and let you know if their award was correct.

If it was, you do the same thing for the next year, if it wasn't you have to pay the difference back.

Tax credit/Child tax credit is only really beneficial if you are on a relatively low income.

Once you get about the 30/40k mark it's pointless putting a claim in, as the "award" amounts to about 20p a month and it's just not worth the paperwork.
 
#58
i THINK you have to be working 16 hours p/w or more to claim,which is where the hours.v.earnings confusion arises
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#60
Moodybitch said:
Thats crap about the ex-wife pleading not to send him to prison....you can opt out of the CSA at anytime.

Why didn't she then?

She might not have wanted to see him in prison, but she certainly wanted his cash. Greedy Bint.
Well MB,

Me and the mother of my son did just that, agreed an amount, told the CSA, paid it into her a/c via standing order, everything hunkydory, the birds were singing, no clouds in the sky and.....

I spent the next two years being threatened fortnightly by a myriad of CSA spotty 16 year olds over the telephone (of course never the same moron) for non payment, usually at 9:30 at night, culminating in a "red letter" legal summons for payment of £0.00, which will be collected directly from your employer....

Got my MP on the job (ta Mr Turner) and it all stopped.
 

Similar threads

Top