NEW CHILD MAINTENANCE SYSTEM

#1
Looking for a wider audience as a carry on from the "Splitting up - What will she get" thread in the Law forum.

http://www.blbsolicitors.com/news.aspx?nid=299

The above link traverses to a website giving the new "GROSS" percentages for Child Maintenance to come into effect in the next couple of years.

At present I pay my Ex £112 per week for 2 children, not an issue, but looking at the above link, there will be a huge diffence in the lower and higher brackets. There are two brackets, £800 and below, and £800 and above.

After doing a few sums (amazing I know, but I'm armed with calculator), I came up with the following, anyone care to refute my adding up.

A guy with 2 kids, earning £800 per week, will fork out 16% of his gross income, approx £6656 per year, or £128 per week, however a guy earning £1 a week more, £801, will only pay 12% of his gross income, approx £4998 per year, or £96.11 per week, 25% less, for 0.125% more money!

Mine will go up to just over £119 per week.

Thoughts please Ladies and Gentlemen.
 
#2
my dad works for the CSA as a low level type not trained in 3 years and spent a lot of time checking calculation with a hand calculator as the IT system could not be trusted.

so any system that is simpler is to be welcome
 
#3
FredWest said:
Thoughts please Ladies and Gentlemen.

Don't have kids.
 
#4
FredWest said:
Looking for a wider audience as a carry on from the "Splitting up - What will she get" thread in the Law forum.

http://www.blbsolicitors.com/news.aspx?nid=299

The above link traverses to a website giving the new "GROSS" percentages for Child Maintenance to come into effect in the next couple of years.

At present I pay my Ex £112 per week for 2 children, not an issue, but looking at the above link, there will be a huge diffence in the lower and higher brackets. There are two brackets, £800 and below, and £800 and above.

After doing a few sums (amazing I know, but I'm armed with calculator), I came up with the following, anyone care to refute my adding up.

A guy with 2 kids, earning £800 per week, will fork out 16% of his gross income, approx £6656 per year, or £128 per week, however a guy earning £1 a week more, £801, will only pay 12% of his gross income, approx £4998 per year, or £96.11 per week, 25% less, for 0.125% more money!

Mine will go up to just over £119 per week.

Thoughts please Ladies and Gentlemen.
I read it a tad different. IMO some earning >£800/week will be paying the lower rate on income above 800 but the higher rate on the first 800. So in the example you gave the guy on £801 would pay an extra 12p compared to Mr. £800.
 
#5
StickyEnd said:
I read it a tad different. IMO some earning >£800/week will be paying the lower rate on income above 800 but the higher rate on the first 800. So in the example you gave the guy on £801 would pay an extra 12p compared to Mr. £800.
But as we all know, this Government couldn't put into place somethng that simple!

I tried to think that myself, however, there isn't an explanation of that on the website, but bearing in mind, it's not a CSA Site.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Rather boringly, my thought is that if you have children, you should pay for their upkeep, whether you live with them or not.

I see no reason why the State should maintain anyone's children just because the parents can't live together any more. To me, it's another form of spongeing, and another reason why our welfare budget is so high.

As to the CSA, I feel sorry for anyone working in it. Formed too quickly, with no pilot, using Californian software, and set a target of saving money rather than getting fair deals for both parents, it was doomed from the start. (Thanks Mrs. Thatcher/Mr. Portillo - another triumph!) Add to that mix the huge numbers of absent parents who lied, cheated and evaded their responsibilities, and it was a disaster waiting to happen.
 
#7
From the link:-
The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission will have additional enforcement powers from 2009/2010. These include deduction of maintenance payments and/or arrears from bank accounts, without the need to apply through the courts; the removal of the need to apply to the court for a Liability Order; applying to the court for disqualification from holding or obtaining a passport; applying to the court for a curfew and the recovery of arrears from deceased's estates.
Now that would worry me if I was still paying child support. Some minor official makes an error and doesn't have to go to court to take your money? :(
 
#8
For those of us decent guys who ARE paying for our cheating ex-wives to keep our children in Transformer toys, can ex-wives force us to onto this new system if we are already contributing through a mutually agreed system of payment?
 
#9
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
Rather boringly, my thought is that if you have children, you should pay for their upkeep, whether you live with them or not.

I see no reason why the State should maintain anyone's children just because the parents can't live together any more. To me, it's another form of spongeing, and another reason why our welfare budget is so high.

As to the CSA, I feel sorry for anyone working in it. Formed too quickly, with no pilot, using Californian software, and set a target of saving money rather than getting fair deals for both parents, it was doomed from the start. (Thanks Mrs. Thatcher/Mr. Portillo - another triumph!) Add to that mix the huge numbers of absent parents who lied, cheated and evaded their responsibilities, and it was a disaster waiting to happen.
This isn't a why should I pay topic, it's highlighting what I think could be yet another unfair system brought in by probably the worst Goverment in decades.

As I state in my opening post, the money I pay is not an issue, but if you add the £40 - £50 a week I spend when I see my kids, then I would be whinging.
 
#10
Spook_44 said:
For those of us decent guys who ARE paying for our cheating ex-wives to keep our children in Transformer toys, can ex-wives force us to onto this new system if we are already contributing through a mutually agreed system of payment?
At any point they can.
 
#11
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
Rather boringly, my thought is that if you have children, you should pay for their upkeep, whether you live with them or not.

I see no reason why the State should maintain anyone's children just because the parents can't live together any more. To me, it's another form of spongeing, and another reason why our welfare budget is so high.

As to the CSA, I feel sorry for anyone working in it. Formed too quickly, with no pilot, using Californian software, and set a target of saving money rather than getting fair deals for both parents, it was doomed from the start. (Thanks Mrs. Thatcher/Mr. Portillo - another triumph!) Add to that mix the huge numbers of absent parents who lied, cheated and evaded their responsibilities, and it was a disaster waiting to happen.
Of course parents should support their children. The ability to do so goes downhill after splitting up though.

With the CSA my sympathy goes more to the people that have to deal with it.
 
#14
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
Rather boringly, my thought is that if you have children, you should pay for their upkeep, whether you live with them or not.
I couldn't disagree more.
 
#15
lsquared said:
TWO PARENTS OF DIFFERENT GENDERS MAY BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

No apologies for 'shouting'.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I think Fred West and his ex are of different sexes.

Now, if you'll be so good as to return to your copy of 'Identity', that would be nice.
 
#16
lsquared said:
TWO PARENTS OF DIFFERENT GENDERS MAY BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

No apologies for 'shouting'.
No, but I do think you should apologise for being a CNUT (and that is a bit shouty)
 
#17
Having recently had to deal again with the CSA, or the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission as they are now called (Windscale to Sellafield springs to mind), the conclusion that I have drawn is that it is staffed by people who failed the IQ test to be the moron that stinks of p1ss and shouts at passers-by in the street.

The simplest of tasks is beyond them. Speak to three different people over the course of three days and you will be told three entirely different things. I only, finally, had resolution by writing to my MP, who intervened on my behalf, but even he had to write to their chief executive more than once before they responded.

I believe that parents, whether still together or not, should have a financial responsibility for their children. However, CMEC seem to complicate matters. If you co-operate fully with them, you will get screwed. If you are evasive, constantly change jobs and blatantly lie (as my ex-wife did), they will not exert themselves to fully investigate and the emphasis will be placed on you to do the investigation for them and provide the evidence. If they make a mistake, there will be no admission on their part that they have erred. I actually have a letter telling me that the mistake that occurred was my fault as I didn't inform them that a mistake had been made. When I asked to be put on their payroll as a consultant if they wanted me to sort out their maistakes, they declined (perhaps my IQ was too high).

Fortunately, my dealings with these imbeciles is nearing an end. My advice to anyone dealing with them is don't swear, involve your MP early and take the full names of everyone you deal with so that when they deny you have been given information, you are able to tell them the full name of the person who did give you the info.
 
#19
jt9563 said:
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
Rather boringly, my thought is that if you have children, you should pay for their upkeep, whether you live with them or not.
I couldn't disagree more.
This is a wah, right?
 
#20
As my dad said he's not been trained since he got there only took it as a little job to keep things ticking over till retirment makes mod procurement look fast moving.
lot of people they trace are on benefit so pointless.
IT system crap etc etc.
name change same people same systems slightly improved.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads