Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by FredWest, Aug 27, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

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

    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. Don't have kids.
  4. 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. 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.
  6. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Book Reviewer Good Egg (charities)

    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:-
    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. 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. At any point they can.
  11. 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.

    No apologies for 'shouting'.
  13. Do you get thicker and more incoherent by the day?
  14. I couldn't disagree more.
  15. 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.