Why should I work so ex gets rich?
October 26, 2010
The CSA have a large pot to fill from all the nrp’s that have not paid up and some of this is down to poor managent and how it was set up originally. However it mainly comes down to nrp’s not paying up so what they do is rely on the NRP’s that have an income and charge a percentage of their income. yep basiclly anyone who abides by the law and pays their dues is paying for all the scum that do not pay.
I think it would be fair to have a fixed fee like the minimum wage that we all have to pay. I am paying child maintenance of which I have no problem in paying however this is based on 15% of my income so if I invest my time and effort into becoming a doctor or a surgeon etc to save lifes and get paid a good 50k a year. 15% or more of this goes to the large arrears pot of scum.
It’s not right and fair and needs to be changed and just another form of tax. The people who organise this CSA are pressured to fill this pot and get ruthless I refuse to speak to them as they give you no respect.
Written by Honesteypays · Filed Under CSA Complaints
Related CSA Posts
Comments
Tell us your CSA story
Do you want to be heard?
Tell us your story of how the CSA has treated you. We might be able to help, and could publish your tale on the website to make sure everyone knows about the problems you've had.
Forum Login
Child Support Agency Poll
Loading ...CSAhell.com on Facebook
Search CSAhell.com
Child Support Agency (CSA) Advice
CSAhell.com has been set up to help you with your child support agency problems. If you're having difficulty getting the CSA to listen you can tell your story here. Get advice on dealing with the CSA at CSAhell.com.Subscribe
Enter your email address to receive child support agency advice and news direct to your inbox.
Recent Forum Replies
Recent Forum Topics
-
what impact of media for children
by aliceshaun
5 years, 10 months ago
-
csa arrears after case closed confused?
by jimgsd
6 years, 6 months ago
-
Pay Your Way – Avoid The CSA
by arealman
7 years ago
-
Can the CSA find me?
by amc123
7 years, 3 months ago
-
CSA to CMS
by markburtonmark
7 years, 7 months ago
-
what impact of media for children
by aliceshaun
-
Recent Posts
Categories
- Child Support Agency (112)
- CSA Advice (2,239)
- CSA Complaints (3,218)
- CSA Help (1,019)
- CSA Mistakes (392)
- CSA News (148)
- Events & Protests (8)
- General (1)
- Guest Posts (1)
- Website Updates (9)
CSA Comments
- Jayne on HMRC confirmed my ex’s lies to CSA
- Clair on CSA Self Employed
- Dontbeajudge on My ex won’t even give money for birthday presents
- kostakis Kleanthous on What is the maximum amount the CSA can take from me?
- Dave on My ex is lying to the CSA – what can I do?
- Ts on Will the CSA take my new partner’s earnings into account?
- Kate on How to beat the CSA
- unfair on How to beat the CSA
CSA Websites
-
Popular CSA posts today
- Can child maintenance dis... 9 views | 0 comments
- If the CSA closed a case... 9 views | 0 comments
- Do the CSA have to leave... 7 views | 0 comments
- How can I reopen my case... 7 views | 0 comments
- How do the CSA know if I&... 7 views | 0 comments
- Child maintenance: total... 6 views | 0 comments
- Loophole in CSA protocol... 6 views | 0 comments
- Ex works cash in hand so... 6 views | 0 comments
- Just discovered my child... 6 views | 0 comments
- If I change my son’... 6 views | 0 comments
Archives
- February 2024 (1)
- January 2024 (4)
- December 2023 (1)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- July 2023 (1)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (1)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (1)
- December 2022 (1)
- July 2022 (1)
- June 2022 (2)
- May 2022 (1)
- April 2022 (1)
- February 2022 (1)
- January 2022 (4)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (4)
- October 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (5)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (7)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (3)
- December 2020 (2)
- June 2020 (2)
- March 2020 (3)
- February 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (3)
- September 2019 (6)
- August 2019 (1)
- July 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (7)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (8)
- January 2019 (5)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (7)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (9)
- June 2018 (5)
- May 2018 (9)
- April 2018 (9)
- March 2018 (6)
- February 2018 (32)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (9)
- November 2017 (20)
- October 2017 (15)
- September 2017 (14)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (10)
- June 2017 (19)
- May 2017 (20)
- April 2017 (16)
- March 2017 (19)
- February 2017 (14)
- January 2017 (15)
- December 2016 (15)
- November 2016 (35)
- October 2016 (26)
- September 2016 (13)
- August 2016 (23)
- July 2016 (22)
- June 2016 (16)
- May 2016 (21)
- April 2016 (20)
- March 2016 (27)
- February 2016 (29)
- January 2016 (23)
- December 2015 (25)
- November 2015 (30)
- October 2015 (31)
- September 2015 (29)
- August 2015 (30)
- July 2015 (70)
- June 2015 (91)
- May 2015 (93)
- April 2015 (90)
- March 2015 (93)
- February 2015 (84)
- January 2015 (83)
- December 2014 (77)
- November 2014 (86)
- October 2014 (94)
- September 2014 (89)
- August 2014 (94)
- July 2014 (93)
- June 2014 (91)
- May 2014 (93)
- April 2014 (82)
- March 2014 (83)
- February 2014 (83)
- January 2014 (97)
- December 2013 (100)
- November 2013 (122)
- October 2013 (124)
- September 2013 (120)
- August 2013 (126)
- July 2013 (124)
- June 2013 (122)
- May 2013 (124)
- April 2013 (120)
- March 2013 (117)
- February 2013 (63)
- January 2013 (96)
- December 2012 (93)
- November 2012 (92)
- October 2012 (95)
- September 2012 (91)
- August 2012 (93)
- July 2012 (93)
- June 2012 (103)
- May 2012 (93)
- April 2012 (66)
- March 2012 (65)
- February 2012 (64)
- January 2012 (73)
- December 2011 (75)
- November 2011 (75)
- October 2011 (99)
- September 2011 (60)
- August 2011 (62)
- July 2011 (68)
- June 2011 (61)
- May 2011 (75)
- April 2011 (66)
- March 2011 (68)
- February 2011 (62)
- January 2011 (68)
- December 2010 (64)
- November 2010 (60)
- October 2010 (62)
- September 2010 (61)
- August 2010 (66)
- July 2010 (65)
- June 2010 (61)
- May 2010 (65)
- April 2010 (60)
- March 2010 (64)
- February 2010 (46)
- January 2010 (23)
- December 2009 (26)
- November 2009 (44)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (8)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (15)
- June 2009 (30)
- May 2009 (14)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (5)
- January 2009 (5)
- December 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (8)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (20)
- April 2008 (28)
- March 2008 (11)
The theory behind the percentage of earning is that the child should benefit from the prosperity of the parents, well the non resident parent anyway because the CSA dont give a stuff what proportion of their income a resident parent spends on their child. If the CM from the NRP is sufficient the RP may well have to spend none of their income on their child.
At one time I was voluntarily paying £2000 pm in CM. Still didn’t stop the vile cow obstructing contact ……
Your post is rather confusing. The 15% which you contribute towards the upbringing of your child goes to the childs mother. The CSA do not take a 'cut' of this and the huge arrears pot that has grown due to far to many NRP not contributing towards their childrens upbringing stays as just that… a pot of arrears which is growing! The only losers are the children.
Couldn't agree more the money should go to the child not the mother, I am stopping paying the CSA until I can see my kids again the whole system is toward the resident parent, in my case nothing has been decided by the courts but I will get a court order
I agree with brokenfather. My ex is driving around in a 60 plate Audi TT. She has two large inheritances and screwed £70,000 out of me in divorce.
I will have paid £40,000 for two children by 2014. My children that my ex has seen fit to break contact orders over, and the courts do sweet nothing. On top of this she gets money thrown at her from the state and I am picking up her tab.
So lets use the rule of enforcement to persecute and criminalise the childrens’ father. That sets a good example to the children who don’t see their father at their mothers’ whim. They have lost their inheritance because of the callous actions of their mother and the state………….here endeth the lesson!
And the system as it works now for none paying errant fathers wont bother to chase either unless your an easy target on a PAYE basis…fact!!
No Sarah-Jayne, the money taken (stolen) from fathers is kept by the CSA. It is solely additional taxation. It is NOT Child Support! That was the lie spread by Margaret Thatcher to get the CSA voted thru. Look how many mothers are on CSA Hell complaining that they never receive anything. The CSA is not interested in them! Close it down NOW!
couldnt agree more peter sarah justs sits on her fat arse getting fatter writing stuff on this site she either works for csa or is a man hater probably both get of your arse sarah stop relying on your x`s csa money and get a job
Peter, my case is under the old rules and my ex told me how much his standing order is, and it matches what goes into my bank account each month – he pays via the CSA.
there you go instead of working you survive on your x`s money via the csa and what ever hand outs you get from the social go to work instead of sitting on your arse and giving your shite opinions what example do you set your child scrounging of everyone
Trevor, i'm sure i read on a different post that Sarah-Jayne answered, that she does indeed have a well paid job. What is your problem with women on this site or, is it women in general you have "issuses" with?
We don't actually know anyone's true situation. What is written on here may or may not be true, believe what you want.
realy dont have issues with sarah or any woman my issue is the csa and the way people promote how good the csa is i agree totally in both set of parents contributing to the up keep of there children if the absent parent has to contribute say 150 per week then the rp needs to contribute the same total 300 per week right – wrong its not right the csa want the absent parent to pay 15% of the net income thats not saying 15% of what so you earn £500 per week net income thats £75 a week if you earn £200 per week 15% of that is £30 how can the csa say 1 child needs £75 per week and the other £30 and so on if some one is successful enough to earn more they pay more the csa is only set up to try and get revenue back into the state its not there for the childs welfare which we all agree the child comes first the csa has over the years driven broken familys further apart resulting in the children not seeing the abset parent this could be either the man or the woman so i hope you can see my point i dont mean to rant on and on and if i have offended any one sarah included i do apolagise but i dont apolagise for my thoughts towards the csa and the devastation that they continue to cause
Lee, i agree totally with your comment. Trevor, the pwc, if in receipt of state benefits, now gets to keep ALL maintentance payments as of April this year. So NO revenue get's paid back in the "pot". I think, the governments thinking of the percentage charge was, what sort of lifesyle the child would of been able to have had the parents still lived under the same roof…I dont know, just a thought!
its a case of much wants more then if the pwc is getting state beefits for themselves and kids why not just come to some amacable and reasonable amount the absent parent pays instead od going for the so calles 15% for one child and 10% for the second pure greed nothing else the goverment says a child needs £20 a week to live on because thats what they pay on child allowance they carnt say we will pay £20 a week for child allowance but the absent parent has to pay 15% of the net income i really think the system is wrong
If they are giving a pwc on benefits all the maintenance b ack then I want the £5000 that the government said i had in family credit (in the old days) when I worked bloody hard to keep my son and got no payments off the ex but the CSA worked out what is to come out of the arrears to be paid back to the government that I got in family credit (hope this makes sense)
Helen, I think I know what you mean… do you mean that you now receive a payment, but part of that payment (the arrears) is paid back to the state to cover of a period of time you received state benefits?If thats the case, I am not sure where you stand on requesting you receive the full amount. I do know that from April 2010 any PWC who was in receipt of any state benefit (ie Income Support, Council Tax benefit etc) could keep ALL of the assessment due to them whereas previously that could only keep £10 a week and the rest covered off the cost of the state paying for the child. Might be worth asking your MP?
iT'S STILL ABOUT GREED………. PWC and CSA are in collusion to cause financial destitution to NRP's new family members, without any consideration as to how this affects the NRP's new family, especially the children who live with the PWC's NRP….. Utter filthy greed, plain and simple on top of WFTC's and child support benefits!!!!!! All about the selfish desire for more tax free££££££££'s…. and not forgeting the scoring of points against NRP's as the NRP's new partner is stung also, yet the NRP's new partner is not responsible for the PWC's child conception.. again, another point scoring system available to PWC's against both NRP and NRP's new partner!!!!! All provided by the CSA who have no real consideration to the child but support the PWC.. and also encourage numerous conflicts between PWC and NRP… It is the PWC who involve the CSA for financial greed!!!!
What is greedy about wanting help financially from the rather of a child who buggerd off with another woman when is son was three years old and has NEVER PAID A PENNY and now lives with no mortgage, travels abroad every month for a holiday and drives a new jag. Whos son is now nearly 22 years old and is his ONLY child. What is greedy about a woman who phoned her ex husband to beg him to see his hurting son.What is greedy about my now husband bringing my son for the last 13 years spending his hard earned money on bringing up another mans child giving that child stability and love and treating him like he his own son.What is greedy about going to work when you child goes to school an claiming family credit that has to be paid back in the future if the man who has dodged every thing possible even a prison sentence ever pays a pennyPlease tell me what is greedy about asking a man who has never paid a penny towards his son who was born with in marriage three years after the marriage took place to help his son realise his dream and help support him while he is at collegeIf that is greedy THEN YES I AM GUILTY.
TO Sarah Jayne, I dont know if they still take the money or not from the old rule cases do you?
Im not sure. I think its only for income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. It definately does not include working tax credits as I was in receipt of these until 2005 and there were arrrears from my ex but all the funds he contributed were passed to me.
Lol mine goes to way before working tax credits it was called family credit lol
Had it confirmed today the money I had in Family Credit all those years ago still has to be repaid to the government and taken off what my ex owes. SO its not retrospective