CSA should be set amounts and means tested

June 19, 2014

Stop punishing NRP’s…At the moment the system of the CSA is that  the more they earn the more they pay.

Kids up and down the country don’t cost more depending on the NRP’s income! The ONLY fair way is to set the amounts and means test it, like the Child Benefit, so if the PWC is a millionaire and the NRP is on average salary, the NRP is exempt. Or the very least pays a min amount. If the NRP earns min wage then there should be a lower ‘set limit’ like £10 a week for 1 child, £15 for 2 etc.

Then all NRP’s on above min wage up until millions they should pay a set amount, in line with the current child benefit amounts. If the Govt set the Child Benefit amount at the amount it’s at now, then it must be for a reason, that reason must be a ‘helping hand’ for parents….I rest my case!

Who agrees?

Comments

  • gonk says:

    @Nicole Mitchell..And what angers me is some of the shallow childish remarks from obvious man haters, comments like “should have kept your dick in your trousers” lol…yer right, the woman had no problem opening her legs but its the guys fault as usual.
    It disgusting that this agency does not means test. I am sure there would not be the amount of resentment in paying if it was.
    gonk

  • Anon says:

    Cant be a set amount and means tested, as a means test will set an amount depending on what you can pay (based on your outgoings). I do believe that some out goings should be protected provided they can be proved as forcing NRPs into situations where they end up homeless or jobless or both just hurts the child as well as the NRP – it is self defeating.
    As it is when you live with your ex you share expenses, when you split up the expenses almost double with the NRP usually taking the brunt as they have to private rent where the RP has the option for council housing and although the RPs situation should not be taken into account, the cost of housing should.
    Travel to work is different – there are instances where a high paid job is required to pay for a private rent or morgage and of course means the kids get more. However systems that protect travel costs are easy to abuse and the cost of keeping an eye on everyone would be huge.

  • >