Why should I work so ex gets rich?
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.
22 thoughts on “Why should I work so ex gets rich?”
Leave a Reply
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