Fecking CSA

[unclemark123]

For years now i have had the csa on my back
call me irrisponsable if you like, i guess i am, but theyre demands are unrealistic.
it would take me ages to argue my case here so i wont, but they can go to hell, they dont give a F@CK about your circumstances, it just seems they want to much ££££

i admit i am an absent father where they are concerned

i am willing to pay, but not the silly amounts they demand

sorry,had to get it of my chest.
anyone else feel the same?

[gra001]

Talk with the ex and sort the money. Don`t be an absent Dad...............you`ll regret it!!!

[Mrs Trackside]

Have you offered to pay the mother of your children any money for their welfare?

[mcflurry]

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

[Piglet]

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Jesus and I thought student loans at 9% of earnings were high.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for fathers, it's often the mother that ensures that the father has little or no relationship with the child and yet the father is expected to pay through the nose in a way that doesn't appear to take into account the needs of either the mother and the children or the father.

Whilst fathers should support their kids (and mothers should be required to allow access) it sometimes needs to be done in a more equitable manner and without hounding fathers to breaking point.

I feel for you mate and hope you manage to make some sense of it all soon.

[david_s]

Kids are expensive and someone has to pay to support them, surely it is fairer for the parents to pay than the taxpayer. My kids are welcome to everything I earn and own.

[ipsg.glf]

Piglet said:

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Jesus and I thought student loans at 9% of earnings were high.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for fathers, it's often the mother that ensures that the father has little or no relationship with the child and yet the father is expected to pay through the nose in a way that doesn't appear to take into account the needs of either the mother and the children or the father.

Whilst fathers should support their kids (and mothers should be required to allow access) it sometimes needs to be done in a more equitable manner and without hounding fathers to breaking point.

I feel for you mate and hope you manage to make some sense of it all soon.

I don't think 15% of take home pay can be viewed as paying "through the nose".

[Piglet]

ipsg.glf said:

Piglet said:

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Jesus and I thought student loans at 9% of earnings were high.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for fathers, it's often the mother that ensures that the father has little or no relationship with the child and yet the father is expected to pay through the nose in a way that doesn't appear to take into account the needs of either the mother and the children or the father.

Whilst fathers should support their kids (and mothers should be required to allow access) it sometimes needs to be done in a more equitable manner and without hounding fathers to breaking point.

I feel for you mate and hope you manage to make some sense of it all soon.

I don't think 15% of take home pay can be viewed as paying "through the nose".

Without a means testing system who knows? I know I barely survive as it is and 15% of my take home pay would be paying through the nose.

If you'll read my post above you'll see I'm not saying parents (mothers and fathers) shouldn't pay but that there should be an equitable system in place which is not what exists at the moment. Or the state should butt out of it and leave couples and mediation services to resolve these disputes.

I have friends on both sides of this, mothers where the father refuses to co-operate with the CSA and seem to get away with it and a father on the edge of breakdown whilst trying to support a former partner who has stopped him from having access to the child whilst he pays money he can't afford and she fails to declare the new partner living with her.

I think it's very easy to be righteous about the subject until you see people who are affected by it.

[sheets tabuer]

I was paying 30% direct to the mother not through the CSA

Bugger, should have called the CSA

[timmy33]

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Hang on are you saying that if a bloke gets some bird up the spout and he's earning £30k...he'll pay £4.5k a year, but a few years later, after a few promotions etc if he's earning £100k, they'll want £15k a year????

and er is that 15% in total or 15% per brat????

[Nick P]

timmy33 said:

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Hang on are you saying that if a bloke gets some bird up the spout and he's earning £30k...he'll pay £4.5k a year, but a few years later, after a few promotions etc if he's earning £100k, they'll want £15k a year????

and er is that 15% in total or 15% per brat????

15% for the first brat then 25% for 2

[HotTotty]

I thought the average cost of raising a child to the age of 21 years was now around 180k.

[timmy33]

Nick P said:

timmy33 said:

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Hang on are you saying that if a bloke gets some bird up the spout and he's earning £30k...he'll pay £4.5k a year, but a few years later, after a few promotions etc if he's earning £100k, they'll want £15k a year????

and er is that 15% in total or 15% per brat????

15% for the first brat then 25% for 2

Cristo feckin santi.

Without a ceiling?

[mikeyt]

timmy33 said:

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Hang on are you saying that if a bloke gets some bird up the spout and he's earning £30k...he'll pay £4.5k a year, but a few years later, after a few promotions etc if he's earning £100k, they'll want £15k a year????

and er is that 15% in total or 15% per brat????

15% of his take home surely - so prob about £240 a month ... still nearly 3k a year.

[timmy33]

HotTotty said:

I thought the average cost of raising a child to the age of 21 years was now around 180k.

Hang on since when was childhood extended to 21 years old!

[timmy33]

mikeyt said:

15% of his take home surely - so prob about £240 a month ... still nearly 3k a year.

Is it based just on income, or other savings and assets too?

[adrian w]

]

I don't think 15% of take home pay can be viewed as paying "through the nose".[/quote]


I Fing do when there's no cap, i pay for two kids but because there's no ceiling i pay for my kids, her house, her new husbands car etc etc. The 15% and then 20 works up to a level and then is Just stupid. if she wanted what i've got she shpild have hung around.

Edited by adrian w on Tuesday 8th May 18:07

[timmy33]

adrian w said:

]

I don't think 15% of take home pay can be viewed as paying "through the nose".

I Fing do when there's no cap, i pay for two kids but because there's no ceiling i pay for my kids, her house, her new husbands car etc etc. The 15% and then 20 works up to a level and then is Just stupid. if she wanted what i've got she shpild have hung around.

Edited by adrian w on Tuesday 8th May 18:07

[/quote]


Oh jesus, that's what I was wondering. Christ that's the absolute pits. Because if you split up say 10 years ago, then she is directly benefitting from your effort and need do feck all to do anything to improve her/ her new husbands lot. That absolutely sucks.

[M400 NBL]

Personally I'd prefer to see any payments made by an absent father spent on nothing other than their children.

Anything not spent should go into a savings account or trust for when they are older.

I think the biggest gripe with the CSA for fathers is that they think their kids mothers are wasting money because a child can only eat so much, wear so many clothes and use so many holdhold consumables...all of which are not the sole responsibility of the father anyway.

I know that the mother will not be able to work full time but it isn't the fathers responsibility to look after the mother too.

[gizmo.mp3]

timmy33 said:

mcflurry said:

The CSA standard is 15% of your take home pay.
If you haven't paid for a while it soon mounts up.

Hang on are you saying that if a bloke gets some bird up the spout and he's earning £30k...he'll pay £4.5k a year, but a few years later, after a few promotions etc if he's earning £100k, they'll want £15k a year????

and er is that 15% in total or 15% per brat????

I have an odd slant on these sorts of debates... while I hate the concept of some governmentesque body 'deciding' to give x% of my earnings to someone else, the experience of my girlfriend with the father of her daughter has mellowed my feelings somewhat.

They were in a relationship, decided to have a kid, so far so peachy. Then, they broke up. She moved out to a house around the corner, father agrees to pay (CSA not involved) the maintenance indicated by the CSA's online calculator - let's not forget, this is money to help feed, clothe and bring up a child that they decided to have - not money that my girlfriend would live on in any way.

Father and daughter could see each other absolutely whenever they wanted: because the daughter deserves to see her father even if her parents no longer get on - he hardly takes advantage of this, so she moves to York (not a million miles away from the father) in order to have more time with her family - still not trying to stop the father from seeing the daughter.

Now, she lives on income support and tax credits for a time while jobhunting (She had a job to begin with, had paid her own tax for a while, and she now has a new job, so I think it's only fair). He gets promoted; buys himself a nearly-new S2000. Still paying the absolute bare minimum in maintenance (and, for the record, never even a suggestion that the daughter should live anywhere other than with the mother).

Now, legal obligations notwithstanding; bearing in mind that this was not a child that was an 'accident', and there was no real 'fault' for the parents breaking up; personally if I was in his situation I'd pay more than the bare minimum in maintenance if I could possibly afford it in order to try and give my child the best possible upbringing, whether that child lived with me or not. When you have a child, who do you put first, you or it?

/endrant