CSA reform - single parents to pay to use service - to be very angry!!

[timefliesby]

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?ID=235

So, the government is closing all existing child maintenance cases over the next three years and washing its hands of the £3.5 billion it has FAILED to collect on behalf of single parents. They say they'd like to give separated parents "the chance to come to a private arrangement" or failing that, all those single parents - you know, the ones that aren't getting anything for their children - to PAY to use the CSA. Yes that's right...pay to use the service which has FAILED to collect £3.5 billion owed. But just to hoodwink you into thinking you're getting a new service they'll rebrand it the CMS (wonder how much that's costing?).

Here's a revolutionary thought...the parents that are on friendly enough terms to agree a private arrangement have got a private arrangement already. Which harebrained, ignorant, idiot sat and looked at it and went "I know...we'll just get them to agree it between themselves"...no matter that some of them may have escaped just about with their limbs in place or endured years of control freak behaviour from the non-resident parent.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!

It used to be with the jurisdiction of the courts, because the only language these non-resident parents actually understand is "the bailiffs are going to be sent in" or "you will be going to prison.. if you don't adequately contribute to your children's upkeep."

Then the CSA came along and children suffered for it...now it's the CMS which is basically just the government's excuse to wash their hands of the whole debacle because which cash strapped, single parent can afford to pay for a service that fails to actually secure them any financial contribution towards their children???

Oh and the £3.5 billion is much lower than the figure would be had they actually made a maintenance decision on all those self employed fathers claiming they live on £600 a month whilst owning several companies...

DISCUSS PLEASE!

The Govt should realise that they are loosing tax - if they are short sighted enough to think that several thousand NRP's are earning say £50k each and not paying tax, then they may feel they can turn a blind eye. If they look further into the future and realise this is an increasing trend with many NRP/self employed earning more and this figure will continue to rise, they may see the point in pursuing it. The tax from these individuals combined should be enough to pay for the system chasing them as well as helping some of the poorest single parent families. It would be a feather in the cap of any party who tried it. No tax payer wants to feel they are funding a parent who actively tries to get out of paying for their child.

You really seem to be saying that NRPs should be allowed to just absolve themselves of responsibility whenever it suits them.

When one person in a couple loses a job, the other person assumes the responsibility for feeding and housing the no. Working partner and for the non working partners share of child related expenses. This is a mutual agreement between them.

If you are separated from you child's other parent and lose your job you no longer have that arrangement so you must arrange another way to pay for your children, many do this by applying for benefits, some have partners that are supporting them. You dont get to just hand over that responsibility to the child's other parent! They are doing their bit.

And yes, i do think it should be £x amount til child i 18 regardless of your income because (cant believe i am havjng to explain this) CHILDREN DO NOT STOP EATING JUST BECAUSE YOU STOP EARNING! It costs the same basic amount to raise them whether you earn £100k or £0.

Some people don't even support themselves by working and earning an income, they are literally funded by the state their whole lives. Saying that they have to pay 'x' for their child is pointless they have no money!

If my dh lost his job and lets say for arguments sake just couldn't get another I would have to go back to work. I earn about 1/2 what he does and we would be literally on the breadline. There is no way I would be able to afford to pay 1/2 the maintenance we currently do towards my step son.
We've got 2 children of our own who need feeding clothing etc.
step son has a mother who works (lets assume she earnx similar to what I would). She has 2 people to support I would have 4 on the same money- are you seriously saying I would have to pay cm for another child that isn't mine?

Before you say don't have children if you can't afford them in this example circumstances have changed.

Some people don't even support themselves by working and earning an income, they are literally funded by the state their whole lives. Saying that they have to pay 'x' for their child is pointless they have no money!

So their CM comes out of their benefits and they survive on what is left.

are you seriously saying I would have to pay cm for another child that isn't mine?

Yep. If you take on his bills then you take on his bills. Period. The children come first, your two AND his one. If you arent earning enough then you apply for any and all benefits you are entitled to.

However i will point out that i have said TWICE now, my hypothetical system would require an entire overhaul of the work and benefits system. The current system wouldnt be sufficient or workable for what i have suggested.

But overall- yes - your children are your responsibility and if you persuade someone else to cover the cost of your existence then your children are part of that and should be the first bill that is paid before you even eat.

People need to wake up and realise this. Then children might for once get what they are entitled to and not suffer while one of their parents is having all their needs met.

Perhaps step son's mother should pay towards my two children in that situation!

One point of consensus seems to be a clamp down on self employed people playing the system and that should be the focus. Forcing liability for other people's children is never going to happen.

However one point made above is where the NRP sets up a company with his new partner and pays himself minimum wage and new partner £60k. How do you know her contribution isn't worth £60k she might be the brains behind the business- you can't all be the organ grinder. Furthermore they may split the earnings 50/50 I suspect to some of you that would be wrong but in the age of equal pay how can it be?

On that note I'm bowing out off this thread

Perhaps step son's mother should pay towards my two children in that situation!

Why on earth would she?

She didnt
A) create your two children

Or

B) agree to assume responsibility for them.

Or

C) join your family knowing there were existing children that would always need provided for.

What an odd suggestion.

I'm really shocked by your inability to understand this.

However one point made above is where the NRP sets up a company with his new partner and pays himself minimum wage and new partner £60k. How do you know her contribution isn't worth £60k she might be the brains behind the business- you can't all be the organ grinder.
Fair point - I would say that this money needs to be traced from source. If she is the secretary and he is out there doing the work, it makes no sense for him to not receive a fair wage. Employment laws should be bought in to ensure each is being paid true value for the job they partake. If she is also employed elsewhere I would find it suspicious that she is earning more from a company she is not working for full time, for example. If an NRP's old company is paying his new business rather than PAYE and his new partner is earning a wage reflective of that, then that should be easy for CSA to trace and confirm this is the NRP's money and merely being diverted.

I cant see many people agreeing to sign up as a sponsor for someone who is just hiding their income so this might force shitty SE NRPs to disclose their income because no-one is willing to cover for them.

unfortunately, there are all too many people out there willing to support a partner/employee in not paying child maintenance. I have lost count of the threads you see which say 'he's not paying maintenance and he owes his ex £20k in maintenance as well'. Some people seem to believe that they are immune from the same treatment should it happen to them. Others convince themselves that it's OK 'cos the children don't go without 'cos the PWC works fulltime and has nice nails and a new car. The woman my ex left me for actively colluded in hiding money so that his divorce settlement would be considerably less - it is a long story but she lost her professional status as a result and was prosecuted by HMRC. Presumably she thought a woman with three children under 5 didn't deserve a roof over her head after years and years of marriage. Amusingly, my ex's business collapsed after I stopped writing his tenders for him so karma well and truly bit the pair of them on the bum. I got lucky - karma often isn't the bitch she's made out to be and I know plenty of people who got truly screwed in divorce.

unfortunately, there are all too many people out there willing to support a partner/employee in not paying child maintenance

Yes i totally agree, i have seen it in action in RL. However in my hypothetical system, the nominated "sponsor" would be legally responsible for the NRP's child maintenance an it would be taken from their source of income in the form of child tax just as if they were the NRP as they will have signed documents declaring themselves the NRP's financial sponsor. So if NRP wants to hide money and a partner is happy to say they are supporting them then they will be taking on the CM legally so doing themseles out of money. Cant see many partners volunteering to pay CM when the NRP has money they are hiding. Therefore people would be unwilling to say they are supporting their partner and NRP would have no choice but to declare income source.

Yes silly that does make sense. I think you could have potential problems with that if the couple split (or pretend to?), but then you would be back on the NRP to prove how he is self financing.

The only way any of these hypothetical theories work is if the people conning the system are scared of the outcome. That includes colluding parties. It needs to be something that will effect them but not stop them working in future. Businesses helping tax evasion should be heavily fined and the management condoning it struck off and a record for fraud. Partners hiding funds should have the debt put onto their own finances or be treated as a party to fraud. Repossessions and selling of assets to cover the CSA costs and avoided maintenance (backdated for both) should be the norm in these situations.

but then you would be back on the NRP to prove how he is self financing.

Exactly.

The only way any of these hypothetical theories work is if the people conning the system are scared of the outcome. That includes colluding parties. It needs to be something that will effect them but not stop them working in future. Businesses helping tax evasion should be heavily fined and the management condoning it struck off and a record for fraud. Partners hiding funds should have the debt put onto their own finances or be treated as a party to fraud. Repossessions and selling of assets to cover the CSA costs and avoided maintenance (backdated for both) should be the norm in these situations.

Yep- consequences that ARE ENFORCED and hurtful enough to deter the majority from attempting to hide or help hide money

So you're basically saying: 'Tax Shelters Are Wrong'.

Is that correct?

Because that's never been raised before in government and it's definitely never been ignored because either politicians do this themselves or because big business would fight it with their dying breath.

'Force People Not To Hide Earnings And Pay Tax.'

Genius! I shall write to my MP immediately. I can't believe it's never crossed his mind.

What you're proposing is a massive shake-up, not just to the CSA, but to the UK's economic policy as a whole. You're asking for a poorly organized government organization (CSA) to be given access not just to the personal records and bank accounts of the NRP, but also to anyone that the CMS/CSA believe might be associated with that person, as well as businesses that they work for. As well as anyone else you don't like the look of. It will set a legal precedent that will make companies loath to invest, or open offices, in the UK. You'll also have single handily removed checks and measures that the police barely have, and only in serious crime cases.

It's madness. For one thing businesses would stop employing NRPs for fear that the RP at any moment will scream 'He's hiding income! He secretly owns the company!' and then the company gets an audit that they didn't deserve. Of course HR will say that they can't discriminate but see how easy it is applying for a job when you're 3 months pregnant and tell me that companies don't avoid high-risk employments.

So now you've made it harder for you NRP to get a job because, even if someone is paying correctly, it would only take one mistake from the CSA to get the company fined, the NRP's boss fired and charged with fraud, as well as god-knows what penalty you want for any poor woman has been going out with the NRP.

Now that I think about it - women who are considering marrying a NRP and earn more than them would also have to be worried if the NRP's ex decided to stir up trouble. One phonecall from the RP to say that 'His lifestyle is not consistent with his payments to the CSA' (due to the fact that the new woman comes with a nice house) and we're back to auditing again.

This thread is becoming a waste of time. What you're talking about will never happen. If for no other reason than the fact that if you gave the CSA these powers then other government departments will get in line to ask for the same powers. It's a minefield that every party, not just the Tories, can see would sink them if they pursued it.

Just agree that you'd like to mark your exs with a Scarlett Letter, chase them through the streets with pitchforks, and allow public beatings - but only for NRPs who aren't PAYE. Murders and rapists after that.

So, now we have some ideas for a new improved system, question is how to do we get politicians interested in them?

X- posted there!
It's madness. For one thing businesses would stop employing NRPs for fear that the RP at any moment will scream 'He's hiding income! He secretly owns the company!' and then the company gets an audit that they didn't deserve. Of course HR will say that they can't discriminate but see how easy it is applying for a job when you're 3 months pregnant and tell me that companies don't avoid high-risk employments.
No, if he was employed his PAYE would be fine for CSA. The 'troublemakers' of the system who immediately go self employed and yet never bankrupt would be the only ones to face the penalties I set out with the system in place to trace their money.

Much as you would apparently like to ignore that children across the country are living in poverty as a result of such people, don't assume that this is a personal vendetta for people who do care.

Or perhaps you would like to propose a constructive idea rather than not contributing in a helpful way? You have some valid points, but appear unwilling to be of actual help to the thread other than tearing down other ideas.

What you're proposing is a massive shake-up, not just to the CSA, but to the UK's economic policy as a whole

Yes. But without the CSA. Get rid of them.

You're asking for a poorly organized government organization (CSA) to be given access not just to the personal records and bank accounts of the NRP, but also to anyone that the CMS/CSA believe might be associated with that person, as well as businesses that they work for. As well as anyone else you don't like the look of

Not the CSA, tax evasion crew. Govt department.

For one thing businesses would stop employing NRPs for fear that the RP at any moment will scream 'He's hiding income! He secretly owns the company

The PWC would have nothing to do with it. The non payment would be non payment of tax to the Govt. the Govt would be initiating any investigations due to a NRP declaring they exist on air.

As for the rest of your post- see my comments above- no CSA and PWC would have nothing to do with suggesting NRP was earning more as they would get the payment weekly regardless in the form of CB style payment.

Sorry silly and OP, I think both aggressive posters are aware of who I am - both have NC'd and sound very familiar to me. This is about them trying to shut me up, but has affected the thread.

Sorry to hear that lion

Perhaps report to HQ if stalking behaviour?

The PWC would have nothing to do with it. The non payment would be non payment of tax to the Govt. the Govt would be initiating any investigations due to a NRP declaring they exist on air.

Actually... that would make sense. Take the CSA and PWC/RP out of it and that's a solid platform. Removes the emotion from it and places the increased powers into the hands of an organization that's more qualified.

That would work. As long as it focused on the tax dodger, and not companies that employed him and those he associated with (unless tax dodging themselves) the policy would actually have a chance of going through and being supported.

Well done SillyBilly

Yes, remove the connection or need for contact between the NRP and PWC. PWC would actually be paying exactly the same tax (unless earning above a certain threshold which would increase tax liability) and would be subject to exactly the same investigations if they tried to avoid paying.

ALL parents pay child tax of (example) £20 per child per week taken from source like tax on earnings. They pay it from birth of the child, their tax code changes when the child's birth is registered.

PWC and NRP would have the same process, same liability, same risk of investigation if fail to pay.

Only difference is the PWC would get the weekly payment into their account. Variations can be made for shared care or regular overnights with NRP.

Yes, that would work. And it has a balanced description that means that both men and women can support it without being accused of some kind of sexism or anger for the opposite gender. Plus HMRC are more organized than the CSA and have better ways of keeping track of people.

Brilliant - a solution that could work in the real world.

Right- i'll ring dave, you ring the papers and tell them it'ml be sorted by Tuesday (bank holiday on mon )

Maybe you could start a thread in Money Matters/Legal/Politics and see if anyone has more to add/argue and hope the MP lurkers might catch wind of it? Or we could email our local MP's? Create a petition?

Doubtful anything will change, esp now they are overhauling CSA/CMS which must have cost ££, but worth a shot.

At this point I'd be happy if they took the rest of the month and took a half day on Friday. Just so long as something changes for the better soon

Thanks! It'll be nice to have something meaty to drop on my local MP when I raise my hand at the next townhall. And something that they can't argue their way out of easily like I've had before

Doubtful anything will change, esp now they are overhauling CSA/CMS which must have cost ££, but worth a shot.

I agree, however, there will be other reforms in years to come and having something well thrashed out in the meantime stands a better chance of having it considered/implemented for the next reform.

Personally i think the CSA/CMS is being wound down to a point where (if the tories stay in) there wont be a service worth using/mentioning. I think they'll whittle away at it but by bit til they can say "no-one uses it- it's costing more than it's worth" and will get rid altogether.