Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

So what d'you think of the naming and shaming non-maintenance payers idea then?

65 replies

ChristmasCaroligula · 11/12/2006 10:51

news story here

I'll start first shall I? I think it's a pile of crap. I want to know why we don't have halls of shame for income tax evaders, or council tax non-payers, or congestion charge defaulters. You know why? Because we bloody well make them pay, on the whole. We take non-payment of council tax so seriously that we send old age pensioners to prison if they don't pay it. And yet with maintenance we talk about collecting money as if it is impossible.

And another thing. Someone tell me how it would benefit my children if their father was publicly named as being a wastrel? How would that be in their interests? How would that make them feel? I can't imagine how awful it would be to be told in the playground "your dad doesn't love you enough to pay your money. And no you can't play with us!"

I can't believe that this government has so lost the plot that it can come out with an infantile idea like this and think it will disguise the fact that their agency is a disgrace. Rant, rant, rant, rant.

OP posts:
speedySleighmamahohoho · 11/12/2006 11:03

The first thing I thought was that older children will probably be embarrassed if this happen to their absent parent. Why does all and sundry need to know about the private affairs of others?

Considering we live in the IT era, why can't the money be directly deducted from the non-payers salary? Salaries are paid electronically now (well in my world it is) so this could be easily done or am I talking rubbish?

Tommy · 11/12/2006 11:12

I can't see what good it would do.

The mothers of these children know the men aren't paying, their friends presumably do and probably everyone else that knows them - what would be the opiint of me knowing who wasn't paying? (unless I was planning to have a baby with one of these wasters )

Original poster
ChristmasCaroligula · 11/12/2006 11:20

No it could be done Speedy.

If anyone wanted it done.

Apparantly, we as a society don't.

OP posts:
glitterfairyonachristmastree · 11/12/2006 11:31

Its worse if they are self employed the CSA have told me that they cannot force my X to pay. Mind you they have not done an assessment after a year so why worry? Frankly the whole thing is a waste of time and I need to earn enough to tell them all to sod off without worrying. I agree totally thought that the INland Revenue can do it as can Councils but somehow not paying for kids. Crazy world and infuriating for those of us whose Xs dont contribute.

kiskidee · 11/12/2006 11:36

agree that i cannot see why the taxman cannot garnish paycheques before wages are paid. if they can take income tax straight from source then they can take maintenance too.

MistleToo · 11/12/2006 11:39

Can't add anything to caligula's OP. Pointless.

moondog · 11/12/2006 11:41

Eh?
I think it's a great idea.
Why sould we pay for the offspring of errant adults???

Some of the stories of non contributing parents on this board have me aghast.

I think it is insuffereably evil not to support your children.

String the bastards up!!!

HumphreyCushiONtheFirstNoel · 11/12/2006 11:41

I think it is a pointless idea.
If someone is refuses to pay to support their own child/children, are they really going to be shamed into doing so by having their name on a website?
It's like a completely ineffective naughty step!

The Government needs to stop suggesting these pathetic token gestures and work out a way to make these people pay!

My SIL hasn't had a penny for her children from her ex in over 10 years - but gets a £100 compensation payment every two or three years from the CSA.

It's a joke.

edam · 11/12/2006 11:42

agree strongly with Caligula. We make people pay their taxes (and R&C are bloody frightening if you don't). We could enforce maintenance if we (all, as society) gave a sh!t. That'd do something for child poverty, for a start.

moondog · 11/12/2006 11:43

Wouldn't naming them er...encourage them to pay up??

Original poster
ChristmasCaroligula · 11/12/2006 11:43

Yes but the hall of shame is instead of making them pay.

It's a gimmick, they'd get all the data wrong and put up men who do pay, employers would look at it and decide they're not going to employ someone because he's on it, so he'd have no wages to pay, and our children would be publicly shamed. Because it's our children who would feel shame on their father's behalf, not the men themselves. They have absolutely no bloody shame.

OP posts:
moondog · 11/12/2006 11:44

How can they have no shame though???
How can these men turn from being people you love to amoral toads?

I don't get it at all.

Original poster
ChristmasCaroligula · 11/12/2006 12:00

Neither do we Moondog.

OP posts:
Original poster
ChristmasCaroligula · 11/12/2006 12:03

Did you see "Splitting up with the Jones"? Very interesting to see the portrait of a divorce. Both parties started out determined to put the kids' needs first but it deteriorated within weeks.

I've only watched the first half, must watch the other.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 11/12/2006 12:06

How about cancelling their driving/professional licenses until they sign an agreement to stump up?

Or taking away their passports?

Tortington · 11/12/2006 12:09

they can take my fucking student loan out as a priority debt. straight out of my wages.

i agree completely - if authority wants you to pay something - you must pay it.

they dont want to do it.

Tortington · 11/12/2006 12:10

taking away driving licenses may curtail their job prospects - so am not on board with that one

i dont see why it cant come straight from source - wages or benefits. proportionally.

stop fuckng about just make it proportional. per kid.

ParanoidSurreyHousewife · 11/12/2006 12:13

But I though that those who had a source did (eventually) get it deducted. It was the very large number of people who don't have a weekly or monthly payslip that comprise most of the non-payers (and they continued to claim that they earned next to nothing anyway).

expatinscotland · 11/12/2006 12:17

That's true, custy.

Hmmm.

I don't see why they can't take it out of their benefits if they get them.

Stargazer · 11/12/2006 12:20

I think it's simply another way for the Government to give jobs to the CSA. The Government is not interested in ensuring absent parents support their children and this idea is a waste of tax payers money. Like most of you I think if they really wanted, maintenance could be enforced by taking directly from salaries/benefits, but it won't happen.

Naming and shaming the absent parent won't affect them - but it will affect the children and cause them upset. I think it's a terrible idea.

speedySleighmamahohoho · 11/12/2006 12:21

Self employed people tend to be registered for VAT so take it out of their business. If there is a will, there is a way.

speedySleighmamahohoho · 11/12/2006 12:25

For the ones who claim to have no income, send the bailiffs round to their place of abode and keep doing that until the miscreants pay up.

If they claim benefits, give their benefits to their kids and give them a map to the nearest soup kitchen! They would soon get their act together.

glitterfairyonachristmastree · 11/12/2006 12:28

Yes but many of them lie and claim they earn nothing anyway. When they do they pay next to nogthing to themselves to avoid tax and the CSA does not take dividends into account so they can pay themselves through that and get away with paying less tax as well. It is all a scam and simply means that people like my X can get away with paying next to nothing or in his case nothing at all.

Tortington · 11/12/2006 12:31

and another thing people on benefits get their enefots taken away becuase they get the money from an exp - which for people i know means they go to benefits office endure gruelling interview regarding whereabouts of father which they claim they dont know - obviously as it will make then just the same off financially. for some its becuase their ex h is a twat and they would rather not have anythign to do with them
but for some its becuase their exh pays them the money extra - so its not recorded.

why not just make a policy that it goes in a trust fund for kids when they are 21.
or is that a pants idea?

speedySleighmamahohoho · 11/12/2006 12:33

In that case, they should make the govt should take the money from their successful business!

Swipe left for the next trending thread