Say NO to tax on child support

[Jmum85]

Some of you will already know that the Gvnt is currently consulting on its proposal to charge parents for the use of the Child Support Agency (CSA). This means that it will deduct up to 12% from the monthly child maintenance payment that you currently receive if you continue to use their service. This means an average of £24.00 will be deducted directly from you child(ren)s maintenance each and every month.

You can read the Gvnts consultation paper and respond directly at
www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2011/strengthe ning-families.shtml

You can say NO to a tax on child maintenance by signing an online petition at

www.ipetitions.com/petition/taxingkids/
Please sign the petition and encourage others to sign too!

You really need to read the Gvnt paper but in a nutshell...

Currently one parent will pay £200 to CSA and the other parent will get £200 for child.

The proposal is one parent will pay £240 to CSA and the other parent will get £176 for child.

Both parents are charged! the first (up to 40%, the second up to 12%)

For most people if you do not use the new sytem and accept the charge you will not get any money.

You should also know you will have to pay £100 to apply to use the new system, then they take the monthly charge, then, if you need to enforce a payment they will charge you again!

This is not just income tax!! This is not fair! It is too much money taken away from people who have little to begin with!

Please sign the petition!

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/iain-duncan-smith-tax-breaks-married-couples

Given that the government want to incentivise marriage, it would appear that the Tories do not care about Lone Parents or their children!

sick sick sick

do not tories need to chase after maintenance? no?

so do they still tax you when they get no money for you? I spoke to the CSA on Friday and apparently it's only been 4 weeks since 1st December - when I queried, I was put on hold, she checked with the manager and came back to say that it's been 4 processing weeks so technically ex has not missed a payment!!! No, my DC have just had to eat dust for 3 months but hey! (not really before I get flamed!) So how are they going to enforce this bloody tax??!! I will be signing.

I won't be reapplying once my case is closed. I only get £12.50 per month, so not only can I not afford to pay £100 application fee but once the fee is taken off I'll only receive £11 per month. Not worth it.

Have already written to my MP on this. Awaiting reply.

[sad[ why haven't heard about this on the news? This really is disgusting. My dd gets £6.50 a week, my ex is 'getting away' with this and I just know he is laughing as it is. Why is the government taxing our children? Aren't they in enough poverty, aren't we the worst country in Europe for child poverty?

A copy of my post in the News section.

I think there should be a fee with the CSA.

I don't know if the CSA is manned by incompetents/people who don't care or if the system is just so dire and crap it is un-manageable.

When a couple separate then the standard should be the CSA guidelines (on the website) from this point. I am not arguing if they are fair amounts or not just that they are a guideline. Of course the couple can agree other amounts they are both happy with.

Ok sorry for using man as NRP and woman as the one with the children. I know it is not always the case but don't take it as sexist.

If a man doesn't pay up and the woman has no choice but to go to the CSA there should be a cost. This services doesn't come for free and all the people who work there have to be paid plus all the other costs involved.

If a man deliberately makes himself unemployed to get out of paying then the CSA should calculate his maintenance based on what he was earning and the woman should get the 15/20% out of his JSA/IB etc BEFORE he gets any. If there is not enough or none left over he can accrue the rest of the amount until he goes back to work.

If a man/company collude to pay him minimum wage then the CSA should look at his previous wage and the industry standard (which ever is the higher) and pay the woman based on this. The company should be fined for IMO fraudulent behaviour.

If a man is on a commission based job or driving around in a ferrari, living in a massive house and having holidays then he has some means of support and this should be taken into account in order to pay the woman.

Any case where a RP has to take a NRP to the CSA because they are not paying then the NRP should have to pay the costs of the case. Sort of like based on an average office persons salary plus a litte extra per hour for calls/overheads etc. Say £10/hour?

This shoud be OVER and ABOVE what the RP gets as maintenance.

The longer someone takes to pay up the higher the costs to encourage them to sort it out.

There is no point a woman taking a man through the CSA if she is getting the website guideline and if she does it just to get more (not going to happen if he is fair and paying) then she should incur the fee.

If there is a genuine concern on the man's part about who is the father they can get a DNA done private (or through the CSA if cheaper). If the child is not his the woman should pay the fee if it is he should pay the fee.

The CSA needs real teeth to do these things. It needs proper enforceable powers and the shoddy service completely overhauled.

You don't (often) hear of secret/top secret files going missing. A similar system of tracking CSA cases needs to be implemented.

Of course this is a really simplistic look at a very complex and problematic system.

The main aims are that maintenance should be payable as soon as a couple split to provide for the children and that selfish people are not encouraged or able to not pay.

Xales, you think there should be a fee?

Beacuse the service doesn't come free?

No, the service is currently paid for using tax payers money.

What else are our taxes used for? the NHS, the police, the fire brigade, rubbish collections. We get the use of these services for free (NHS partially) because everyone pays taxes to pay for these services.

You dont think a service to ensure children are fed and clothed should be free?

I imagine you would rather spend your taxes on MPS expenses, MPS second home allowances, Mps wages...the luxuries that some people get and that those who need Child Support payments for their kids cannot afford.

What about the carer parents who only get £5 per week in child support. Do you think they should be charged £100 to use the service or should the other parent just not contribute anything to raising their kids?

Families with children, like myself, have seen their child tax credits cuts, the Child Trust Fund scrapped, the childcare element of working tax credit has been cut, Sure Start centres are closing and now child maintenance payments will be taxed!

Before you start telling people to pay for the CSA, why don't you have a think about how much the Gvnt has taken from you and compare it to what single parents are suffering at the whims of this Gvnt.

Jmum85 please read my post again. Please don't imagine what you think I would prefer our taxes should be spent on that is insulting and I never said that anywhere.

I don't think that any resident parent should pay for the CSA. I think and I said that they should get 100% of what their children are entitled to, to ensure they are looked after. They shouldn't lose any percentage of what they are entitled to.

Yes I do think there should be a fee.

I think the NRPs that twist, turn, cheat and blatently lie to get their way out of paying for their children should pay for the services that the person bringing up their child has to go to because they are too selfish to pay up.

They are the ones who are responsible for the costs incurred sorting their selfish arses out and they should be the ones to pay. The longer they string it out rather than what is being morally right the more they incur and have to pay.

Jmum85, thanks for getting the petition going. i just wondered how it was going? have you been in touch with gingerbread? what do you think of their work on this?

xales, you are right, the RP should not have to pay. i am wondering if you shouldn't have used 'fine' instead of fee in some of your points?!

What i can't get is this:

Why are the government planning to take money from those parents already paying [albeit in many cases not enough], when they should be targeting the NRP's who are not paying maintenance or not enough?

Surely that is a problem when you see the stats. That would probably save a pretty penny-if that?s their intention. However, they are not doing anything to solve that problem.

If their intention were to help bring families out of poverty they wouldn't be taking from the RP with children. Or for that matter the NRP, who may well have a new family?

Instead, they will be taking money away from couples who, for many different reasons, have suffered a break up and probably painful relationship, only to find the government is punishing them for it.

There are so many implications here. If they take the cash from the NRP and RP, that must mean pushing more people into other benefit entitlements [as they will be worse off], for example housing benefit etc? Or will they treat that percentage taken by the government as ?notional income? and get you that way?

All they seem to want to do is take money from children for which was already going to them anyway! It's not going to change the way those people behave. It is not going to change the way some NRP's avoid paying no maintenance either.

In their own policy document, it clearly states basically that, they have no idea if this will make people behave the way they want?! But, they still want to press ahead with it.

It won't work; there is soon to be no legal aid available for starters, so where does that leave the RP when one month the NRP does not pay...just how long to get it sorted out? All these people will end up back at the CSA or not bothering or unable to afford to chase up their maintenance, which is why they were receiving maintenance through the CSA in the first place.

i think the mp in charge of this is maria miller [i think the same person responsible for the DLA changes?]-correct me if i am wrong? she also, incidentally, claimed in expenses, a year or two ago, the equivilent of 73 years worth of maintenance to me, in expenses for her second home all in one year. if that makes sense?! please correct me if i am wrong.

Personally I would pay the CSA the £100 and the monthly fee if I got a better service from them.

If I am honest I strongly believe that the CSA should be moved to the IR that deals with PAYE. That way they could deduct at source and send a cheque / direct credit to the pwc. I know that there are going to be a minority that don't pay tax that way, but even the self employed have to pay tax.

Gonzo, the upfront application fee will be around £200 not £100. they have not said anything about improving it or providing a better service as this is not their aim. their aim is for people to work out maintenance between themselves and not have to use the csa at all.

My circumstances dictate that I would have to get a reassessment by the CSA regardless and pay the fee's. My ex husband believes that I am a "Greedy Cow" because I believe that we should both support our dc until he finishes his GCSE's (well clearly I will longer). My exh believes that he should not pay a penny because it was my decision to leave him, regardless of the fact that he was physically and mentally abusive. This is why there is a detachment of earnings order on him, which is sad because originally we had a financial settlement agreed before we divorced.

I understand why the government wish to do this, it would illiminate the "unnecessary" case's going to them. However, my fear is that the people who truly need this money for their children will not get it because they will not be able to afford the fee's. I think I like Xales resolution to this, the NRP should be accountable for the charges, with fines for delays IF the delays are their doing.

As a matter of interest (my husband is a crown empoloyee so am based overseas and do not get to see coverage of this) does every single case have to be reassessed or is this for new cases only? If it is every case it is going to be a nightmare!

as i understand it, over a two year period each case will have to start over-'"to give people the chance to sort it out privately and without the help of the csa". anyone who can't will have to pay the fee to get it all started up again.

i think they plan to write to both parties and ask. in this case i can imagine my ex jumping at the chance and agreeing so he doesn't have to pay the percentage to them and, more importantly, at the same time arguing to pay a lot less in maintenance to me. I will have to say no, because i have experience of his maintenance ideas which is what drove me to the csa in the first place. i cannot go through him arguing/shouting about maintenance and using it as a way for me to do what he wants and when which is how it was used before the csa became involved. now it is just the odd dig [which isn't good, but better]. on who's word will they go on?

anyway, with my chrystal ball i imagine that inevitably, the maintenance won't come in after this point or hardly any. I will have to pay the fee and start all over again and he'll be in arrears again and in the mean time my and the kids life is unecessarily made harder. what's the point?!

Charging NRP's only would be just as naive as charging RP's only.

Sure, there are many NRP's who are wriggling and squirming to dodge the CSA but there are also many RP's who are trying to use the CSA to punish the ex or being unreasonable in their demands. Case in point was the thread last week here where someone went to the CSA for more cash despite getting £300 per month and ended up with a lot less.

My idea is that there is no charge for calculating the maintenance due. Then if CSA collect the money there is a small uplift for both parents which just covers the cost of collection & passing it on. If the either disagrees and asks for an assessment then that attracts a bigger fee for performing it and a larger percentage deduction for the maintenance due.

If the NRP does not pay regularly then they are charged an enhanced fee to cover the additional costs of ensuring he complies.

The idea is that if you play ball then its easier. If you wriggle/squirm and/or don't want to abide by the rules then you pay more.

bumping.

And FWIW I would only accept maintenance from XP via the CSA. He is too abusive to do it any other way.

bumping again-on account of importance.

Hi

The petition is going ok..ish, about 150 signatures so far. Yes i have been in touch with gingerbread, I beleive they may post a link to the petition on their website in the next week or so. I work full time so its quite hard trying to campaign too but will try and get the link on a few more websites.

feel free to tell as many of your friends as possible!

jmum, i have just seen...149 is really good! well done you. i have forwarded it on to my friends.

I signed this as we can only pay through the csa as the parent with care is violent!

I just got an email from Gingerbread giving advice on how to campaign against the changes to the CSA. They have standard emails that you can amend to send to your MP and the minister concerned as well as a link to an online petition. There's advice on other ways to campaign too. The link is here

See, there is no end to the shitty attitude of this government. Do they think we should stay in unhappy marriages no matter what and if not we're a prime target for them to screw money out of us?

Anyone can see how ridiculous it is - the reason most of us go to the CSA in the first place is because the NRP doesn't want to pay anything at all. My children's father started off with good intentions and paid an agreed amount per month then pulled the arrangement without even telling me and then completely ignored correspondence from the CSA until a deduction of earnings order was put in place. I fully expect that any letters written to him in the future will also be ignored by him so that will mean another 6 months plus where we struggle and then all the fees afterwards!

I'll bet this is a familiar story for many people since it comes down to the fact that people who don't live with their children often begin to resent having to pay money out when they don't see what it is spent on.

Bumping for anyone who doesn't know about this yet and also for those of us who need to bash out a letter / e-mail to our MP's & the DWP.

I will do mine this weekend, promise .

.