Think this government really have gone mad now?

[keepingupwiththejoneses]

Just watched the news and saw the latest money making scheme from this government. To charge for the services of the CSA, they are planing to charge up to a third of the maintenance received for the service. This is just stupid, IMO. Anyone who has used them that, most of the time they are a load of rubbish anyway.
I thought the benefits cap was bad enough but hen they are going to penalise single parents even more by charging them to use a rubbish service.

The next story was about cuts in the military, they are cutting lots of military personnel, but in some areas they are desperate, such as bomb disposal etc. They have said they will not allow those who are to be given redundancy, to retrain in these specialist jobs. That to me is just plain stupid, if the really need these specialties why not allow them to train to do it if they prefer
I am not a single parent, but have been, and the only way I could get anything out of ex was to use the CSA, who put a charge on his wages. Have this government gone mad or are they just completely out of touch with real people lives?

This is what happens when you let overprivaliged, cosseted etonians play countries! They know they have to save money from somewhere so they take it from the place that they identify with the least - um, that will be the majority of us poor plebs then

Exactly! They seem to think everyone can just go out and get a job, they just don't get that there are no jobs, or if there are the people out of work don't have the right skill s to those jobs. How can an ex soldier go straight into a city job?

The CSA thing is ridiculous. They should work out what a resident parent actually needs from the NRP'S, then pay it to them in benefits so they always get what they need. Then the government should go after the NRPs for reimbursement so they get paid back. They manage it with tax, why can't they manage it for children.

It seems to me like they want people who are not mega rich to seriously suffer. The thing that really gets me is that most military men with families live within the army bases. If they are made redundant they will not only lose their jobs but their homes too, which is going to send another load of children homeless! Crazy!

Words. fail. me.

I've never used the CSA either. But from what I understand they are/were next to useless. So I can't imagine it would be a huge source of revenue to them!

The problem is keepingup , it's not that they want the less well off "to seriously suffer" but they think that we probably won't mind, given that we don't have much to start off with and we're used to being poor and having nothing.

They wouldn't want to take away from the 'haves' because, well, they 'have' stuff and they'd really suffer.

But the 'have nots'? Well they don't 'have' stuff already so what's the problem if they have even less?

Might be time to resurrect Wat Tyler!

I feel like a revolting peasant today. David Cameron. Tosser/Etonian (interchangeable in this case I feel) elitist piece of crap. Throw in the wet milksop that is Nick Clegg and you've got the biggest items requiring recycling this century.

They are out for the poor, the single, the sick, the same demographic Maggie targetted during her reign of terror. There will, however, be people out there who'll think it's o.k. to do this. People who aren't in the position of needing this service and think they never will be.

Why should the government pay for someone else's children?
Just find a better way to get the NRP to pay through stricter enforcement laws etc..
How would the govt paying solve anything?
The cynic in me says that tax payers would resent paying for other peoples children again.
Jail.
Community service.
Shame them

But don't make other people pay for someone else's mistake.

foglike I don't think you actually know what the CSA is, going by you post. They make NRP pay for their own children.
I have just had a thought, if they are going to charge anyone it should be the NRP not the single parent, makes more sense to me, maybe then there wouldn't be quite so many lowlife NRP refusing to pay.

I know what the CSA is...what makes you think I don't

Are they still talking about the Tory peers rebelling on this?

I saw the word "indefensible" being used by one of them to describe the practise of taking money from children to punish their mother for the fact that their father (and that's what it usually is) an irresponsible reprobate who doesn't support his own children.

This is getting ridiculous.

If the RP is getting nothing from the NRP then the govt will charge how much?
Hopefully the financial incentive will push the CSA to prosecute payment where none was present before?

Foglike, the government already pays in benefits anyway. If they tried to recoup that from the NRPs they would put more effort into getting that money back, and the RP wouldn't go without as they do when NRPs don't pay maintenance, which happens a lot. This way, the maintenance could be deducted from from benefits, but the RPs would get the same amount of money, it's just that the government would get some of it back.

They do need to change the way they make the calculations of what the NRP is expected to pay though, it needs to be based on what it actually costs to raise a child, not what the NRP can spare.

NRPs would be put off not finding a job so they don't have to pay maintenance, because they will be liable for it for the rest of their lives, and it will continue to be taken out of their benefits, pensions, or any earnings they make after the child is ole enough not to receive maintenance.

They do need to change the way they make the calculations of what the NRP is expected to pay though, it needs to be based on what it actually costs to raise a child, not what the NRP can spare.

Completely disagree with that it's wrong on so many levels.

Using that formula you're actually pushing a NRP .

If the NRP has got very little then the RP gets very little, you don't throw the NRP in the poorhouse in spite.

Punishing*

Gave up on the CSA years ago - DS just goes without, tis simple really.

We are rapidly moving into an era of the "deserving" and the "undeserving" when it comes to allocating public funds, along with the ushering in of a new corporate fuedalism.

Deserving

1/ Large "flash" projects that will have historical signifcance and make the UK look good abroad.
2/ City types and others who meet the "criteria" of a wasp stereotypical "middle england".
3/The back pockets of the "chosen ones".

Undeserving
1/ The sick/old/disabled - these are useless eaters and should be culled.

They should also be moved away from "naice" areas so the well-off don't have to witness their suffering - the beggars on the streets of the 3rd world just look so messy don't ya know. Far better to herd them into ghettos aka the Victorian slums as it was so much tidier.

2/The proletariat - these people have forgotten to tug ther forelock and have demanded fair working conditions/wages etc over the last century.
Fear of poverty/dismal state education/unemployment should drag em back into line pronto lest they end up like the greeks - now abandoning children they can't afford to feed and unable to obtain vital medication. Those who belive themselves "middle class" are in particular need of learning their place in the new regime pronto - prols the lot of ya!

3/Anyone who doesn't meet the "approved" family structure e.g cast off wives and war widows and single parents generally. If children from these families to well it threatens the mysogynistic old etonians ego ya know! Their own wives might get the idea they can go it alone and not tolerate the mistress/ regular visits to sex slaves if single parent hood was made to look tolerable.
Cecil Parkinson was the foreunner of this partcular mindset in his treatment of his cast off disabled child & was a darling of the tory party so noone should be suprised by this attitutude becoming official policy now

If in the process extra cash can be extracted from the undeserving to the "deserving" so much the better!

It's not punishing NRPs or throwing them in the poorhouse out of spite.

It's making them live up to their responsibilities and provide for the children they created.

So many NRPs pay bugger all in maintenance and then go on to hav emore children, and they get away with it because they are only made to pay a couple of pounds a month. How can that be right?

Something needs to be done to stop more children being created by people who can't afford to provide for children they already have.

No it isn't IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll it's punishing.

Your view that the NRP's should pay more than they could realistically afford will never be taken up thank god.

I didn't say paying a couple of pounds a month was right did I?

But asking someone to pay more than they make or close to it?

So if you walk out on your family, you only have to pay what you can spare?

But if your partner walks out on you and your children, you must bear the entire cost of raising them, apart from your ex's spare change?

Or if you stay together as a couple you must pay the full cost of raising them between you.

Interesting set of incentives there.

If the government really wanted to do something with the CSA they could try making it efficient.
The government has a stereotypical idea that a single mother is a sixteen year old who only had a baby so she could get a council house. I guess all Mumsnetters know that isn't true.
As far as I can see the CSA is a completely useless organisation and should be scrapped. That would save the government even more money.

AThingInYourLife the NRP isn't always the one who walks out.

You're personalising this ....child support isn't punishment.

How is it punishing? I really don't understand that mentality.

An NRP needs somewhere to live and if they see their children, somewhere to take those children to. They need enough to live on, but that is all. For many NRPs who don't see their children, they need no more than enough to rent a room as a lodger and enough to feed and clothe themselves. Anything else is a luxury they don't have a moral right to while the taxpayer is paying to bring up their children.

There needs to be more personal responsibility in this country.

I'm not personalising it at all, and nor am I making any comment about NRP as a group.

I'm just commenting on the perverse incentives created by making it financially beneficial for people to walk out on their families.

Taking more money away from a person than he/she has is punishing.

Not all NRP's walk away from their home many are thrown out too it's a mixed bag.

When a NRP is well off then skin them by all means but if you married or had children with a poor person you have to suck that up.

You're way too close to the situation to be debated with so i'll ignore you on this subject.

How about if the RP is forced to go to the CSA because the NRP won't pay up then the NRP pays the csa a fine on top of csa payments. Or is that too simplistic?

I am not a single parent but I am staggered at this proposal