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
Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Think this government really have gone mad now?

66 replies

keepingupwiththejoneses · 25/01/2012 09:17

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 Hmm
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?

OP posts:
foglike · 25/01/2012 10:49

Catsdontcare Wed 25-Jan-12 10:46:40
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?

If the NRP has money and is refusing then fine/jail and take away passport etc.

But half the time they are chasing NRP's with hardly any money.

It's not an easy thing to work out.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll · 25/01/2012 10:50

How am I too close to the subject? I don't understand that comment.

Again, I am not saying we should take from people what they don't have. I'm saying that if they don't have it, then they build up debt. If it never gets paid before they die, it never gets paid. Unless they leave an estate that could pay it back.

But there are NRPs out there that don't get jobs purposely to avoid paying maintenance at a decent level. They would rather live on JSA and have pennies taken out of it. They then get a job when their child becomes old enough not to need maintenance anymore. But if it was owed to the government then it would always be owed, and still payable when the child is an adult.

NRPs would have to pay out of any inheritance they get, even if they don't get it until the child is in their thirties.

GypsyMoth · 25/01/2012 10:51

Well I use the CSA for my £5 a week the ex pays! That's for 4 children too! The government can keep the lot if they charge me to collect the £10 a fortnight! They really can...

And the bomb disposal job...... DD has chosen this for her career. ( not what i want for her at all and hope she re thinks this!!!) she joins the army later this year.

foglike · 25/01/2012 10:52

I am not saying we should take from people what they don't have. I'm saying that if they don't have it, then they build up debt.

You can't honestly believe that?

Absolutely stunningly shocking and wrong.

AThingInYourLife · 25/01/2012 10:52

Ignore me all you want, but I have no horse in this race.

I'm happily married and I don't even know any single parents (which is weird, now that I notice it).

The point stands - allowing one parent to walk oout and then only contribute what they can easily afford while expecting the other to bear the full costs of raising a child, is a crazy system.

Punishing children by making them go without so a parent who abandoned them can have a comfortable life seems a weird set of priorities.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll · 25/01/2012 10:54

Why is it shocking and wrong to expect people to pay for the children they created?

foglike · 25/01/2012 10:54

Abandoned?

Drama much.

Catsdontcare · 25/01/2012 10:55

So if the NRP doesn't have much money and the RP doesn't have much money whose job is it to support these children and not having much money is no excuse for not contributing to your child's upkeep.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll · 25/01/2012 10:56

Do you think it is ok for someone to have a child and pay nothing towards them, allowing the government to pay for their upbringing instead, and then receive thousands in inheritance which they can then spend on holidays or cars or general frivolity?

Really? You think that is ok?

foglike · 25/01/2012 10:58

Maybe they never had much money when they were together catsdontcare?

Somehow a NRP who is poor has tp get a job that supports 2 families when his/her wage wasn't enough to support one.

That's not difficult to understand.

AThingInYourLife · 25/01/2012 10:58

:o

Yes, abandoned.

A word in English that accurately describes what some parents do to their children, and that you think they should be rewarded financially for while the state pays.

Unable to make a cogent argument much?

For someone so rightwing you seem very happy for the state to pick up the bills of parents who don't pay to raise their own children.

foglike · 25/01/2012 11:00

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll Wed 25-Jan-12 10:54:32
Why is it shocking and wrong to expect people to pay for the children they created?

We're talking about forming a figure a person can't afford then setting that figure aside as debt. A debt that in most cases would never be achievable to be repaid.

It's not some airy fairy world we live in where people suddenly get rich after separation when they were poor throughout a relationship.

AThingInYourLife · 25/01/2012 11:01

Why should a person who can't support their first family be having a second one?

I thought having children you couldn't afford on the basis that the stare will pay was a big no-no?

Or is that only for women?

Men must be encouraged to spread their seed.

:o

flippinada · 25/01/2012 11:01

Yes it's bloody ridiculous but what can you expect from this lot?

CSA are useless/toothless (delete as appropriate). If NRP is minded not to pay, its easy enough to do.

The attitude seems to be that NRPs must not be inconvenienced in any way, imagine if their prospects are affected; I mean how awful, we can't have that!

However, RP just has to suck it up and get on with it.

foglike · 25/01/2012 11:03

AThingInYourLife you quite rightly stated some.

Yet you're generalising and punishing all.

Stop trying to insult my intelligence referring to me being "Unable to make a cogent argument much?" when your own inability to digest information and relate that in an unbiased way is found wanting.

The law that's being passed is better than the one you're proposing.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll · 25/01/2012 11:03

In some cases it would never be paid, but not all.

There are countless cases where a NRP has gone on to have more children and created a new family when the first is surviving on benefits. That is wrong.

You say that either I or someone else on this thread is too close to this subject. I can assure you I am not, my ex has always paid more than the CSA would say he should, and we completely co parent. I am wondering if you are part of one of these new families where a child has been created when there are already others who are not provided for.

flippinada · 25/01/2012 11:05

"I thought having children you couldn't afford on the basis that the stare will pay was a big no-no?"

Apparently not if you're an NRP who doesn't want to pay child support. Then you are the victim of the state/avaricious exes etc.

foglike · 25/01/2012 11:06

*Why should a person who can't support their first family be having a second one?

I thought having children you couldn't afford on the basis that the stare will pay was a big no-no?

Or is that only for women?

Men must be encouraged to spread their seed.*

Your views in a nutshell.

So by your own definition women can have as many children as they want because the man will pay for them (Or should do)

Poor people shouldn't have children.

Have you read mein kampf ?

AThingInYourLife · 25/01/2012 11:08

I haven't proposed a law.

Yet my ability to process the complete lack of substance you've contributed to the argument is "found wanting". By you, presumably? :o

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll · 25/01/2012 11:08

What the actual fuck are you on about foglike?

foglike · 25/01/2012 11:08

There are countless cases where a NRP has gone on to have more children and created a new family when the first is surviving on benefits. That is wrong.

So should a woman on benefits have children even though she can't afford them?

Should she have more children by another man when she has children from an ex who is poor.

Your argument has got more holes in it than a cobblers fingers.

foglike · 25/01/2012 11:09

What are you swearing for kitchenroll?

Read the bloody thread and stop barking like an ineffectual yorkie at the postman.

AThingInYourLife · 25/01/2012 11:12

:o

Sorry, I don't have time to explain how completely you have missed my point.

I'll give you a hint though: those are not my views in a nutshell.

IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll · 25/01/2012 11:12

You are ignoring my questions, not explaining why you think the way you do when people are perfectly prepared to listen and be open minded about it, and then you appear to be assuming you know what peoples opinions are.

It's wierd.

unreasonableannie · 25/01/2012 11:15

This is what happens when you let overprivaliged, cosseted etonians play countries

LOL

Millionaire Ed Miliband : Combining marital assets and his inheritance from his father Ralph, Ed himself is comfortably a millionaire.

Millionaress Harriet Harman, privately educated at St Paul?s girls school things are looking comfortable putting the toff well into the millionaire?s class?

Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have a net worth that puts the power couple in the millionaire?s bracket by now. Though they are however down to a meagre two homes?

Baroness Scotland spent many years at the top of the Bar and the ennobled QC?s bank balance would reflect that.

Liam Byrne, in the millionaire bracket before counting his six-figure government salary?

oh wait though.... arent they the other lot who were in before this lot?

(psst - its spelled overprivileged)