CMS Payments, what effects them?

124

Comments

  • HoneyNutLoop
    HoneyNutLoop Posts: 568
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 13 December 2016 at 3:19PM
    Yes, it's gone from net to gross. However, the percentage rates also decreased compared to the 2003 scheme.

    If you earn £30,000 gross and pay for one child, you pay £69.04 a week under CMS. The equivalent net pay is £23,567 on which you'd pay £68 under the 2003 scheme.

    If you earn £80,000 gross and pay for one child, you pay £162.08 a week under CMS. The equivalent net pay is £53867 on which you'd pay £155 under the 2003 scheme.

    I suspect the difference in payments due in your case will mostly be because of your pay rise, not switching schemes. Your post implies you didn't report it to the CSA to trigger a payment review, so it's only being picked up now because of the switch?

    Those who pay significantly more under CMS are people who had taxable benefits as part of their pay package, such as company cars. The taxable benefit didn't count as income under the 2003 scheme but does under CMS.
    I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.
  • samo8076
    samo8076 Posts: 205
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    So iv ended up paying the estimated amount based on my wage (£299.91) The amount/case will be reviewed Dec 2017, though as my child is 16 in July, i shall be requesting a review then to know what their plan is for the new term.

    She refused to have any dealings direct, so therefore, I have to shut up and put up.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    samo8076 wrote: »
    So iv ended up paying the estimated amount based on my wage (£299.91) The amount/case will be reviewed Dec 2017, though as my child is 16 in July, i shall be requesting a review then to know what their plan is for the new term.

    She refused to have any dealings direct, so therefore, I have to shut up and put up.
    It's not relevant as CMS is payable until they're 18 at the earliest.
  • Guest101 wrote: »
    It's not relevant as CMS is payable until they're 18 at the earliest.

    Wrong. If they go in to employment at 16/17 then it stops
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    samo8076 wrote: »
    Wrong. If they go in to employment at 16/17 then it stops



    Indeed, my mistake. Glad you want your kids to stop education so you can save money
  • samo8076
    samo8076 Posts: 205
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Guest101 wrote: »
    Indeed, my mistake. Glad you want your kids to stop education so you can save money

    I didn't say that I wanted it stop, just pointing out that you are wrong.

  • Those who pay significantly more under CMS are people who had taxable benefits as part of their pay package, such as company cars. The taxable benefit didn't count as income under the 2003 scheme but does under CMS.

    This is where it is unfair, I am in process of arguing my case (always paid for my kids, on time and have them on a regular basis). There is no monetary value to my car so why should it be taken into account?!

    I too had no letter, CSA claimed they sent me one saying my case closed 10/2/17. I still made my regular payments. CMS started 5/6/17. Amazing how their figure, and my P60 amount is over £13k difference!!!
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    This is where it is unfair, I am in process of arguing my case (always paid for my kids, on time and have them on a regular basis). There is no monetary value to my car so why should it be taken into account?!

    I too had no letter, CSA claimed they sent me one saying my case closed 10/2/17. I still made my regular payments. CMS started 5/6/17. Amazing how their figure, and my P60 amount is over £13k difference!!!

    What a thread ressurection eh?
  • Didn't think it warranted a new one, just wanted to let off some steam!
  • Fission
    Fission Posts: 225 Forumite
    This is where it is unfair, I am in process of arguing my case (always paid for my kids, on time and have them on a regular basis). There is no monetary value to my car so why should it be taken into account?

    It isn't correct that there is no monetary value for a company car.

    Casting my mind back, that was the way that the tax system looked at company cars until 1976, but for the last forty years, company cars have had a value attributed to them and this forms part of the taxpayer's income and tax has to be paid on it. If it is included in the gross income for child support purposes, that's really what you'd expect. If you had a different deal with your boss (eg, where you used your own car and got an allowance), you'd expect the allowance to be taxed and subject to national insurance, as well as to child maintenance.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards