IMPORTANT! This is MoneySavingExpert's open forum - anyone can post

Please exercise caution & report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

  • Be nice to all MoneySavers
  • All the best tips go in the MoneySavingExpert weekly email

    Plus all the new guides, deals & loopholes

  • No spam/referral links
or Login with Facebook
CSA and being self-employed
Closed Thread
Views: 8,616
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
# 1
ivagoldfish
Old 08-08-2006, 5:26 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 20
Default CSA and being self-employed

I'm currently employed on the staff payroll of a corporate company.
Am thinking of starting up a Ltd company with my 'current' wife as director. I would then change circumstances and move from being on staff payroll to being contractor through my wife's company; but doing exactly the same job for the same corporate company. Say, the Ltd company of my wife was being paid 40k for the work I was doing but my wife only paid me 400 a month. What figures would the CSA use to work out payments to first wife?
ivagoldfish is offline
Report Post
# 2
Pam17
Old 08-08-2006, 6:13 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,871
Default

With that sort of question you're obviously hoping tha CSA will accept that you only earn 400.


The payments to your first wife are not for her they are for your children.
Pam17 is offline
Report Post
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pam17 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 3
ivagoldfish
Old 09-08-2006, 7:38 AM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 20
Default

Pam,

If you were making payments through the CSA and found that that money was certainly not being used for the children. I would suggest that being a responsible person and of above average intelligence you would look at other methods of ensuring that the money did get used for the good of the children; hence my question.
ivagoldfish is offline
Report Post
# 4
kelloggs36
Old 09-08-2006, 11:01 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,395
Default

The simple answer is that you cannot ensure that any money you give to the ex partner is spent directly on the child. The only way to do such a thing would be to pay any school fees, etc directly but they would not be taken into account as far as CSA payments are concerned unless it was for a period that they were backdating assessment for.
kelloggs36 is offline
Report Post
# 5
missk_ensington
Old 09-08-2006, 11:09 AM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,533
Default

You would proably do the same as many other self emplyed fathers in the UK - deprive their kids of money they need by pretending they barely earn anything, and your current wife must be a very unkind woman to allow you to do it.

I know, my dad was self employed Landlord of a pub and apparently never earnt more than 50 a week for 20 years because the pub was 'a duffer' (I saw the till roll on a Friday and he'd sold 3,000 of beer in one night but everyone pays for beer in cash!) His partner had a high flying job as a Director and she told CSA she had to support him from her wage cos he was so poor.

Sickens me, while they were going to South Africa, Cruises, Australia....3-4 times a year my brother and I couldn't even go on school trips because my mum couldn'ty afford the 4 ticket fee and was too proud to ask school to pay for it. Had no carpets, no clotehs, no shoes...cos he was paying 6 a week for two kids (when between them they were actually bringing in close to 100,000 a year)

Legally, you can do what you're going to do, and get away with it, but don't think for one minute your kids mother wont know what you've done and don't be suprised if your kids grow up thinking your a bawastard like I do my Dad
missk_ensington is offline
Report Post
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to missk_ensington For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 6
missk_ensington
Old 09-08-2006, 11:11 AM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,533
Default

ivagoldfish/kelloggs- are you stupid? The CSA money is to pay for a roof, gas, electric, food. How can the mother NOT use the money on this?!!!! Are you seriosly suggesting that any mother doesn't bath their kids or feed them, or put the central heating on, or use petrol to drive them to school, or buy clothes or school uniforms, or decorate their rooms?? Or is this all free and the CSA money is used on themselves?

The money is for the upkeep of the kids, the basic things kids need to survive, not for toys and treats! It is for the mother to pay her rent/mortgage and bills, not to be spent directly on the kids
missk_ensington is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to missk_ensington For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 7
fuzzyrazer
Old 09-08-2006, 5:06 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,435
Default

Sadly not all mums are the same,we had to watch as my hubbies ex spent very little on the kids,the girl even came to us wearing her mums shoes she used for dancing,clothes to small,she did'nt seem to care much for them,yes we paid maintance always have,and still doing so, which is right and proper, up till 1 was 18yrs,and the other till they are 19yrs.When they were little we paid.450 a month,(reduced as they got older) i also had 2 kids too,then we had a little one of our own.I am a mum myself,i do understand how much money kids take to keep,but even today, my hubbies oldest needs a bed,she has'nt got one now ( apparantly,her words ,not mine) and her mum is refusing to buy her this. Other things,which i don't want to go into here,have happened too.....

As i said before,not all mums are good mums......
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

"A bargain is something you can't use at a price you can't resist."
fuzzyrazer is offline
Report Post
# 8
Scarlett1
Old 09-08-2006, 5:27 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: wherever I want!
Posts: 6,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missk_ensington
The money is for the upkeep of the kids, the basic things kids need to survive, not for toys and treats! It is for the mother to pay her rent/mortgage and bills, not to be spent directly on the kids
was just going to say this but you beat me to it

It also saddens me when fathers try to find a way to pay as less maintenance as they can possibly get away with
Scarlett1 is offline
Report Post
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Scarlett1 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 9
WHA
Old 09-08-2006, 5:33 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lancaster
Posts: 1,199
Default

On a more technical level, there is a very good tax reason why this wouldn't work. It is called IR35. It is a rule introduced a few years ago to stop exactly what you are trying to do, i.e. leave your day job, set up a company, and basically carry on as before. The IR35 rules were set up because it is a common tax dodge to pay dividends instead of wages to avoid NIC, but it will catch you out for the same reason. Under IR35, the company has to pay you around 90% of the income you generate for the company, as wages to you. So, no, it wouldn't work on a technical level. I'm not getting involved in the moral or other implications.
I am a practising accountant but my comments on these boards are for general interest only. Proper professional advice, particular to your own personal circumstances, should be sought before you take any actions.
WHA is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to WHA For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 10
Sensemaya
Old 09-08-2006, 11:42 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,673
Default

I see the OP has not been back. missk_ensington has summed it up very well. My ex is a barrister...self employed...and at one stage he was assessed to pay a fiver per week. If you were your child,how would you feel about that?
Sensemaya is offline
Report Post
# 11
ivagoldfish
Old 10-08-2006, 7:26 AM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 20
Default

Thanks to all for the 'positive' feedback. Always expected the 'moral high ground' response from those who couldn't/wouldn't reply appropriately; but finally got a direct reply from WHA.

Always interesting to hear comments from people who know nothing about your own particular situation and can't help themselves lunge at making their own assumptions.

I love 'people watching'.

And thanks again to all those who 'contributed'.
ivagoldfish is offline
Report Post
# 12
fountainpen
Old 10-08-2006, 5:51 PM
MoneySaving Stalwart
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The land of far far away
Posts: 358
Default CSA - That wonderful instituion !-NOT

Unfortunatley with CSA you get dads that WONT pay or CANT pay.

Ivangoldfish has not put all his circumstances on this forum as its public.
The CSA whether is passed to the Inland Revenue or not is B*llocks and thats a fact.
Their assessment criteria is totally unfair.Making fathers who work pay large amounts of money so they are no better of than on benefits .(Im a woman by the way ! ) .
If these fathers go on to have seciond families then tough ,their kids suffer and are put in poverty to feed the qualifying child.
In the assessment criteria partners wages are not took into account.
Nine times out of ten the NRP ( non resident parent) is a man .Men usually do work full time so the PWC ( parent with care ) which is usually a woman looks after the kids and usualy doesnt work.
Therefore when they do the assessment the NRP has wages the PWC has none so the NRP pays more.
If the PWC has a new husband or partner living with them their wages are NOT taken into account , so say they earn more than the NRP - tough!
But in todays age it's the man thats the earner so in other words the NRP is left with a high assessment.
Yes NRP should pay the CSA but what many bitter ex girlfriends and wifes must realise is agree amicably the real cost of a child and not the cost of your lifestyle.Children are not the means to an income!
What the CSA need to realise is be more realistic , come up with a better formulae no wonder NRP's leave their jobs - they cant afford to bloody pay CSA.
Yes we pay CSA 400 a month , yes i clothe my kids in cast offs and second hand clothes so we can pay my partners ex girlfriend and her new husband the money.Bear in mind her new husband owns 3 Buisinesses !!
I agree we should pay not that we see his child .But his ex doesnt work so her income is 0.00 in the assessment .Her husband do not come into it.

To me this is all wrong !! Stop penalising NRP all the time.You will always get fathers who dodge paying but so many times it's the same story
we cant afford to pay it..
parenmting is a 50/50 thing and the NRP is not the cheque at the end of the month to pay the entire amount with no rights to see their child.
If we pay 400 per month does my partners ex contribute this too ??? making the assessment 800 a month to bring up 1 child ?? dont forget to add the childbenefit to that.
Good little earner for some pycho exes me thinks !

:rolleyes:
fountainpen is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to fountainpen For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 13
fountainpen
Old 10-08-2006, 5:59 PM
MoneySaving Stalwart
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The land of far far away
Posts: 358
Default Csa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlett1
was just going to say this but you beat me to it

It also saddens me when fathers try to find a way to pay as less maintenance as they can possibly get away with
Have you realised how much the CSA demand them to pay then realise how little they have to live on ???
fountainpen is offline
Report Post
# 14
Scarlett1
Old 10-08-2006, 10:44 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: wherever I want!
Posts: 6,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainpen
Have you realised how much the CSA demand them to pay then realise how little they have to live on ???
yes I do, my ex pays 52, not exactly breaking the bank is it :confused: oh hang on, its 5 now because he has just jacked his job in :rolleyes:

I can see how you are bitter, but you're partners ex contributes just as much, it takes more than money to raise a child :rolleyes:
Scarlett1 is offline
Report Post
# 15
Scarlett1
Old 10-08-2006, 10:52 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: wherever I want!
Posts: 6,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainpen
Unfortunatley with CSA you get dads that WONT pay or CANT pay.

Ivangoldfish has not put all his circumstances on this forum as its public.
The CSA whether is passed to the Inland Revenue or not is B*llocks and thats a fact.
Their assessment criteria is totally unfair.Making fathers who work pay large amounts of money so they are no better of than on benefits .(Im a woman by the way ! ) .
If these fathers go on to have seciond families then tough ,their kids suffer and are put in poverty to feed the qualifying child.
In the assessment criteria partners wages are not took into account.
Nine times out of ten the NRP ( non resident parent) is a man .Men usually do work full time so the PWC ( parent with care ) which is usually a woman looks after the kids and usualy doesnt work.
Therefore when they do the assessment the NRP has wages the PWC has none so the NRP pays more.
If the PWC has a new husband or partner living with them their wages are NOT taken into account , so say they earn more than the NRP - tough!
But in todays age it's the man thats the earner so in other words the NRP is left with a high assessment.
Yes NRP should pay the CSA but what many bitter ex girlfriends and wifes must realise is agree amicably the real cost of a child and not the cost of your lifestyle.Children are not the means to an income!
What the CSA need to realise is be more realistic , come up with a better formulae no wonder NRP's leave their jobs - they cant afford to bloody pay CSA.
Yes we pay CSA 400 a month , yes i clothe my kids in cast offs and second hand clothes so we can pay my partners ex girlfriend and her new husband the money.Bear in mind her new husband owns 3 Buisinesses !!
I agree we should pay not that we see his child .But his ex doesnt work so her income is 0.00 in the assessment .Her husband do not come into it.

To me this is all wrong !! Stop penalising NRP all the time.You will always get fathers who dodge paying but so many times it's the same story
we cant afford to pay it..
parenmting is a 50/50 thing and the NRP is not the cheque at the end of the month to pay the entire amount with no rights to see their child.
If we pay 400 per month does my partners ex contribute this too ??? making the assessment 800 a month to bring up 1 child ?? dont forget to add the childbenefit to that.
Good little earner for some pycho exes me thinks !

:rolleyes:
sorry got to say this but this just makes you look bitter and twisted, and how does you're partner paying maintenance mean that you're children have to dress in cast offs ?????

You knew you're partner had children when you met him, these children have to be provided for, not forgotten about when the guy moves on to the next woman and has children with her :rolleyes:

For goodness sake children come first
Scarlett1 is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Scarlett1 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 16
Sensemaya
Old 11-08-2006, 5:54 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,673
Default

fountainpen

Sorry to be harsh. You knew what you were getting into when you married your partner who has kids from a previous marriage. I've heard this all before on other forums. The OP's question is a old "get out" of avoiding paying a reasonable amount of child support.

As I'm on CS2 and work...not I haven't remarried and it's hard...I've resisted posting on the other SP thread...what my ex is assessed to pay ( he has remarried and has kids ) is reasonable.

Flame me if you must...past caring.
Sensemaya is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sensemaya For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 17
Pam17
Old 11-08-2006, 9:00 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,871
Default

Fountainpen to take issue with 4 of your statements.

1. "If the PWC has a new husband or partner living with them their wages are not taken into account"

That's just right too. Their not their kids why do you expect them to subsidise the childrens non resident parent. Perhaps they are also paying maintenance for their children.

BTW that why the new CS2 system was brought in because so many new partners rightly objected to the CSA demanding to know their income when assessing the amount of maintenance their other half had to pay for their children.

2. "if these fathers go on to have second families then tough, their kids suffer and are put in poverty to feed the qualifying child"


That's rubbish too. The non resident parent gets a discount for any children in his household ( even if they are not his own!!) so the amount paid to his ex is reduced.

3. "Yes we pay £400 per month"

You haven't mentioned how many kids you have but lets say you don't have any then £400 per month if your partner is paying for 3 kids equates to approx £1600 per month net pay (£1600 @ 25% = £400). If there are less children than that then his net income is obviously higher. That's not taking into consideration the amount of discount he gets for the kids in your household.

Your partner knew he had responsibilities and should have taken that into consideration before bringing more children into the world.

4. "But his ex doesn't work so her income is £0.00 in the assessment"

At no point in the processing of a child maintenance claim does the income of the parent with care get assessed. The CSA applies a simple formula to the net income of the non resident parent who most right thinking people would expect to want to contribute towards their childrens upbringing.

Last edited by Pam17; 12-08-2006 at 8:16 AM.
Pam17 is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Pam17 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 18
fountainpen
Old 16-08-2006, 11:30 PM
MoneySaving Stalwart
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The land of far far away
Posts: 358
Default Csa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlett1
sorry got to say this but this just makes you look bitter and twisted, and how does you're partner paying maintenance mean that you're children have to dress in cast offs ?????

You knew you're partner had children when you met him, these children have to be provided for, not forgotten about when the guy moves on to the next woman and has children with her :rolleyes:

For goodness sake children come first
Yes children come first - I HAVE KIDS!Work it out if we pay 400 per month for 1 child and have bills and mortgage to pay what does that leave us to live on ?
And dont use the "You know he had a child before you married him" or the "[I]Why did you have another child"[/I.
Everyone is entitled to meet someone else and be happy.Yes his child must be provided for we are not the baddies here nor am i bitter nor twisted .
The point seems to have gone over many of your heads.

I could quiet easily say to you why did you have your child in the first place if you knew you were going to split up , it was irresponsible ? You cant judge me your the single parent not i .

I have the interest of children ALL children not just the Qualifying one.
fountainpen is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fountainpen For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 19
ANNIEHAHA
Old 18-08-2007, 11:56 AM
MoneySaving Stalwart
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 439
Default

just been reading this thread I met and married my hubby 1 child from previous,we now have 2 and were entitled to have them.We have sat back paying 250 a month whilst watching her go to spain 3 years running with bf and 3 kids while we could not afford one.Also she lived with bf claiming and working and him working built up a nice nest egg,had a new car and bf house done up all whilst on the fiddle
ANNIEHAHA is offline
Report Post
# 20
ANNIEHAHA
Old 18-08-2007, 12:04 PM
MoneySaving Stalwart
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 439
Default

We sold our house to move 2 hours away as we could not afford mortgage and csa and its cheaper to pay the petrol as we now are on less money then her!!! my 2 kids get second hand clothing we do our best but how annoying when her and son have top clothes and she sends him up her with holes in shoes and clothes too small and her hair and nails done weekly.my consilation is we are happy while she is single bored and twisted trying to get at us all the time through their son NOT ALL EXS ARE NICE OR DESERVING and I appreciate the TRUE MUMS INTITLED TO CSA AND BENEFIT
ANNIEHAHA is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to ANNIEHAHA For This Useful Post: Show me >>
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
 
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 Forum Jump  

Contact Us - MoneySavingExpert.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 3:36 PM.

 Forum Jump  

Free MoneySaving Email

Top deals: Week of 01 October 2014

Get all this & more in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email full of guides, vouchers and Deals

GET THIS FREE WEEKLY EMAIL Full of deals, guides & it's spam free

Latest News & Blogs

Martin's Twitter Feed

profile

Cheap Travel Money

Find the best online rate for holiday cash with MSE's TravelMoneyMax.

Find the best online rate for your holiday cash with MoneySavingExpert's TravelMoneyMax.

TuneChecker Top Albums

  • ED SHEERANX (DELUXE EDITION)
  • ALT-JTHIS IS ALL YOURS
  • SAM SMITHIN THE LONELY HOUR (DELUXE EDITION)

MSE's Twitter Feed

profile
Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.
We use Skimlinks and other affiliated links in some of our boards, for some of our users.