Company Directors & CSA

karenx

plimsoll wrote: »

Re: insurance/not registered keeper - not a problem at all with DVLA. I have my dad's car, he is still registered keeper (my mum says in case any bailiffs ever come after me they can't take "my" car cos it's not mine ) but I am main insured driver, both parents as named drivers. We live about 250miles from each other...

don't know whether at tribunal you could bring up that his mum couldn't afford the car or not?

His mum doesnt work, the car is worth about 10k. Plus it has a private plate with HIS name and the car is always outside his house. And he has posted pictures of it stating "my car" on social networking sites. Which me and my case worker have proof of. Why would someone do that if it was infact their parents car?
He has obviously spent a great deal of time looking into things about how the csa works etc so he knows how to have a good lifestyle but to have it down on paper that he is worthless.
It wouldnt surprise me if he does all his banking in an account thats not in his name :rolleyes:

speedster

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

That is very unfair:mad:
Basically the CSA can punish and do incorrect assessments, deo's threats lo's on people who are employed but the self employed can do as they please and leave the state to raise their children who they HAVE financial responsibilty for:mad::mad:

that works the other way too.

as they cant DEO the SE then it kinda levels the playing field a bit. plenty of nrp's are plunged into poverty because they are DEOing 40% of their wage.

ask yourself if you could live, keep a roof over your head and feed your family if you took a 40% pay cut??

i doubt it.

i agree, we have a responsibility to support our children, but not to the extent of the nrp being plunged into poverty, losing their homes and jobs etc on the whims of a viscious, greedy ex.

Dancing_Shoes

speedster wrote: »

that works the other way too.

as they cant DEO the SE then it kinda levels the playing field a bit. plenty of nrp's are plunged into poverty because they are DEOing 40% of their wage.

ask yourself if you could live, keep a roof over your head and feed your family if you took a 40% pay cut??

i doubt it.

i agree, we have a responsibility to support our children, but not to the extent of the nrp being plunged into poverty, losing their homes and jobs etc on the whims of a viscious, greedy ex.

I am not a pwc I am an nrpp;)
I don't agree with the CSA and taking 40%, I was explaining that it wasn't fair that people who are employed by a company aren't treated the same way as those who are self employed.

speedster

i agree, it is unfair that they can take 40% on a whim basically.

which is why SE can sometimes be the best option to stop them destroying your life.

if i was PAYE, i'd have lost my house by now, without a doubt.

Soubrette

speedster wrote: »

i agree, we have a responsibility to support our children, but not to the extent of the nrp being plunged into poverty, losing their homes and jobs etc on the whims of a viscious, greedy ex.

For some people though that could easily be changed to:

I agree, we have a responsibility to support our children, but not to the extent of the PWC being plunged into proverty, losing their homes and jobs etc on the whims of a vicious, greedy ex.

I personally preferred the way that CSA1 took into account living costs - too many people abused it though. I'm not sure what the solution is when too many NRPs seem to view their financial commitment to their children as tacked on the end of their day to day living costs, rather than a top priority.

Sou

speedster

Soubrette wrote: »

For some people though that could easily be changed to:

I agree, we have a responsibility to support our children, but not to the extent of the PWC being plunged into proverty, losing their homes and jobs etc on the whims of a vicious, greedy ex.

I personally preferred the way that CSA1 took into account living costs - too many people abused it though. I'm not sure what the solution is when too many NRPs seem to view their financial commitment to their children as tacked on the end of their day to day living costs, rather than a top priority.

Sou

cant see it really.

my ex gets all the tax credits, child benefit and csa. plus she managed to get a council place. throw in the bf working full time. sod all rent and benefits, she's FAR better off than we are.

all cos she has our child. figures wise, she's at least £600 per month better off for having her. quite where the poverty kicks in there, i'm not sure.

if she had her way, i'd be homeless. luckily i aint paye, so her master plan fails at the first hurdle.

mind you, greed and stupidity aren't a great combination for succes really are they!! :rotfl::rotfl:

they

LizzieS_2

The playing field has been levelled as much as it can be. Deo's for employed and bank account seizure for SE.

I wouldn't say it is always advantageous to be SE - if you are pushed to a tribunal, mortgage applications (from what I've read in other posts) can give away a remarkably higher income.

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

For some people though that could easily be changed to:

I agree, we have a responsibility to support our children, but not to the extent of the PWC being plunged into proverty, losing their homes and jobs etc on the whims of a vicious, greedy ex.

I personally preferred the way that CSA1 took into account living costs - too many people abused it though. I'm not sure what the solution is when too many NRPs seem to view their financial commitment to their children as tacked on the end of their day to day living costs, rather than a top priority.

Sou

I think for alot of people the figure they have to pay through the csa is far greater than they would pay towards raising their child/ren if they had remained in the relationship. If times were hard and money was tight then you would cut back on the childrens money and they would have to go without but if you are an nrp you are expected to cutback on everything else but not child maintenance therefore it is like you are being punished for leaving the relationship. I don't mean that child maintenance should be in the same category as cable tv or such like but just that they don't allow you to "cut back". Its not really my issue if our pwc is in poverty or loses their home, we pay what we have to pay and now not a penny more and the day it stops she will be up the proverbial creek:rotfl:

Dancing_Shoes

speedster wrote: »

cant see it really.

my ex gets all the tax credits, child benefit and csa. plus she managed to get a council place. throw in the bf working full time. sod all rent and benefits, she's FAR better off than we are.

all cos she has our child. figures wise, she's at least £600 per month better off for having her. quite where the poverty kicks in there, i'm not sure.

if she had her way, i'd be homeless. luckily i aint paye, so her master plan fails at the first hurdle.

mind you, greed and stupidity aren't a great combination for succes really are they!! :rotfl::rotfl:

they

Because we all know that it costs £600 per month to raise one child:rolleyes:, better than getting a job;)

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Because we all know that it costs £600 per month to raise one child:rolleyes:, better than getting a job;)

Just lost my long post - how annoying :rolleyes:

A recent study shows the cost of raising an average child to age 21 is £193,772 which is about £768pm. Apparently having more than one child doesn't save that much using economies of scale. Poorer families spend a larger proportion of their income on raising their children.

Not sure if they used the mean/median or mode but if the mean or mode then more than 50% of kids will have more than that spent on them (eg more people earn below the average wage than above it because it's calculated using the mean)

The other thing I said was the your PWC is obviously a bit stupid - she's looking forward to a life of minimum wage and poverty once the children have left full time education. More fool her.

Sou