CSA Applying Liabilty Order?

DX2

millwall34 wrote: »

I think the CSA has been very foolish. All they have achieved is force working parents off-grid and work in the hidden economy. A causalty of this is he has become impervious to enforcement and trace action.

I would say the CSA should reconsider its approach and maybe be more realistic. A good starting point is to roll out tax credits to all working parents irrespective whether they live apart. That would encorage working parents back into work.

I really would like you to explain the part in bold for me, if you don't mind, explain how exactly this little plan would work.

millwall34

Simple, give working tax credits/child tax credits to all working parents.

Currently its only given to parents whose children live at the same address, and those who dont live with their children do not get tax credits for their children at all, instead they pay CSA and thus, do not get periphera; benefits such as prescriptions, legal aid or help with housing costs.

The CSA was introduced at the end of Thatcherism, and we all know her vendetta low-income households (the Poll Tax) and the Child Support Act was introduced at about the same time. The difference between Poll tax and CSA was the damage inflicted to the economy by the Poll Tax was substantial and over a short period of time when working people disappeared from housing and Inland Revenue tax records. The child support agency impact could not so easily be measured because the working people just stopped paying tax and signed on. It’s impossible to authoratively measure how many of these worked the hidden economy.

I was recently an executor for one such person. He was once a hard working garage mechanic until the CSA came long. They rigged his assessments so he paid more than he should and was followed by enforcement, he just found it easier to stop paying tax sign-on working as a drug dealer and the hardship problem went away. With hindsight, if he qualified for working tax credits for his children, it would have solved the problem with negligible impact ion the economy.

DX2

millwall34 wrote: »

Simple, give working tax credits/child tax credits to all working parents.

Currently its only given to parents whose children live at the same address, and those who dont live with their children do not get tax credits for their children at all, instead they pay CSA and thus, do not get periphera; benefits such as prescriptions, legal aid or help with housing costs.

The CSA was introduced at the end of Thatcherism, and we all know her vendetta low-income households (the Poll Tax) and the Child Support Act was introduced at about the same time. The difference between Poll tax and CSA was the damage inflicted to the economy by the Poll Tax was substantial and over a short period of time when working people disappeared from housing and Inland Revenue tax records. The child support agency impact could not so easily be measured because the working people just stopped paying tax and signed on. It’s impossible to authoratively measure how many of these worked the hidden economy.

I was recently an executor for one such person. He was once a hard working garage mechanic until the CSA came long. They rigged his assessments so he paid more than he should and was followed by enforcement, he just found it easier to stop paying tax sign-on working as a drug dealer and the hardship problem went away. With hindsight, if he qualified for working tax credits for his children, it would have solved the problem with negligible impact ion the economy.

You have a tiny flaw with your plan if you don't mind me saying so

What about those "parents" who neither pay child support nor have anything to do with their children, why the hell should someone who doesn't give a flying fig be entitled to anything.

LizzieS_2

millwall34 wrote: »

Simple, give working tax credits/child tax credits to all working parents.

Currently its only given to parents whose children live at the same address, and those who dont live with their children do not get tax credits for their children at all, instead they pay CSA and thus, do not get periphera; benefits such as prescriptions, legal aid or help with housing costs.

The CSA was introduced at the end of Thatcherism, and we all know her vendetta low-income households (the Poll Tax) and the Child Support Act was introduced at about the same time. The difference between Poll tax and CSA was the damage inflicted to the economy by the Poll Tax was substantial and over a short period of time when working people disappeared from housing and Inland Revenue tax records. The child support agency impact could not so easily be measured because the working people just stopped paying tax and signed on. It’s impossible to authoratively measure how many of these worked the hidden economy.

I was recently an executor for one such person. He was once a hard working garage mechanic until the CSA came long. They rigged his assessments so he paid more than he should and was followed by enforcement, he just found it easier to stop paying tax sign-on working as a drug dealer and the hardship problem went away. With hindsight, if he qualified for working tax credits for his children, it would have solved the problem with negligible impact ion the economy.

You appear to mean that he would pay provided the Government gave him extra money to pay with. Why do some people have such narrow minds to assume all pwc receive lots of extra benefits.

kelloggs36

Quite Lizzie. In any case, it is likely to go more the other way with the new government cutting tax credits!

millwall34

DX2 wrote: »

What about those "parents" who neither pay child support nor have anything to do with their children, why the hell should someone who doesn't give a flying fig be entitled to anything.

I think you have made some incorrect assumptions about the deceased. He is not the same about the "parents" you speak about.

The deceased always looked after his children and they loved him as their dad. It was their mother and her boyfriends choice to deprive them of their real dad. The deceased did not have a choice to involve the CSA. The deceased had no problem paying maintenance but it was the CSAs choice to fail to comply with Orange Volume rules on calculating that maintenance. It was also the CSA choice to withold crucial information from him (and me as his executor) that would have corrected the liability amount. This information was discovered in telephone calls made to the deceased that were still on his mobile phone when I wound up his estate.

LizzieS wrote: »

You appear to mean that he would pay provided the Government gave him extra money to pay with.

I may have my facts wrong as I have never deal with benefits tax credit and the like, but I understand the law changed recently (April 2010) where mum can claim part of the working parents income while keeping all her benefits. If a working parent did the same, he commits an offence.

Did I miss something, and could you please clarify what you understand the rules are?

millwall34

LizzieS wrote: »

Why do some people have such narrow minds

A person with a narrow mind is one that makes comments like this without knowing the facts.

LizzieS_2

millwall34 wrote: »

I may have my facts wrong as I have never deal with benefits tax credit and the like, but I understand the law changed recently (April 2010) where mum can claim part of the working parents income while keeping all her benefits. If a working parent did the same, he commits an offence.

Did I miss something, and could you please clarify what you understand the rules are?

Income support is no longer affected by the amount of child support. For the record I (like many) disagree with this.

Your statement below is narrow-minded:

"Currently its only given to parents whose children live at the same address, and those who dont live with their children do not get tax credits for their children at all, instead they pay CSA and thus, do not get periphera; benefits such as prescriptions, legal aid or help with housing costs."

You are assuming pwc receive prescriptions, legal aid and help with housing costs. Whilst that may be true for those on income support, it is not by any means true of all pwc.

DX2

millwall34 wrote: »

I think you have made some incorrect assumptions about the deceased. He is not the same about the "parents" you speak about.

The deceased always looked after his children and they loved him as their dad. It was their mother and her boyfriends choice to deprive them of their real dad. The deceased did not have a choice to involve the CSA. The deceased had no problem paying maintenance but it was the CSAs choice to fail to comply with Orange Volume rules on calculating that maintenance. It was also the CSA choice to withold crucial information from him (and me as his executor) that would have corrected the liability amount. This information was discovered in telephone calls made to the deceased that were still on his mobile phone when I wound up his estate.

I think you have misread my post where did I say anything about the NRP you knew?

I was talking about mine and showing you that your plan isn't as simple as you think.

snappylincs

10 posts... and not one of them relevant to the question(s) I asked :T


Talk about way off topic.

I'll go as far as to re-quote part of my post (and maybe someone will read it....)

I'd like some simple confirmations on where the power comes from, or reasons why they aren't allowed to use their powers.

Do they have the power for Administrative LO's? If not, why not.

Do they have the power to remove Passports?

I understood the above was all legislated for, and has been passed - so why aren't they using it?

This is taking the proverbial - It's now over a year and a half since the ex paid a penny, and the CSA have done next to nothing to enforce it.


If the power in legislation DOES indeed exist to remove passports, whats to stop me laying a complaint in person before the magistrates myself.

I'm not asking for a lot peeps - just some guidance/further information.