CSA and being self-employed

Kimitatsu

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 am sorry but that is the most crass comment I have ever seen posted on this forum, it is insenstitive and unthinking and you should be truly ashamed of yourself. None of us have gone out into the world to bring a child into it and plan to be a single parent, and who is to say that in 10 years time you may not be in the same position? 50% of second marriages fail too you know!

It is people like the OP that many of us have to battle against. I am married to a lovely bloke that has 2 kids by his previous wife and by the time we have paid her maintenance, she has her paid employment, working and child tax credits she has more going into her household than we have into ours. But we dont tell her what to spend it on and we dont feel the need to be as bitter and twisted as you obviously are!

My ex however is just like the OP, his company which is in his g/f's name earnt 25k last year of which 24.5k were "admin fees". His g/f works full time earning about £30k and they own two houses, two cars and go on holiday several times a year. I get £5 a week for two children. Like one of the other posters my kids think he is a t**t and have now decided that they cant be bothered with him. So OP you may get your £40k a year but is it really worth it to lose your children completely??

kelloggs36

fountainpen wrote: »

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 ,and why would they? This person is not a parent of the child and so should not be expected to contribute towards them. so say they earn more than the NRP - tough! In exactly the same way if the new partner of the NRP earns more but the NRP has no assessable income and doesn't therefore have to pay maintenance.
But in todays age it's the man thats the earner so in other words the NRP is left with a high assessment. Based on their own income only. Under CS1 they get the full housing cost allowance offset against their income plus their own, and then what is left is halved, so they have more left for themselves than they have to pay in maintenance by more than half (70% for themselves if they have low housing costs, and up to 100% if they have high housing costs).
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 is the true cost of brining up a child? This cannot be quantified as it will be so varied from household to household with such a variation in values. If the NRP lived with the child they would benefit from their income directly.
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. They did and even for 10 children they would pay 25% of their net income the same as they would if they had 3 children. If only 1 child, then the NRP keeps at least 85% of their own income for their own needs. If they go on and have more children, the first family gets even less as they are pushed down the pecking order as the second family's children gets the first relative % taken off their net income and the first family gets the relative % of what is left. So second families fare better here.
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 !! As I have said, her second husband's income is irrelevant as is yours. If you earned a million quid a year you wouldn't pay any more than you do already. This assessment has been based purely on your husband's income.
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. I agree that some parents are vindictive here, but in some cases they use it as a last resort when the other parent refuses to pay - they often want the fun but none of the actual financial responsibility. Children are expensive.
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. If she is earning she has reduced your husband's liability and so yes, she has contributed, according to what she earns. Of course she will be using her own money towards her children.
Good little earner for some pycho exes me thinks !:T Only those who work as those on benefits will only ever see a tenner per week of it anyway.

:rolleyes:

It is never as clear cut as you may think - it can always be seen differently from both sides.

msmicawber

I'd ask my ex to advise the OP as he's self-employed and pays nothing towards his kids upkeep (and never has), but he's on holiday at the moment - his 4th this year - so not available. Meanwhile, I'm doing Quidco clicks and changing my bank account for cashback to help pay for our son's school uniform.

And before you accuse me of sitting around on my jacksy all day resting up for a busy night's clubbing, I work full-time, pay for everything for myself and the two children and go out for an evening fewer times each year than the ex goes on holiday.

There are plenty of crappy NRP's avoiding their responsibilities towards their own children, and I read the OP's query the same way - 'how little can I get away with?'. The answer is that it's between you and your conscience at the end of the day. If your ex is a good mother and ensures your children have a roof over their heads, heat, light, good food and clothes and some treats in addition to the love and attention that is any child's right, then you've got no excuse not to do your best to make an equal contribution.

samjocky

CSA - OLD Scheme - Transfer to NEW?

Can someone plse tell me this. My OH is on the old CSA scheme, and I am on the new CSA scheme (paying maintenance via direct pay to my ex husband as he has custody of my son and I have custody of my daughter - dont judge please)

My OH and I are getting married -will he transfer over to the new scheme and if so, when? Will he be subject to "phasing" or will it be reassessed straight away as 20% of his net income?

Also, when is this atrocious CSA being disbanded? We have had nothing but grief, both on old and new schemes. THanks

kelloggs36

getting married won't have any effect whatsoever on your other half's liability. Only cases where he has another case or his PWC would initiate a switch over to the new scheme.

The new system is coming into effect next year but I have no idea about how this will be done and when the existing cases will be taken over.

Kimitatsu

We have one old and one new case between us, OH is on the old system and I am on the new - I cant get a penny out of my ex and my OH pays loads.

We have been told that our old case will never be transferred now - the official line is that they are waiting for a stable system to transfer all of the cases over to. But as they are about to be disbanded that will now not happen.

sorry to be the bearer of bad news

klare_2

as who? is about to be disbanded?

overthehills

What really annoys me is my husband had shared care. Well, because GOD decided to have 7 days instead of 8 my husband had his daughter 3 days from 4. Now when she was with us, I paid for alot of things, clothes shoes food, to help my husband. If I saw a dress for my own daughter or colouring pens, I bought for my step daughter too.
Now her mother claimed the child benefit, tax credit and csa. We had nothing but were still expected to provide for his child. The ex wife had a full time job but my husband couldn't counter claim.

THAT'S where it is unfair.

Sorry, but I think if a bloke can get away with it, then go for it. I have tried to claim from my ex simply to bring in money my husband pays out for his daughter. I want nothing from my ex, I can bring my child up without him. He went down the self employed route.

In my circumstances, and many, the woman (hubbys ex) just can't stand to see her ex happy and moving on. She has a partner/husband who works full time too so they are quite adequate to support a child. Okay, it's not his child, but he knew she had a daughter and was happy to take her away from my husband. Much like my situation.

The csa formula stinks.

something else I wanted to point out.

My husband and his wife had a child, a child he was happy to support and a child his ex was happy to be called daddy.

The ex had an affair and left, was all nicey nicey till my husband moved on and became happy with.

The ex marries the man she had an affair with and precedes to withhold contact so my husband cannot see his daughter. She then precedes to gat his daughter to call this new man daddy.

Now if she wants to eradicate my husband from his child's life then kick him where it hurts and have his daughter call another man daddy, THEN change her name to mums married one, the "new daddy" should be expected to take on ALL responsibilities for his "new daughter"

But no. This is why it's all about the money and women who with hold contact because the dad hasn't paid is proving to the world it's all about the money. A man doesn't pay for the right to see his child.

Now you could turn this on it's head and look at the mothers who "just want to have a baby" then chase the sperm donor for payment. Again, GOD decided women have the womb. That in turn doesn't make them god but they act like it, again by with holding contact.

Where has anyone heard of a women accidentally falling pregnant, the man saying "but I don't want a baby" and the woman saying ok I'll have a termination? Or even a woman asking the father, "do you want to have a baby and when we split, have to pay for it until the child is out of school?"

I know this is extreme but more often than not, it IS about the money, not the welfare of the child. In my case it is anyway. (speaking from my husbands side.)

klare_2

but you can have 50 5 shared care cant you, one week he has 3 days and she has 4 and the next week it reverses.there are 52 weeks in the year, hence exactly the same amount of time for both parents

overthehills

klare wrote: »

but you can have 50 5 shared care cant you, one week he has 3 days and she has 4 and the next week it reverses.there are 52 weeks in the year, hence exactly the same amount of time for both parents

Only if the BM allows. Again she plays god.