CSA have left me pennyless

silvercar

If NRP and new partner split bills 50/50 but now NRP will lose 25% to fund his children, then NRP and new partner need to revisit the 50/50 split because they are now bringing different amounts into their new household. Same as if one got a big wage rise or rise cut - the balance on income to the new home needs to be adjusted.

kelloggs36

one of the reasons the system was changed to the CS2 was so that NRPs could work out in advance how much they would be expected to pay for their children, and budget for it. It is a sad fact of life that lifestyles have to change once children are involved, whether you live with them or not - they cost money and parents are responsible for that. No system can be perfect.

ohdamnit

kelloggs36 wrote: »

one of the reasons the system was changed to the CS2 was so that NRPs could work out in advance how much they would be expected to pay for their children, and budget for it. It is a sad fact of life that lifestyles have to change once children are involved, whether you live with them or not - they cost money and parents are responsible for that. No system can be perfect.

I to an extent agree, but I am not sure what can be done, for example the above is an example where clearly the person is just going to end up in debt as any time there is an "extra" or emergency, etc, then they will be going into debt to be able to pay. I dont think that budget is particularly over the top and is based on what is probably an average wage for many (around 21k).

I am not saying 15,20,25% is a lot or not, but the assumption that 20% is not enough is based only on the PWC perspective. I am not sure that many people living in a city would find a 2 bed flat for 500pcm (and if they did most PWC would be unhappy with the standard and not allow overnights).

Where I see discrepancies is with people earning 35k+ where excess income is possible, maybe an income breakdown for each case would be better similar to the one you get in bankruptcy, and would be better at meeting everybodys needs.

However this would cost money the CMEC couldn't sustain, it's tough..

kelloggs36

ohdamnit wrote: »

I to an extent agree, but I am not sure what can be done, for example the above is an example where clearly the person is just going to end up in debt as any time there is an "extra" or emergency, etc, but this can happen to anybody whether they pay child support or not - it is a matter of budgeting. then they will be going into debt to be able to pay. I dont think that budget is particularly over the top and is based on what is probably an average wage for many (around 21k).

I am not saying 15,20,25% is a lot or not, but the assumption that 20% is not enough is based only on the PWC perspective. I am not sure that many people living in a city would find a 2 bed flat for 500pcm (and if they did most PWC would be unhappy with the standard and not allow overnights).

Where I see discrepancies is with people earning 35k+ where excess income is possible, maybe an income breakdown for each case would be better similar to the one you get in bankruptcy, and would be better at meeting everybodys needs.

However this would cost money the CMEC couldn't sustain, it's tough..

.......................................................................

speedster

kelloggs36 wrote: »

one of the reasons the system was changed to the CS2 was so that NRPs could work out in advance how much they would be expected to pay for their children, and budget for it. It is a sad fact of life that lifestyles have to change once children are involved, whether you live with them or not - they cost money and parents are responsible for that. No system can be perfect.

indeed, no system can be perfect, but with csa2, they didn't even attempt to resolve any of the underlying problems.

the "one size fits all" approach seldom works. perhaps if the chimps had taken notes when they went on their jolly to australia and implimented some of their ideas, then csa2 wouldn't have been the total abortion that it is.

RAS

ohdamnit wrote: »

Income: 1400

Outgoings:

Rent: 500 - this is about minimum for a house/flat where NRP could have his children stay

Bills (C tax, elec, gas, water, insurances, phone, etc) - 300

Food - 200

Car/Transport costs to get to work - 150

child money (2): 280

Total so far : 1430

So would someone like to point out how this person is being excessive? They are £30 down a month without having a life, or any extraneous expenses! Plenty of people in this kind of position.

With the added complication that when the NRP tries to claim benefits

a) they are only allowed the one room rate
b) their claim is based on £1400 not on £(1400-£280)

Whilst when the PWC claims benefits, the claim is based on his/her salary (say £1400) not on their total income £(1400+280)

Now for a PWC with one to three children by the same partner, that look quite fair to them.

However, there are small numbers of PWCs who are receiving 15% of salaries from several partners because the children have been born in different relationships. So they could be racking up say £(1400 +630) quite easily and still getting benefit support.

ohdamnit

Kelloggs, budgeting is only viable when you can cut out elements of a budget to pay for another, where your budget is purely consisting of "necessities" like food, rent and bills, unless you can somehow reduce those (i.e. by not eating properly, or living in poor accommodation, which can affect the children's standard of living) then budgeting to save for emergencies is probably not easy.

The above budget didn't even allow for having a car, or doing things with children, or paying towards other things for children (classes, etc)?

At the mid range end the cost of living is so close to the average wage that it can be difficult to justify, yet for someone on say 35k:

Income: 2000

Rent: 500

Bills (C tax, elec, gas, water, insurances, phone, etc) - 300

Food - 200

Car/Transport costs to get to work - 150

child money (2): 280

Total so far : 1430

You have an excess of 570 which could probably add a little more for the kids? I guess this was the idea of CSA1 which didn't really work though.

Rorkes_Drift

speedster wrote: »

they went on their jolly to australia and implimented some of their ideas, then csa2 wouldn't have been the total abortion that it is.

The child maint rules in South Africa were adopted from Australia. Assuming its still the same, maintenance is based on child actual needs and for not improving the quality of life of the PWC, secondly, a PWC can only make a claim for CM provided their circumstances as a single parent are not self-inflicted.

The aussie system is designed to chase deadbeat dads, not to encourage teenage pregnancies and single parent families.

speedster

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

The child maint rules in South Africa were adopted from Australia. Assuming its still the same, maintenance is based on child actual needs and for not improving the quality of life of the PWC, secondly, a PWC can only make a claim for CM provided their circumstances as a single parent are not self-inflicted.

The aussie system is designed to chase deadbeat dads, not to encourage teenage pregnancies and single parent families.

i think you are mistaken. the Aussie system, although not perfect is a far superior one to ours.

for starters, shared care is promoted, whereas here, the pwc is financially rewarded for cutting contact. the aussie system PENALISES them. hence the higher compliance rates.

our system promotes conflict and drives a wedge into already strained relationships whereas the aussie system mediate with both parents which help improve it, rather than just being about the money for the PWC.

plus, their system was set up to help children, whereas ours was set up to claw back some of the billions we pay out to waynetta slob, vikki pollard and chums.

Rorkes_Drift

How am I mistaken?

Its not dusputed the Aussies have better compliance rates, but I dont know what legislaiton sets penalties for PWC's for cutting contract, I only know the rule that stops a claim if the PWC chooses to be one. I dont call that a penalty as such. It only stops australia getting a reputation for being single-parent & teen pregnancy capital of the world and saves burden on the aussie taxpayer