The CSA keeps badgering me to go back to work, but work doesnt pay, suggestions pleas

k3lvc

EclipsedMind wrote: »

I think the long and the short of it is that you want us to tell you we agree it is not worth you working as there is little financial reward for you doing so. And on the surface of things that appears to hold water and may be even more true once alternative childcare for the 2 year old is factored in.

However people are trying to point out to you in their subtle or otherwise way that you are able bodied and should work. This is both for your own self esteem and part of the moral contract with society - it is noted that you don't draw benefits for yourself but it is the tax credits that make your lifestyle possible and that is funded by the tax payers like myself. Additionally your two children from your marriage require your support: both emotional and financial.

You said it so much better than I ever could - I definitely fit into the 'otherwise' rather than 'subtle' category

JamesP1976

What I am looking for is a way to make work financially viable. Is it really true the CSA can break the rules like this?

I think you are saying I should go back to work regardless whether I can afford it or not just for the sake or moral grounds.

My support is there, but their mother obstructs contact at every turn.

Financial support is there, but the CSA cheated and ended up with nothing.

If I reached an agreement with my ex and returned to work, this is what would happen.

1. Settlement reached - £200 a month
2. I return to work
3. Ex changes her mind and wants 30% CSA.
4. Travel to work dissallowed and I stop work
5. CSA say that is depriving myself of income and carry on charging 30% regardless of whether I can afford it or not.
6. CSA enforces the debt.
7. House gets a charging order
8. House is sold and all three of us are on the steet.

I am sorry, but she cannot be trusted after what she did, and since the CSA has already attempted point 5 above, and my MP had intervene and stop it under the Fraud Act, I am not prepared to take the risk.

Im sure others would agree if they were in my position.

anguk

JamesP1976 wrote: »

There is nothing morally right about a mum deliberately depriving children of a paternal family life to suit her own financial agenda through the CSA.

The CSA did threaten me with accusations I stopped work to get out of paying for my children, but I sent the threat to my MP with a complaint of blackmail and fraud and he intervened. The threats did stop. There is nothing morally right about committing extortion.

I looked at working two days, but do look at my original post, it really makes no financial sense. I thought this was a money forum....:cool:

But why just work 2 days? I understand that you look after your toddler for 2 days while your girlfriend works but that leaves 5 days where you could work.

If you worked 5 days instead of 2 your income would be higher (although granted your benefits would reduce). But there would be no childcare costs (you looking after child while gf works, gf looks after child the rest of the time).

Even if you only worked the 2 days by your calculations you would still be £65 a week better off. You may think it's not worth working for £65 but at least it's extra money and you would be paying towards your other 2 children.

I don't know how CSA payments are calculated but stick your details into Entitledto, you may still be able to claim some tax credits even if both you and your girlfriend are working.

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

I really can see your point of view but you have to appreciate that it does look like you're deliberately choosing not to work (and deliberately depriving your other children of maintenance) when you're perfectly capable of working.

My advice would be to stop seeing this as a fight with CSA, you v them, and start seeing this as how can you financially contribute towards your children.

Access is another thing entirely, if the ex is putting obstacles in your way you need to sort that out in court etc. But even if you're not seeing the children you should still be paying toward their upkeep, it's not a case of "if I can't see them when I want then I won't pay".

JamesP1976

This is not the moneyspendingexperts.com forums.

Can anyone give me some simple and sensbble advice on how I deal with the question in my original post?

FBaby

So just because the csa 'cheated' and refused to take into account travel to work costs, you stop everything and your eldest children don't get anything any longer... how much did the csa 'cheated' you on? How much less would you have had to pay if they had taken into consideration your travel costs?

It makes no sense to me to be depriving your eldest children of financial support from their father (whatever the current relationship) because of a few pounds you might have saved had csa accepted your claim for travel costs if you really do care or have a true sense of responsibility towards all you children.

Marisco

JamesP1976 wrote: »

This is not the moneyspendingexperts.com forums.

Can anyone give me some simple and sensbble advice on how I deal with the question in my original post?

The only way it would be financially viable to work (based on what you have said) is if you and/or your gf get better paid jobs. I don't know why everyone is having a pop at the op though. If it was a mother staying at home to look after the kids, nowt would be said!! The one who stays at home, if any one must, should be the one that earns the least, regardless if that's mum or dad. If the op is doing it soley to avoid CSA, then that's not on, but if it makes financial sense for him to stay at home, then I don't blame him!!

DX2

Marisco wrote: »

If the op is doing it soley to avoid CSA, then that's not on, but if it makes financial sense for him to stay at home, then I don't blame him!!

Which is exactly what he is doing.

speedster

JamesP1976 wrote: »

This is not the moneyspendingexperts.com forums.

Can anyone give me some simple and sensbble advice on how I deal with the question in my original post?

i told ya early on. block their number and ignore them.

the only reason you're getting a flaming is because your male. don't sweat it, this place is teeming with rug munching man haters.

i'd love to be able to be a stay at home dad. if your situation works for you, then b0ll0x to the csa, there is absofugginglutely NOTHING they can do. you're not working or claiming anything and there is no law that states you HAVE to work.

you can have specific numbers blocked. you can also manually block numbers on certain mobile phones. can on my HTC. or answerphone for landline.

failing that, buy a whistle and when they phone, let 'em have it. tenner says they don't phone very often after that!

Marisco

OP, are you doing this soley to avoid paying CSA? Or does it make more financial sense for you to stay at home and look after the kids? Either way, the CSA have no dammed right to harass people, and tell them they have to work!!!!

JamesP1976

DX2 wrote: »

Which is exactly what he is doing.

The CSA agreed with you. Fortunately for me, the Parliamentary Ombudsman wasnt so stupid.