We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CSA 3 New System
Comments
-
40p in the pound is the figure my MP quoted at me. He, incidentally, is pro-charging and considers something has to change. He makes the point that a large portion of his time is spent dealing with CSA issues. However, he doesn't seem to see that problems with the CSA are very much a system/staffing issue and I very much doubt that charging is somehow going to change that.0
-
clearingout wrote: »He makes the point that a large portion of his time is spent dealing with CSA issues. However, he doesn't seem to see that problems with the CSA are very much a system/staffing issue and I very much doubt that charging is somehow going to change that.
And by charging this changes how...??? Just means they are not running in a way that costs, not efficiently...!
And how dare he complain that most of HIS time is taken up with CSA issues.....! Is that not HIS job...?0 -
And by charging this changes how...??? Just means they are not running in a way that costs, not efficiently...!
And how dare he complain that most of HIS time is taken up with CSA issues.....! Is that not HIS job...?
It's an MP's job to deal with an awful lot of issues - he wasn't complaining to that extent. He was making the point, I think, that the amount of time he spends on CSA issues is not in proportion (or better said, out of proportion) to the amount of time he spends on other issues. Charging changes nothing at all, I agree. And I've made this point back to my MP!0 -
You have to remember what the CSA was set up for in the first place, it was nothing to do with getting money to the kids, or anything noble like that! It was simply to save the Gov money! The money was paid into a big pot then paid out to off set the Benefit bill, the money that a NRP paid did not go to the kids it was paid for. This has been changed over the years as so many people got up set and fought the system [wounder why]!
If it is the case it was set up to save on benefits then why does a NRP i know who was a victim of regular violence and only works part time have to pay CSA to the PWC who has just had there own business valued at £5 million.The PWC has been arrested for making death threats to the NRP and the kids only lived with the PWC through fear and lies.They are now grown up and one has left home but both admitted the PWC was and is vile to the NRP.The one that still lives with the PWC has told them they only stay there because they have threatened to withdraw funding for uni if they move out.0 -
If it is the case it was set up to save on benefits then why does a NRP i know who was a victim of regular violence and only works part time have to pay CSA to the PWC who has just had there own business valued at £5 million.
Because it isn't means-tested, the circumstances of the PWC don't reduce the fact that the NRP still has a financial liability for his child/children. If the PWC was totally destitute and living on the breadline then it wouldn't mean an NRP had to pay more, likewise a PWC who is financially better off than the NRP shouldn't lose out.0 -
And by charging this changes how...??? Just means they are not running in a way that costs, not efficiently...!
Charging will "discourage" some from using the CSA. If it costs X amount to arrange and collect maintenance for every case, reducing the number of cases will reduce the total cost to the taxpayer (2010/2011 net administration costs were £450.1m).0 -
Charging will "discourage" some from using the CSA. If it costs X amount to arrange and collect maintenance for every case, reducing the number of cases will reduce the total cost to the taxpayer (2010/2011 net administration costs were £450.1m).
So bad management now means that the future use of the CSA is too cost 40% of the net money brought it...?
God if any private business was able to get away with that they would be very rich people indeed...!!!
Basic cost for administrating a CSA DEO as an example should be no more than at worst £15. but they will recoup that 5 fold in the 1st month, and then everything else is a bonus.. Woo Hoo...!!!
The only company that can make money quicker that i know of is Apple...!!!!!0 -
So bad management now means that the future use of the CSA is too cost 40% of the net money brought it...?
God if any private business was able to get away with that they would be very rich people indeed...!!!
Basic cost for administrating a CSA DEO as an example should be no more than at worst £15. but they will recoup that 5 fold in the 1st month, and then everything else is a bonus.. Woo Hoo...!!!
The only company that can make money quicker that i know of is Apple...!!!!!
But they will need the extra money so they have enough to pay out because of maladminstration :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:0 -
I was trying to work out the percentages, and it has given me a headache....!!!
You know i actually think that it works out to more money in charges to them, than it is for a solicitor, and the fact they are recurring charges every month actually makes it a very very expensive choice for most people...!
I don't understand how a percentage of monies collected or paid is fair either, i can understand the percentage due to your own child, so 15/20/25% due to them, as the more you earn the better off they are, but how is that fair for the government doing the same job collecting from someone paying £500 from one person and £5 from another...
Do you have to subsidise it all again for because you have been successful in life....???0 -
So bad management now means that the future use of the CSA is too cost 40% of the net money brought it...?
Currents costs are 40% of maintenance arranged and collected as to June 2011 £1,159.6m was collected at a cost of £450.1m. The aim with the future scheme is to reduce this cost to the taxpayer with efficiency gains and charging those that use it but it will still remain heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.kevin137 wrote:I don't understand how a percentage of monies collected or paid is fair either0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards