paying csa until aged 20???

Marisco

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

if it meant they could complete further education with minimal debt.

That's fair enough if you have a reasonable PWC, unfortunately, we didn't!
What would have happened would be, that the money would have been spent, and her hand would have been out for more!

I think by the time a "child" reaches 18, which is the legal age of consent for most things i.e drinking, smoking, voting, sent to war, etc etc, then the NRP should have the choice of giving the money direct to the "child". By that time the PWC has had plenty of notice that the child is no longer going to be a cash cow, and should have made alternative arrangements to get money! It isn't as if the childs' 18th birthday comes as a shock to anyone!

Let the PWC take care of the household expenses and the NRP can see to the "educational" needs and extras (I am of course talking about "normal" NRP's, not the deadbeats!!) But what happens in a lot of cases is, that the NRP is expected to pay CM and extras!

shoe*diva79

Marisco wrote: »

That's fair enough if you have a reasonable PWC, unfortunately, we didn't!
What would have happened would be, that the money would have been spent, and her hand would have been out for more!

I think by the time a "child" reaches 18, which is the legal age of consent for most things i.e drinking, smoking, voting, sent to war, etc etc, then the NRP should have the choice of giving the money direct to the "child". By that time the PWC has had plenty of notice that the child is no longer going to be a cash cow, and should have made alternative arrangements to get money! It isn't as if the childs' 18th birthday comes as a shock to anyone!

Let the PWC take care of the household expenses and the NRP can see to the "educational" needs and extras (I am of course talking about "normal" NRP's, not the deadbeats!!) But what happens in a lot of cases is, that the NRP is expected to pay CM and extras!

Wow. Cash cows? Personally I would never see my children called that. I agree there are some PWC whom want as much money as possible - but children still cost. Roof over their head, a nice home, gas, electric, school trips, food... Theblist could go on forever.

Anyway, i have always seen it that CM as per the CSA calc is the MINIMUM a NRP should pay. Its a shame to many NRPs or NRPPs resent the children so much that they focus all their energy and bitterness at the PWC by making things as difficult as possible.

The only losers are the children. Both parents should want to support their children - and maybe with the new Benefits Entitlement Policy meaning PWC will need to seek work when the child reaches 5 will stop so many thinking CM furnishes a PWC pockets.

I wnder if those who constantly moan about the money not being spent on the kids have contacted the relevent authorities to report the neglected children suffering?

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just so fed up of seeing derogertory comments about PWCs. And calling kids 'cash cows'... Nice! In the ideal world couples would stay together and raise their children together, not a ideal world tho :-(

fannyanna

I'm with Bluemeanie on this!

kevin137

So as an example... Going by the fact that the system clearly doesn't work whichever side of the fence you are on...

Is it fair that i could be married, work hard, have a wife cheat on me, keep the house, take care of the child, refuse shared care, and let me be out there just to provide... So i start a business, become successful, really successful, earn £10,000 a week, and she benefits from my hard work and good luck...???

I ask because by the current standards, £1500 would be the minimum i would be expected to pay...! Should i pay more according to you...???

No wonder the country is in the state it is in...!!!

Lifestyle accustomed to and all that for divorce, but use the children to drag every penny and more from the ex as well...!!!

No wonder premiership footballers are employed on a wage and there contracts are owned by companies that pay for everything they need but pay them a basic £100 wage...!!! Self employed is great when looked at like this...!!!

Marisco

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

And calling kids 'cash cows'... Nice! (

Nip over to the benefits board and see the panicky posts of those who are going to lose their CTC and CB, because their kids have "grown up" and left education!! Folk have ample time to plan ahead for that eventuality, birthdays ( and getting older!! ) is no surprise to anyone.

missbunbury

kevin137 wrote: »

... i start a business, become successful, really successful, earn £10,000 a week, and she benefits from my hard work and good luck...???

I ask because by the current standards, £1500 would be the minimum i would be expected to pay...! Should i pay more according to you...???

Actually you would pay LESS, as a percentage of your income, in this situation, than a non-resident parent earning a more usual amount. This is because the maximum assessable income for CSA purposes is £2k per week. So you would pay £300pw from your ten grand, or 3% of your income, where someone earning £300pw would pay 15%.

Going back to the question of preferring to go to prison rather than pay, I still cannot get my head around the thinking involved. If I earn £300pw and hand over £45 of that to an evil money-grabbing PWC, then I (and my partner and possibly any kids I have with my partner) still benefit from £255 income a week. If I decide to go to prison instead, then my "new" family are losing out on that £255 a week, not gaining the £45 that the PWC isn't getting. Plus I may well be putting myself in a position where I will struggle to get a decent job in future for at least the period of time during which I have to declare my conviction (am I right about this? Are they criminal convictions that need declaring that you get if prosecuted by the CSA?)

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

No wonder premiership footballers are employed on a wage and there contracts are owned by companies that pay for everything they need but pay them a basic £100 wage...!!! Self employed is great when looked at like this...!!!

I didn't know this Kev!! You can see why though! Did this come about after that woman who was married to a PL footballer, got a % of his future earnings although they were divorced? I forget his name now, something like Parnaby? It was in the papers about 3/4 years ago, he doesn't play anymore as far as I know, unless he's in the lower divisions.

kevin137

I used to drink with a few premiership players, and they have been this way for a number of years, it went back to the late 90's.

The long and short of it was they have company credit cards the company owns the contract and then pays then a "small" wage, but EVERYTHING they earn is available for them to spend...

It was tax, csa, all sorts that brought it about, but it does protect them in a way that the rest of us don't have available to us, but then with the sums of money earnt by some of them, it needed to be...

shoe*diva79

Marisco wrote: »

Nip over to the benefits board and see the panicky posts of those who are going to lose their CTC and CB, because their kids have "grown up" and left education!! Folk have ample time to plan ahead for that eventuality, birthdays ( and getting older!! ) is no surprise to anyone.

This is why the new benefit hanges are good, makes both parents provide for their children.

Also, if a child has grown up and left education they should be working, and providing board into the household they are living :-)

shoe*diva79

I think what I am trying to say is if a child is 18 or over, still in education and still living at home then I agree CM should continue. If they are in education living away from home then no - thats what student loans and part time jobs plus maybe a little direct help from the folks is for. Ad if they are 18 and not in education at all then they should be working and paying boatd :-)