CSA Are they committing fraud??

HoneyNutLoop

bazbro90 wrote: »

I have just had a thoughts about CSA and the system that they use to calculate monies taken for the person who has to pay and would like your feedback.
If im wrong with my figures etc please let me know.

If you earn over £200 net per week you are to pay 15% for one child. This equates to £30 per week.

So does this mean that the CSA as saying that one child requires £30 upkeep per week?

So if you earn a hypothetical £1000 net per week that you will be liable to pay £150 per week.

If it costs £30 to upkeep the child and youve paid £150, what happens to the other £120???

you cant argue that some cases cost more to upkeep as this is the standard amount outlined by CSA.

am I missing something or is this a massive loophole?

If you tried that youd be had up for fraud!!!!

thoughts please?

You seem to have extrapolated that because they say you should pay 15% of your net income if your earn over £200, they are saying a child only costs £30 a week to keep because that is 15% of £200. As others have said, you seem to have missed the point. A percentage of income is exactly that, so it works on a sliding scale. What they are saying is that if you earn under £200, you should pay a lesser percentage of your income for one child than 15%, so you qualify for the reduced rate.

On the whole "what a child actually costs" debate the link on the dad.info website to this article makes interesting reading:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/8359516/Parenting-pressures-cost-of-raising-a-child-now-210848.html

Link obtained from here:
http://www.dad.info/a-guide-to-csa/if-you-think-your-payments-are-unfair

Based on that research, I wouldn't be in a rush for the government to develop a child support system based on what they think a child actually costs.

FBaby

Let's not forget that the nrp shouldn't be the bearer the full costs of his children. The actual percentage divide is one up for argument, brings in the debate around the fact the pwc is restricted from earning the same income than the nrp but regardless, it certainly shouldn't be 100/00 especially when the pwc is claiming plenty of children related benefits.

HoneyNutLoop

FBaby wrote: »

Let's not forget that the nrp shouldn't be the bearer the full costs of his children. The actual percentage divide is one up for argument, brings in the debate around the fact the pwc is restricted from earning the same income than the nrp but regardless, it certainly shouldn't be 100/00 especially when the pwc is claiming plenty of children related benefits.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to suggest an NRP should be liable for 100% of the costs, so apologies if that's the way it came across.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think the government is suggesting by the current CSA2 (or even CSA3) system that it thinks a child costs £30 a week to keep. The research attached suggests an average figure of £192.50 a week per child, based on 2010's costs. The article indicates the study has taken account of the costs of education (excluding private school fees), childcare, clothing, holidays and personal care, but does not mention anything either way about accommodation costs (i.e. if it has been included or excluded from the cost).

HoneyNutLoop

Just found the actual report, for anyone who is mildly interested!!:
http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/other/11665_LV_COAC.PDF

wayne0

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

That's why the NRP gets a reduction based on the number of children in his/her household.

but income is assessed on the basis of his new family recieving ADDITIONAL BENEFITS...

a 20% reduction gives 60 less net weekly income... but new family also gives 113 more assessible income (tax credits)

so i say this: forget the reduction...

just dont assess my kids tax credits! i'd mean i have more money to support the kids i have to feed/clothe.etc...

wayne0

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

The research attached suggests an average figure of £192.50 a week per child, based on 2010's costs.

so the fact that CSA are leaving my family with less than 200 to support two adults and two children is ok?...

Bear in mind: single parents get a couples rate of WTC.
they get additional disregards on benefits. and well to be frank, are a damnsite lot better off when they cant be arsed to get off their !!!!. (again, before people jump... i understand not all pwc's are like this)

wayne0

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

What prelude says. The nrp gets a reduction before CM is worked out. If the NRP still feels the finacial side of supporting their children is a struggle then maybe they need to consider if they an afford more children....

but circumstances change!

are you suggesting dumping a kid because you cant afford to feed them...

the PWC gets childcare related benefits...

tax credits pays towards childcare costs... infact , if a NRP has to place their children in childcare so they can work... and they recieve additional tax credits based on this... their assesment increases also...

then what if the nrp cant put their child into childcare. how do they work...
they cant go to work. therefore no wtc, = less assessment (if not nil) as the nrp is not working / earning income.

then add onto that a nrp is the sole earner for a family when their new partner cannot work (disability/immigration/many other factors)...
the fact that these factors are not considered on a CSA assesment.... is this fair?

schedule 2 of the child support law states that all childrens interests (not only the interests of a QC but a cousin/neice/etc also) should be considered...
and that the sec of state can make discretionary decisions...

for example: allowing expenses for childcare/or whatever... but do they?
hell, the variation form they send you to complete doesnt need completing by law - any request for a variation - INCLUDING VERBAL should be considered.

then the fact that the variation form gives you categories for a variation... the variation system is not limited only to these categories... but it doesnt make it clear as to this.... does it?


whilst not all pwc's are able to claim towards the costs etc... MOST are and do claim benefits of some form or another.

shoe*diva79

Regardless of what the PWC is earning or if they are sitting on their fat !!!! as you put it so nicely, children still need supporting. It might not be right that CTC and WTC are used but in the same breath, why should your children from your first relationship suffer by the 20% reduction your given before the assessment is made? Its swings and roundabouts. 20% off your net pay then 20% assessment on 80% income. Seems to me its the kids from your first relationship that a actually worse off financially.

wayne0

REALLY?

ok, £200 wage.
15% of 200 = £30.

add onto that benefits because a child is in new household.
(2 children = 113 tax credits)
= 313.
20% off this: 62.60 = 250.40


so for the sake of children in an household the PWC has access to more assesable income... this is fair in what world?...

oh and btw, i didnt say FAT !!!!, i said !!!!.

this puts the child in the same situation before split... in what world?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

wayne0 wrote: »

REALLY?

ok, £200 wage.
15% of 200 = £30.

add onto that benefits because a child is in new household.
(2 children = 113 tax credits)
= 313.
20% off this: 62.60 = 250.40


so for the sake of children in an household the PWC has access to more assesable income... this is fair in what world?...

oh and btw, i didnt say FAT !!!!, i said !!!!.

this puts the child in the same situation before split... in what world?

So without the 2 kids; NRP receives £200 and pays £30 child support, leaving the NRP with £170.
With the two kids (assuming £113 tax credits): NRP income is £313 (almost 57% more than earlier, to turn this around 'free tax-payers money simply for having children? this is fair in what world?'), pays £38 child support (rounded up), leaving the NRP with £275.

Out of that extra £113, the NRP receives £105. His/her other child gets £8 (7%). To be honest, I think that using these figures perhaps the NRP should count themselves lucky.