csa backpay-very confused - very long

krashovrload

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Maybe your ex should have got a job and earned her money?

++

Maybe she should have - but she didn't back then (nor anytime since - if I remember correctly).

++

FBaby

So you could have given her the money and the benefits she received for the children could have been reduced by £70 accordingly. What difference would that have made?

krashovrload

FBaby wrote: »

So you could have given her the money and the benefits she received for the children could have been reduced by £70 accordingly. What difference would that have made?

++

After misregarding the first £10 not a great deal. I know it's largely academic now as things are markedly different.

It also used to frustrate me when I'd see politicians on the TV going on about how chasing absent parents for maintenance would help lift the children from broken relationships out of poverty (working on the principle the most single parents didn't work and 'lived' on benefits).

From my own experience it did nothing of the sort - it was (as indicated by others above) actually about reducing the strain on the public purse and nothing to do with helping reduce poverty or taking responsibility.

As far as I could see (from back then) - no-one involved in my case was any better off. The PWC stayed on a benefit level of income (yes - she could have found a job or changed her lifestyle), my income was reduced to little more than benefit level and the public purse was reduced by an infinitesimal % which was more than counteracted by the £000 millions spent on broken ICT systems, cases written off for being too expensive to chase and other expenses.

But hey ho - that was then and things are different now...

I think that's enough on that!

++