Dads wage guerrilla war on CSA
Paul A
Paul A
Dads wage guerrilla war on CSA
By Rachel Sylvester, political editor
A GROUP of disgruntled fathers has
launched a campaign to undermine the
Child Support Agency by circulating
information on dodges and devices to
avoid maintenance payments. These
include unscrupulous suggestions on how
to persuade ex-wives to lie to the
authorities - and how to fool the
authorities into thinking that they are
violent.
The National Association for Child
Support Action (NACSA) produces regular
newsletters and a website advising
fathers how to delay, reduce or avoid
contributions to the CSA.
CSA officials, who have compiled a
dossier on the organisation, believe
that some of the tips could be
interpreted as incitement to break the
law.
Ministers at the Department of Social
Security are also aware of the group
and have ensured that many of the
loopholes it identifies will be closed
when new legislation is introduced
later this year. "Their activities are
extra-legal if not illegal," one senior
government source said.
One newsletter advises absent fathers
that a good way of avoiding detection
is to be portrayed as a violent man who
must not be contacted by the CSA
because the mother is too frightened.
"Showing CSA officials the damage done
to the house by an ex-partner (broken
windows, etc) will usually have an
instant effect and if communication is
being conducted by letter a photograph
will certainly help," it says.
Another advocates persuading the
child's mother to deny to the CSA that
she knows who the father is - in return
for direct, but smaller payments. "We
heard of one ex-partner who claimed to
have done the rounds of many dubious
parties (or was it a Club Med
holiday?). It turned out the father
could have been any one of a dozen or
more men. She tried to be helpful by
supplying a long list of possible
names. Of course she was keen to
co-operate, but it was so
embarrassing."
The group's members - mostly fathers
who have been targeted by the CSA -
openly describe themselves as "pocket
revolutionaries" deploying guerrilla
tactics against the system. A recent
publication from the group warns:
"NACSA cannot guarantee its accuracy,
usefulness or even legality and reminds
readers that any decision to make use
of the information is theirs alone."
Other publications advise absent
fathers to reduce their declared income
and increase their declared outgoings
as much as possible. Under the heading
"controlling your salary", one
newsletter describes a man who asked
his company for a loan to cover
"unforeseen expenses" in his private
life. The company agreed and took
monthly payments out of his salary,
leaving a reduced amount on the
payslips assessed by the CSA. The
document also suggests taking out a
variable mortgage so contributions can
be bumped up dramatically just before
the CSA assesses the father's housing
costs.
The group also offers tips on delaying
the introduction of CSA payments,
including failing to return documents
or "forgetting" to include relevant
information. One idea is to return CSA
correspondence, unopened, with the
words "gone away" or "not known at this
address" emblazoned across it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham, the
minister responsible for the CSA, said
the Government was concerned about a
small group of hardliners working "at
the edge" of the law. "Most men are
decent and want to support their
children but there are a core of people
who do not want to pay and are seeking
to duck and avoid and we will get tough
on those," she said.
Maeve Sherlock, director of the
National Council for One Parent
Families, said she was "appalled" by
some of NACSA's activities. "There will
always be some cases of genuine
hardship but anyone trying to persuade
non-resident parents to avoid paying
child support when they can afford to
pay it is deeply irresponsible," she
said.
Jill Ashmore
said, true authority can withstand a challenge, it the challenge succeeds
then the authority is bogus.
We need a counter espionage section!
Jill
Paul A <pa...@bigfootNILSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:7okd98$unv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
John Ward
>From today's Independent on Sunday.
>By Rachel Sylvester, political editor
Where do these "journalists" get such stories from? And why? (Presumably, in
the case of the Independent, because they can't afford to fill column inches
with REAL news!)
What I say below doesn't condone the avoidance of financial responsibility
for parents towards their children. PWCs' lives can be screwed-up by trying
to juggle children & work.
Instead, it is a condemnation of sloppy journalism - 80/20 journalism, where
a journalist gets things about 80% right (20% wrong - often seriously so)
for about 20% of the effort needed for a REAL story.
Rachel Sylvester has got her hands on the TWO-YEAR OLD NACSA Survival Guide
and tried to build a whole news article around it!
On Rachel Sylvester's evidence, the Independent has as much relevance to
"news" as NACSA does to "Internet presence". None!
> A GROUP of disgruntled fathers has launched a campaign
>to undermine the Child Support Agency by circulating
>information on dodges and devices to avoid maintenance
>payments. These include unscrupulous suggestions on
>how to persuade ex-wives to lie to the authorities - and
>how to fool the authorities into thinking that they are
> violent.
Wow! "Has launched a campaign"! So they are not talking about NACSA then - I
have newsletters from them dating to 1995, but nothing for 1999, so Rachel
Sylvester must be talking about some other group which "has launched a
campaign". What is this?
> The National Association for Child Support Action
>(NACSA) produces regular newsletters and a website
>advising fathers how to delay, reduce or avoid
> contributions to the CSA.
Utter crap! They used to do this, but I don't believe they've updated their
website in the last 9 months. And I'm not convinced their website still
exists! (It didn't when I just tried to access it).
NACSA used to publish some good research (although one-sided, of course!)
Last year they did little but rant (often with gibberish). This "news" (ha!)
is last year's news at best.
> CSA officials, who have compiled a dossier on the organisation,
>believe that some of the tips could be interpreted as incitement
>to break the law.
>
> Ministers at the Department of Social
> Security are also aware of the group
Of course they are aware of the group!
The DSS/CSA website ITSELF links to the NACSA website! See:
http://www.dss.gov.uk/csa/links.htm
It says:
"There are many other websites which may contain information useful to you.
...
National Association for Child Support Action
http://www.scallywag.com/nacsa/
Voluntary organisation providing information and advice to parents dealing
with the Child Support Agency."
[snip]
>One newsletter advises absent fathers that a good way
>of avoiding detection is to be portrayed as a violent man
>who must not be contacted by the CSA because the
>mother is too frightened. "Showing CSA officials the
>damage done to the house by an ex-partner (broken
> windows, etc) will usually have an instant effect
>and if communication is being conducted by letter
>a photograph will certainly help," it says.
This appears in the Survival Guide - August 1997.
[snip]
> The group's members - mostly fathers
> who have been targeted by the CSA -
> openly describe themselves as "pocket
> revolutionaries" deploying guerrilla
> tactics against the system.
The term "pocket revolutionaries" appears in the Survival Guide - August
1997.
>A recent publication from the group warns:
>"NACSA cannot guarantee its accuracy,
>usefulness or even legality and reminds
>readers that any decision to make use
>of the information is theirs alone"
"Recent"? They probably mean the Survival Guide - August 1997! They
CERTAINLY don't mean last year's newsletters!
> Other publications advise absent
> fathers to reduce their declared income
> and increase their declared outgoings
> as much as possible. Under the heading
> "controlling your salary", one
> newsletter describes a man who asked
> his company for a loan to cover
> "unforeseen expenses" in his private
> life. The company agreed and took
> monthly payments out of his salary,
> leaving a reduced amount on the
> payslips assessed by the CSA. The
> document also suggests taking out a
> variable mortgage so contributions can
> be bumped up dramatically just before
> the CSA assesses the father's housing
> costs.
The Survival Guide, yet again - August 1997!
[snip]
There are too many people like Rachel Sylvester filling column inches with
out-of-date regurgitated rubbish instead of trying to tell us something new
and/or accurate. The typical article about the CSA is 20% reasonable stuff,
80% rehash from old articles + faulty guesswork from journalists who haven't
the time to do prper analysis nor the contacts to get the true story.
John Ward
John Hill
> Baroness Hollis of Heigham, the
> minister responsible for the CSA, said
> the Government was concerned about a
> small group of hardliners working "at
> the edge" of the law. "Most men are
> decent and want to support their
> children but there are a core of people
> who do not want to pay and are seeking
> to duck and avoid and we will get tough
> on those," she said.
A Change of tune
John Hill
tede-el
wage guerrilla war on CSA" about fathers avoiding paying child maintenance.
While I am sure there are men who wish to escape their duty to pay
maintenance for their children (as reported in the article) as there are, no
doubt, men willing to pay up (as referred to by Baroness Hollis, Minister
overseeing the CSA). There is a third category of men who seem to go
un-noticed despite the numbers involved.
Their plight illustrates an anomaly that the CSA just cannot cope with.
They are men who would, if only they could, look after their children all of
the time just like they did when they were in the marital home. But post
seperation/divorce these very same men find that they are effectively
excluded from the lives of their children except for (if they are lucky)
MacDonalds weekends. They are essentially reduced to the role of part time
uncle.
They are usually in this dreadful situation due to the Family Court and it's
advisor the Court Welfare Officer, as well as the solicitor of the ex
partner. These powerful people, often unwittingly egged on by a vengeful
ex-partner, routinely marginalise fathers as parents of their children.
To add insult to injury the CSA then demands that these men pay for the
privilege of being denied the care of their children.
That these same men might seek to avoid paying this penalty should come
as no surprise. Until the courts reflect the spirit of the Childrens Act and
assume shared parenting as the default solution to post seperation child
care and until the CSA finds a mechanism for recognising the shared care of
children, then the avoidance of maintenance payment will continue.
It is worth noting that this is not a gender issue. The female relatives,
the mothers, sisters, grandmothers, aunts and worst of all the daughters,
let alone the friends, colleagues and lovers, of these same men know and
share their agony too. You only have to read the websites involved to
realise how many women are also unhappy with the CSA.
Baroness Hollis, please spare a little compassion for the families deprived
of their children. We are not all voluntary absent parents.
Paul A <pa...@bigfootNILSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:7okd98$unv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> From today's Independent on Sunday.
> Paul A
>
> Dads wage guerrilla war on CSA
>
> By Rachel Sylvester, political editor
>
> A GROUP of disgruntled fathers has
> launched a campaign to undermine the
> Child Support Agency by circulating
> information on dodges and devices to
> avoid maintenance payments. These
> include unscrupulous suggestions on how
> to persuade ex-wives to lie to the
> authorities - and how to fool the
> authorities into thinking that they are
> violent.
>
> The National Association for Child
> Support Action (NACSA) produces regular
> newsletters and a website advising
> fathers how to delay, reduce or avoid
> contributions to the CSA.
>
> CSA officials, who have compiled a
> dossier on the organisation, believe
> that some of the tips could be
> interpreted as incitement to break the
> law.
>
> Ministers at the Department of Social
> Security are also aware of the group
> and have ensured that many of the
> loopholes it identifies will be closed
> when new legislation is introduced
> later this year. "Their activities are
> extra-legal if not illegal," one senior
> government source said.
>
> One newsletter advises absent fathers
> that a good way of avoiding detection
> is to be portrayed as a violent man who
> must not be contacted by the CSA
> because the mother is too frightened.
> "Showing CSA officials the damage done
> to the house by an ex-partner (broken
> windows, etc) will usually have an
> instant effect and if communication is
> being conducted by letter a photograph
> will certainly help," it says.
>
> Another advocates persuading the
> child's mother to deny to the CSA that
> she knows who the father is - in return
> for direct, but smaller payments. "We
> heard of one ex-partner who claimed to
> have done the rounds of many dubious
> parties (or was it a Club Med
> holiday?). It turned out the father
> could have been any one of a dozen or
> more men. She tried to be helpful by
> supplying a long list of possible
> names. Of course she was keen to
> co-operate, but it was so
> embarrassing."
>
> The group's members - mostly fathers
> who have been targeted by the CSA -
> openly describe themselves as "pocket
> revolutionaries" deploying guerrilla
> tactics against the system. A recent
> publication from the group warns:
> "NACSA cannot guarantee its accuracy,
> usefulness or even legality and reminds
> readers that any decision to make use
> of the information is theirs alone."
>
> Other publications advise absent
> fathers to reduce their declared income
> and increase their declared outgoings
> as much as possible. Under the heading
> "controlling your salary", one
> newsletter describes a man who asked
> his company for a loan to cover
> "unforeseen expenses" in his private
> life. The company agreed and took
> monthly payments out of his salary,
> leaving a reduced amount on the
> payslips assessed by the CSA. The
> document also suggests taking out a
> variable mortgage so contributions can
> be bumped up dramatically just before
> the CSA assesses the father's housing
> costs.
>
> The group also offers tips on delaying
> the introduction of CSA payments,
> including failing to return documents
> or "forgetting" to include relevant
> information. One idea is to return CSA
> correspondence, unopened, with the
> words "gone away" or "not known at this
> address" emblazoned across it.
>
> Baroness Hollis of Heigham, the
> minister responsible for the CSA, said
> the Government was concerned about a
> small group of hardliners working "at
> the edge" of the law. "Most men are
> decent and want to support their
> children but there are a core of people
> who do not want to pay and are seeking
> to duck and avoid and we will get tough
> on those," she said.
>
marcsmith23
Marc
Angus Nicolson
<to...@spacificrim.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Regarding the article from today's Independent on Sunday, 08/08/99 "Dads
>wage guerrilla war on CSA" about fathers avoiding paying child maintenance.
Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance legal. "Every man is entitled to arrange
his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax liability", CIR v Grosvener 1936
(IIRC).
Why is there any moral difference between avoiding tax and avoiding the CSA?
Angus
John Hill
<to...@spacificrim.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>That these same men might seek to avoid paying this penalty should come
>as no surprise. Until the courts reflect the spirit of the Childrens Act and
>assume shared parenting as the default solution to post seperation child
>care and until the CSA finds a mechanism for recognising the shared care of
>children, then the avoidance of maintenance payment will continue.
There is a recent High Court decision (29 July) Hart J that there is
NO presumption of contact in the Childrens Act.
John Hill
Ann-Marie
tede-el wrote in message
<934232769.1579.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Regarding the article from today's Independent on Sunday, 08/08/99 "Dads
>wage guerrilla war on CSA" about fathers avoiding paying child maintenance.
>
>While I am sure there are men who wish to escape their duty to pay
>maintenance for their children (as reported in the article) as there are,
no
>doubt, men willing to pay up (as referred to by Baroness Hollis, Minister
>overseeing the CSA). There is a third category of men who seem to go
>un-noticed despite the numbers involved.
>
>Their plight illustrates an anomaly that the CSA just cannot cope with.
>
>They are men who would, if only they could, look after their children all
of
>the time just like they did when they were in the marital home. But post
>seperation/divorce these very same men find that they are effectively
>excluded from the lives of their children except for (if they are lucky)
>MacDonalds weekends. They are essentially reduced to the role of part time
>uncle.
There is also, unfortunately, a fourth category......normally a subcategory
of the ones who want to escape their duty to pay.....the ones who think they
should take a hike and withdraw *both* emotional and financial support from
their children......
<snip>
To add insult to injury the CSA then demands that these men pay for the
>privilege of being denied the care of their children.
To add insult to injury....the CSA are normally so incomepetent and lazy
that these 'non payers' remain 'non payers' while the CSA concentrate on the
'sitting duck' parents that you mention.....
>That these same men might seek to avoid paying this penalty should come
>as no surprise. Until the courts reflect the spirit of the Childrens Act
and
>assume shared parenting as the default solution to post seperation child
>care and until the CSA finds a mechanism for recognising the shared care
of
>children, then the avoidance of maintenance payment will continue.
I'll go with the assumption of shared parenting and the child(ren)'s legal
right under the CA to both parents......now, where to find him......;-)
BUT...you also have to bear in mind that contact and CS are two different
issues! I've always said that a [normally] unco-operative mother shouldn't
use receipt of CS (or anything less than a genuine fear for the safety of
the children) as a determining factor in how much contact she supports
between father and child(ren)....similarly a [normally] father can't do the
same either and muddle the two......
The CSA in all its normal incompetence stuffs up CS......the courts are
totally seperate and stuff up contact for many [normally] fathers.....the
contact 'stuff up' is the fault of the courts who still often wrongly
believe that mothers are prioritous over fathers when it comes to the
children of a broken relationship.
>It is worth noting that this is not a gender issue. The female relatives,
>the mothers, sisters, grandmothers, aunts and worst of all the daughters,
>let alone the friends, colleagues and lovers, of these same men know and
>share their agony too.
You just made it a gender issue!! The 'female' relatives of 'these same
men'.....Hmmmm Your comment would suggest that NO male parent has ever made
it difficult for a mother and child(ren) to have contact....I'm sure MATCH
would have something to say about that....
My children's father has decided to take a hike and dump the kids....doesn't
seem bothered by how distressed they are and will not consider making
arrangements for contact.....despite many emails from me (I don't have a
clue where he is!) pleading with him to see our kids and at the very least
telephone them and make some sort of contact.....at the end of the day - he
is their dad and they love him and want to see him.......
Double whammy for my stepdaughter though.....her natural mother dumped her
on us when she was 11....now, she has been dumped again by her natural
father! So....not only have I got three young kids of my own hanging on my
skirts incase I do a runner like daddy.....I've also got a 17 year old s/d
worried that I'll leave her too.......
No....it isn't a gender issue at all....both of genders seem to have an
innate ability to screw up their parenting roles and their children should
they so choose......
You only have to read the websites involved to
>realise how many women are also unhappy with the CSA.
Yep.....the female APs and the female PWCs......
>Baroness Hollis, please spare a little compassion for the families deprived
>of their children. We are not all voluntary absent parents.
The children deprived of their parents!
No....not all 'voluntary'.....but they do exist....both male and
female.....shame that 'real' parents get caught up with the same labelling
that should be restricted solely to deadbeat dads and mums.....
Cheers
Ann Marie
Charles Atkinson
John Ward wrote in message <37add...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
[snip]
Forwarded to onl...@independent.co.uk
Charles Atkinson
Angus Nicolson wrote in message
<19990810030724...@ngol02.aol.com>...
[snip]
>Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance legal. "Every man is
entitled to arrange
>his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax liability",
CIR v Grosvener 1936
>(IIRC).
>
>Why is there any moral difference between avoiding tax and
avoiding the CSA?
There's no moral difference but there is a legal one...
Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases)
Regulations, 1992, Schedule 1 (27) says
"...where the child support officer is satisfied that ... a
person has intentionally deprived himself of
a) any income or capital which would otherwise be a source
of income
b) any income or capital which it would be reasonable to
expect would be secured by him
with a view to reducing the amount of his assessable income,
his net income shall include the amount estimated by a child
support officer as representing the income which that person
would have had if he had not deprived himself of or failed
to secure that income or, as the case may be, capital"
That's a benefits mentality for you!
That's inconsistency for you!
That's legislation which has been used to penalise an AP who
left a permanent job to go full time in a business which he
had been expanding part time for years!
Thats's legislation which could have forced Bill Gates to
get a proper job instead of fooling around with a new
business that made no money called Microsoft!
C
SJenki8495
>From: angus...@aol.comDELETE (Angus Nicolson)
>Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance legal. "Every man is entitled to
>arrange
>his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax liability", CIR v Grosvener
>1936
>(IIRC).
>
>Why is there any moral difference between avoiding tax and avoiding the CSA?
Possabely becose in the case of tax avoidnece the victim is the amorphuse
state, whille in the case of CS it is induviduel children with names, faces,
lives ie mine!!!! who due to the behavour of their AP are deprived both
matereaily and fincuely every singel day of their lives.
It makes me particllerly sick to learn just how acceptebel in my ex`s milue his
"avoudence" tactics are (advertising need I say more!).
The sooner it really is moraly reprehensabel to behave irrisponsebly to ones
ofspring the better in my very jaundiced book.
SueJ
>
>Angus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Hill
>Possabely becose in the case of tax avoidnece the victim is the amorphuse
>state, whille in the case of CS it is induviduel children with names, faces,
>lives ie mine!!!! who due to the behavour of their AP are deprived both
>matereaily and fincuely every singel day of their lives.
There arre other circumstances Sue. The other side of the same coin,
lazy bitches on benefits. The only beneficiary there is the Treasury.
John Hill
John Ward
>"Dads wage guerrilla war on CSA" about fathers avoiding paying
>child maintenance.
>
>While I am sure there are men who wish to escape their duty to
>pay maintenance for their children (as reported in the article) as
>there are, no doubt, men willing to pay up (as referred to by
>Baroness Hollis, Minister overseeing the CSA). There is a third
>category of men who seem to go un-noticed despite the numbers
>involved.
>
>Their plight illustrates an anomaly that the CSA just cannot
>cope with.
The fact is - as far as the CSA is concerned, there is no anomaly. NONE AT
ALL.
There are lots of discussions here & elsewhere about whether or not it is
fair for parents to pay in certain circumstances. These arguments are
probably incomprehensible to the people in government concerned. They
probably can't see why anyone thinks there is a useful argument here.
There is an incredibly simple bit of logic here:
[A]:
- There is a child.
- The parents of the child are financially responsible for its upbringing -
by law.
- At any time a parent either spends directly on the child or pays someone
else to.
- Exceptions only arise where there is a FORMAL handover to another parent
(eg. FORMAL adoption or FORMAL egg/sperm donation).
Lots of people don't like this relentless logic. But governments in the
"English Speaking Western World" see no reason to relax these rules. And
when the scheme has been running long enough, probably most people will
accept it. It is the transition which is painful.
I've been examining cases in USA:
- "She stole my sperm". So what, if you are the genetic father you are
responsible.
- "I was under-age, it was statutory rape". So what, if you are the genetic
father you are responsible.
- "I was unconcious at the time". So what, if you are the genetic father you
are responsible.
- "I did her a favour by informally donating my sperm". So what, if you are
the genetic father you are responsible.
The most important single factor is - THERE IS A CHILD WHO NEEDS FINANCIAL
SUPPORT FROM ITS PARENTS DURING ITS UPBRINGING. [A]
Criticise the CSA for what it should be criticised - the formula is wrong;
they are administratively incompetent.
But don't waste breath complaining about the above logic [A]. You might as
well demand a repeal of the Law of Gravity. Hopefully, the next generation
of men will act accordingly.
>They are men who would, if only they could, look after their children
>all of the time just like they did when they were in the marital home.
>But post seperation/divorce these very same men find that they are
>effectively excluded from the lives of their children except for (if they
>are lucky) MacDonalds weekends. They are essentially reduced to
>the role of part time uncle.
True. So focus on what stops this from happening. And it isn't the CSA.
[snip]
>That these same men might seek to avoid paying this penalty should
>come as no surprise. Until the courts reflect the spirit of the
>Childrens Act and assume shared parenting as the default solution
>to post seperation child care and until the CSA finds a mechanism
>for recognising the shared care of children, then the avoidance of
>maintenance payment will continue.
[snip]
(It will obviously be reduced because of the increase in penalties, etc).
You have identified the key issues:
- Sort out the courts.
- Get the shared-care formula right.
John Ward
Charles Atkinson
John Ward wrote in message <37b0a...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
[snip]
>>They are men who would, if only they could, look after
their children
>>all of the time just like they did when they were in the
marital home.
>>But post seperation/divorce these very same men find that
they are
>>effectively excluded from the lives of their children
except for (if they
>>are lucky) MacDonalds weekends. They are essentially
reduced to
>>the role of part time uncle.
>
>True. So focus on what stops this from happening. And it
isn't the CSA.
It can be, if the exclusion mechanism is financial -- as in,
after paying according to the CSA formula, it is financially
impossible for the father to maintain contact.
C
John Ward
<934371340.17749.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>John Ward wrote in message <37b0a...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
[snip]
>>True. So focus on what stops this from happening. And it
>>isn't the CSA.
>
>It can be, if the exclusion mechanism is financial -- as in,
>after paying according to the CSA formula, it is financially
>impossible for the father to maintain contact.
Philosophy: would a FAIR shared-care formula leave one of the parents unable
to maintain contact? This would be a contradiction in terms. As I said,
let's sort out the shared-care formula.
Practice: you & I have views about what a fair shared-care formula may be, &
I suspect that we are both being unambitious in what we expect from the next
round of legislation.
The White Paper is bad on shared-care to an incredible extent. We think we
may be able to move it forward to a vaguely-plausible state. But it will
still fall short of the ideal. (Is that the intention? Make us think we've
won if we achieve a rather poor compromise?)
I've been looking at shared-care formulae across the USA. A question on
news:alt.child-support pointed me at a very useful site:
http://www.supportguidelines.com/
The USA takes this FAR more seriously. Probably because of the requirement
that any statement is "rebuttable". States need to be able to defend their
formulae in court.
NRPs here shouldn't be too enthusiastic about following USA guidelines. Eg.
California uses "25%, 40%, 50%" of net income against the UK's proposed
"15%, 20%, 25%". Close to double the amounts. Nearly everywhere except
Canada has rates higher than the White Paper proposal.
But their guidelines expose the reasoning behind the amounts. The White
Paper doesn't. The latter goes badly wrong, yet the reasoning is
inadequately explained.
We need a relentless attack on the currently-proposed shared-care formula.
But while I have proposed a much fairer alternative, it lacks some
subtleties that a truly fair scheme would contain. But the latter may be
unachievable.
John Ward
John Ward
>John Ward wrote in message <37add...@news2.vip.uk.com>...>[snip]
>Forwarded to onl...@independent.co.uk
So I might as well withdraw my application to the Independent on Sunday for
a job working for the Political Editor?
If they reply, YOU will have to take responsibility for a sensible answer!
John Ward
John Ward
><to...@spacificrim.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>wage guerrilla war on CSA" about fathers avoiding paying child
maintenance.
>
arrange
>his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax liability", CIR v Grosvener
1936
>(IIRC).
>
>Why is there any moral difference between avoiding tax and avoiding the
CSA?
Moral rather than legal?
If you reduce your taxes by £1000 py, this affects all the people concerned
(59million people in the UK) by about 0.002P each py.
If you reduce your CS by that amount, you are affecting a very few people,
hence by a vastly larger amount. & while you may choose to believe you
haven't a responsibility to pay to build battleships, this is a flaky
argument when it comes to paying for the upbringing & success of your own
children.
Some people think that CS which simply reduces benefits is wasted.
Absolutely not!
Apart from the fact that the new scheme will provide a disregard for some of
that amount, a regular supply of CS puts the PWC on Income Support in a
different position from the PWC who has the same total income but doesn't
get that regular supply.
A PWC on Income Support who knows that CS is being paid regularly can have
more confidence in getting a job & claiming FC (disregard £15) or later WFTC
(total disregard). The CS helps the transition to work. It also provides
motivation.
If we think that the target for separated families is "two earning parents
sharing the care of their children", a regular supply of CS is important to
help achieve this.
John Ward
John Hill
wrote:
>If we think that the target for separated families is "two earning parents
>sharing the care of their children", a regular supply of CS is important to
>help achieve this.
But in many cass both parents are precluded from sharing care, by the
courts. Recent decisions have moved the frontiers backwards rather
than forwards.
"NO CS without contact allowed "
Sounds far better to me.
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>- Exceptions only arise where there is a FORMAL handover to another parent
>(eg. FORMAL adoption or FORMAL egg/sperm donation).
Lack of contact - formally. Care FORMALLY granted to one parent.
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>
>>They are men who would, if only they could, look after their children
>>all of the time just like they did when they were in the marital home.
>>But post seperation/divorce these very same men find that they are
>>effectively excluded from the lives of their children except for (if they
>>are lucky) MacDonalds weekends. They are essentially reduced to
>>the role of part time uncle.
>
>True. So focus on what stops this from happening. And it isn't the CSA.
So join the Equal Parenting Party.
John Hill
Andrew Horwood
<john...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 21:02:29 +0100, "John Ward" <john...@iclweb.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If we think that the target for separated families is "two earning parents
>>sharing the care of their children", a regular supply of CS is important to
>>help achieve this.
>
>But in many cass both parents are precluded from sharing care, by the
>courts. Recent decisions have moved the frontiers backwards rather
>than forwards.
>
>
>"NO CS without contact allowed "
>Sounds far better to me.
>
>John Hill
Agreed, apart from those who have no wish to play active parts in their
children's lives. They should be the ones that pay full whack, with a
sliding scale down to those who do 50/50 shared care (ie. nothing). Now
the question, how can you place someone on this scale..... ?? To what
degree, financially or otherwise, does the non-residential contribute to
the child(ren)'s well-being ?
A tough cookie, but I would prefer this to the universal branding that a
lot of us are in at the moment.
--
Andrew Horwood
John Hill
<an...@ouzo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Agreed, apart from those who have no wish to play active parts in their
>children's lives. They should be the ones that pay full whack, with a
>sliding scale down to those who do 50/50 shared care (ie. nothing). Now
>the question, how can you place someone on this scale..... ?? To what
>degree, financially or otherwise, does the non-residential contribute to
>the child(ren)'s well-being ?
So what do you do when PWC alienates QC ?
John Hill
John Ward
[JW said]
>>Eg. California uses "25%, 40%, 50%" of net income against the
>>UK's proposed "15%, 20%, 25%".
>
>if they lost 40-50% of their net.
Hm! Barely able to live close to their current standard of living, but not
the rest!
I think the logic in the USA is "there is your child, pay your contribution
to it according to researched expenditure amounts". There is no implication
that you have to be able to afford a house or a 2nd family or whatever
afterwards. That is your problem to resolve. If you can't, don't.
Obviously this approach contributes to their rate of defaulters. But if they
didn't say this, I assume the PWC could take the matter to court.
>I have no idea, but could it be, for example, that the virtually
>automatic (in the UK) handover of the matrimonial home with
>everything else might not be the norm over there?
No idea.
But apparently the standard amounts assume that the the NRP will have 20%
contact. (So shared-care reductions start after 20%)
>Or that there are plenty of allowable deductions before the 40-50% is
>calculated?
The California guidelines say:
"Net income is calculated by taking a person's total income and subtracting
certain expenses, such as federal and state income taxes, health insurance
premiums, state disability insurance, and Social Security taxes. The judge
may also consider other expenses, including the cost of raising a child from
another relationship, exceptional health care expenses, uninsured
catastrophic losses, mandatory union dues, or retirement contributions."
http://www.childsup.cahwnet.gov/calc.htm
(My own experience of having a step-daughter is that children are VERY
expensive. I assume that research suggests that my experience is not
unique).
John Ward
SJenki8495
>Date: Fri, 13 August 1999 03:53 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37b6cb33.639308957@news.
snip
>The average UK male income is about 18k I think, i.e. about 13k net.
>One can indeed live on 6-7k but it is very hard, you are looking at a
>rented bedsit, etc. I don't think this is a good way to go especially
>as from age of about 5-6 the mother can go to work part-time.
I live on 8K per an, with two kids who both requere after school child care. No
doubt I would be better of claiming but prefer not to. On the other hand I
would have no such scrupples about accepting CS from the AP. Now his arreas are
in the stratosphear and after 6 yrs and of course he blames the agencey and
they him.
>
>Admittedly at higher salaries the situation becomes easier, but most
>cases of higher salaries are ones where the man is well motivated to
>earn the high salary, and to lose half of it would be exceedingly
>demotivating.
To be honist I couldnt give a flying f*** if my ex is demotivated. No doubt it
is complealty selfish but as we get no CS and I work my gutts out to keep us
afloat whille he lives the life of Ryley.
I coudl live with him demotivated!!!! His worse night mare is that I get a bit
demotivated vis caring 100% for the kids and ask him to be more than a big
brother (a 46 yr old idiot!)
SueJ
>
Grey Feathers
--
Louisa
Contact me on ICQ: 3918392
Fax: (UK) 0870 056 1322
(International) +44 870 056 1322
Homepage: http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Training your bird for a harness:
http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/training.htm
[Bringer of Peace] and [Book of Ways] stories archived at
http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/dragons.htm
John Hill
<lou...@psycho-pets.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ha! In our household, male income is around £13,000 gross.
So much
John Hill
SJenki8495
>Date: Fri, 13 August 1999 11:36 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37b43a35...@195.8.69.73>
wish ours was!
SueJ
>
>John Hill
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ann-Marie
Thomas wrote in message <37b6cb33....@news.netcomuk.co.uk>...
>
>The average UK male income is about 18k I think, i.e. about 13k net.
>One can indeed live on 6-7k but it is very hard, you are looking at a
>rented bedsit, etc.
LOL.....Have to disagree I'm afraid......
When ex-hubby-to-be was a full time undergraduate student we had an income
from grant and allownaces of 6K. The student loan took it up to just over
7K.
I 'managed' that money so that it stretched to paying a mortgage and
maintaining the house, running a car, and keeping two adults, one teenager
and two pre-schoolers fit and healthy. Added to which we were *not*
entitled to free school dinners, housing benefit, prescriptions or anything
else for that matter. We did get c/b and a 25% discount on c/t......whoopie
wow!
Cheers
Ann Marie
tede-el
now that my response described a knee jerk emotional response rather than
thought through justification. However I still think no one should be
surprised if victims) make the (unjustifiable) linkage between contact and
support or if the rights of a taxpayer are considered secondary by a victim.
(When in say victim I mean it in any sense) Recognise victims come in all
shapes, sizes and categories, sorry I focused on just one, but the only one
I know.
In other words it is the difference between perception and reality. To some
extent we/they ought to deal with the perception of what is being done as
well as actuality of what is being done.
I appreciate that this is possibly a generation caught in the crossfire.
That we are in a lose/lose situation. I.e. we are the victims who fall
between the time before and the time after implementation. Some got away
with it, we got caught, but ostensibly so that those (who come) after us may
not suffer. We are the expendable ones. When this bit of social engineering
has (or not) achieved its aims, (responsible parenting), then it will be too
late, we will be lost and forgotten.
Ahh victimhood, it is tempting.
But I am amazed at the level of debate here. Apart from the bitching, a lot
of well thought out argument goes on here. Baroness Hollis would be well
advised to log on.
Toby
tede-el <to...@spacificrim.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:934232769.1579.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Jill Ashmore
Jill
Grey Feathers <lou...@psycho-pets.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:934556224.23294.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Ha! In our household, male income is around £13,000 gross.
>
Andrew Horwood
<john...@hotmail.com> writes
John, I don't know what QC is !! I am familiar with PWC alienation and
manipulation of our daughter though !
--
Andrew Horwood
Ann-Marie
Andrew Horwood wrote in message ...
>In article <37b50235...@195.8.69.73>, John Hill
>John, I don't know what QC is !!
QC = Qualifying Child
Cheers
Ann Marie
Ann-Marie
tede-el wrote in message
<934574066.4726.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Anne Marie, john ward and everyone else thanks for the feed back. Realise
>now that my response described a knee jerk emotional response rather than
>thought through justification. However I still think no one should be
>surprised if victims) make the (unjustifiable) linkage between contact and
>support or if the rights of a taxpayer are considered secondary by a
victim.
I understand where you are coming from......but I suppose I see it both
ways.....there are too many men who have been held to ransom by their exes
via the kids...... "you don't pay so you don't get to see them" type
stuff.....
If, as a PWC, I announced that I wasn't going to let my ex see our kids
because he didn't contribute towards them financially.....there are any
number on this NG who would shoot me down in flames for 'linking' contact
and child support.....
Similarly, it can't go the other way.......
All I can say is that the court system for dedicated dads can be pretty shit
for both the kids and the dads.....but, and it is a big, huge 'BUT'.....can
you imagine the chaos if the CSA were in charge of contact issues too? God
forbid that that should ever happen!
>(When in say victim I mean it in any sense) Recognise victims come in all
>shapes, sizes and categories, sorry I focused on just one, but the only one
>I know.
>
>In other words it is the difference between perception and reality. To some
>extent we/they ought to deal with the perception of what is being done as
>well as actuality of what is being done.
LOL.......yep......at the moment I hate men.....;-) I suppose it is a bit
easier though 'cause I've worn so many 'hats'. I'm now a PWC with an
errant, deadbeat, feckless father AP; I've been the second wife of a PWC/AP;
my kids are the 'second family' of an AP/PWC. As an AP my husband and I had
all the shit with getting contact orders and residency that comes with a
contact obstructive ex wife and as a PWC we had to endure initiation into
the usage of a useless CSA.
Confused.....LOL I must say that I've only been married once....it is just
that hubby changed from an AP to a PWC.....
Still bloody amazes me how he can now decide to up and duck out on his
kids....all of them.....and find any excuse in the book not to have contact
with them......
>I appreciate that this is possibly a generation caught in the crossfire.
>That we are in a lose/lose situation. I.e. we are the victims who fall
>between the time before and the time after implementation. Some got away
>with it, we got caught, but ostensibly so that those (who come) after us
may
>not suffer. We are the expendable ones. When this bit of social engineering
>has (or not) achieved its aims, (responsible parenting), then it will be
too
>late, we will be lost and forgotten.
'Responsible parenting'......any chance you can define that and forward it
to my ex? LOL
>Ahh victimhood, it is tempting.
Innit just....
>But I am amazed at the level of debate here. Apart from the bitching, a lot
>of well thought out argument goes on here. Baroness Hollis would be well
>advised to log on.
Nah....against their rules.....they would have to face 'personalities'
instead of paper pushing 'names'.....
Cheers
Ann Marie
Jill Ashmore
and moral conscience, (Is a conscience always moral?) and then be incapable
of continueing in their careers.
Jill
Grey Feathers
are a lot lot worse off than you'd expect for that amount. We are in the
SE, and living costs are substantially higher than elsewhere...
I really didn't expect that sort of remark when I came here. Jeez.
--
Louisa
Contact me on ICQ: 3918392
Fax: (UK) 0870 056 1322
(International) +44 870 056 1322
Homepage: http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Training your bird for a harness:
http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/training.htm
[Bringer of Peace] and [Book of Ways] stories archived at
http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/dragons.htm
John Hill wrote in message <37b43a35...@195.8.69.73>...
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:57:26 +0100, "Grey Feathers"
<lou...@psycho-pets.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ha! In our household, male income is around £13,000 gross.
So much
John Hill
Grey Feathers
--
Louisa
Contact me on ICQ: 3918392
Fax: (UK) 0870 056 1322
(International) +44 870 056 1322
Homepage: http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Training your bird for a harness:
http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/training.htm
[Bringer of Peace] and [Book of Ways] stories archived at
http://www.psycho-pets.demon.co.uk/dragons.htm
Ann-Marie wrote in message <7p1q6k$hnc$1...@barcode.tesco.net>...
John Hill
<an...@ouzo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John, I don't know what QC is !! I am familiar with PWC alienation and
>manipulation of our daughter though !
Qualifying child.
My son returned another letter yesterday
John Hill
Pat Winstanley
<lou...@psycho-pets.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ann Marie - how did you do it! We all need tips I think!
Same way as most people in that situation do it. (I had to too, with a
couple of kids and a mortgage on a grant/loan situation). You simply
do without luxuries like car, phone, tv, new clothes for adults (and
usually new clothes, rather than hand-me downs for the kids). You shop
carefully for food and cook meals from raw ingredients rather than
buying processed or ready-to-eat foods. You walk rather than get the
bus, and you don't go to the cinema or the theatre or buy books
(libraries are useful even if you have to walk several miles each way
to borrow books). You don't have a hi-fi or video player so you
aren't tempted to buy CDs or video tapes.
You don't use lights or heat more than you must. You must wash
clothes, but you work it so that the best clothes you have are *kept*
for best. You don't wear them unless you must. Meanwhile the jeans can
last several days, one day for looking neat and clean, one for
lounging around, and one for doing the cleaning. Then you switch to
the only other pair you own while the first pair is in the wash. You
don't use a tumble drier - use a maiden. You wash everything on the
lowest temp and shortest cycle you can...
If furniture and fittings are getting shabby or broken you clean them
as best you can with elbow grease rather than expensive cleaning
fluids, and patch them up where necessary with reclaimed nails/screws
etc from the ones that have finally collapsed altogether.
You grow what food you can in the garden, or indoors in pots if that's
all the space you have, concentrating on those that are expensive to
buy but easy to grow. If you have access to an allotment so much the
better... and eat meat/fish/poultry/veg/fruit when it's cheap - no
need for meat and two veg every meal... make your own fruit yoghurt
from the natural stuff plus squished fruit that's going cheap on the
market stall as it's overripe... bake your own cakes and biscuits.
Look out for and buy in bulk if you can, but definitely make use of
shop brands which are often as good but half to two thirds the price
of branded equivalents (Weetabix substitutes are excellent -
cornflakes substitutes are awful, and coffee may or may not be
palatable depending on your taste). Dried pasta/pulses are much
cheaper than fresh, and just as tasty - just take longer to prepare.
Make your own burgers and fish fingers.
You make presents for people rather than buying them (library is great
for arts and crafts gift ideas), and make them mainly from scrap
materials with the minimum possible spent on buying in materials....
and so on...
On the whole you forget about 'keeping up appearances' and concentrate
on the absolute basic necessities... so what if the house is shabby -
it's clean. So what if the food is plain and boring - it is filling
and nutritious. So what if you can't wear designer clothes - they
don't need a label to keep you warm and decent...
You swap stuff with friends and learn to be unembarrassed when they
offer you something they would otherwise be throwing away but is
servicable and you can make good use of...
Lots of ways... but most of them require that you modify your pride
and accept that for now at least, however hard you work, you have to
accept that things like holidays are out of the question, and you MUST
make a shopping list and stick to it (no extras - oh, that looks
nice)...
Pat Winstanley
John Ward
>If the CSA did log on there would be the danger of them developing
>a social and moral conscience, (Is a conscience always moral?) and
>then be incapable of continueing in their careers.
Why?
What do you think they would learn here that would change their attitude to
such a degree?
I suspect that their views would be:
- "Our objectives are right (too many children are being abandoned by one of
the parents, & too many are receiving inadequate or unpredictable financial
support)." This is quite true.
- "We are delivering an unacceptable service to many affected parents, &
while we are improving year by year it is too slow; the formula, our
resourcing, & management inertia is holding us back." This is also quite
true.
This NG wouldn't tell them anything they haven't been told by countless
reports from committees & agencies, etc.
Lots of people complain about the CSA in terms which suggest they think
their objections & proposed changes are self-evident. They are not. The only
consensus here is that the CSA's admin sucks. The government says it
addressing this.
The typical unfocused RANT here plays right into the government's hands.
They just have to say "yes, we agree, we are addressing that with the White
Paper" & they've won!
-----
OBVIOUSLY some staff from the CSA read this NG! How could anyone imagine
otherwise? (On occasion they've posted, but the reception has been
discouraging).
Some of them are perfectly normal people who are caught up in a system they
don't like. They are trying to get money transferred to children from the
parents who are financially responsible for them, but the procedures for
doing this are dodgy.
And many of these parents (perhaps 300,000 of them) resist as much as they
can. (VERY roughly, the stats from one month or year to the next are: 1/3
pays the set amount; 1/3 pays too little; 1/3 doesn't pay).
-----
John Ward
Ann-Marie
Thomas wrote in message <37c3cc3b...@news.netcomuk.co.uk>...
>
>
>OK, I didn't say it can't be done, but where do you live? Start with
>say £120 pw, here in the South East you lose half of that in rent to
>start with.
A little village in South Wales.
My mortgage comes in at about £280 per month....
I didn't say it was easy....crumbs, you learn pretty damn quick how to make
a chicken last for 3 meals!.....but it can be done.....the bills were paid
and the kids were clothed, fed and healthy - essentials were met but you
haven't got a chance in hell of treating yourself to non essentials - they
become 'luxuries'.
Cheers
Ann Marie
>
Charles Atkinson
John Ward wrote in message <37b7...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
[snip]
>OBVIOUSLY some staff from the CSA read this NG! How could
anyone imagine
>otherwise? (On occasion they've posted, but the reception
has been
>discouraging).
Worse than that, Jim...
The reception has not been too bad (apart from one very
arrogant individual). The big problem is that posting on
this newsgroup is a serious disciplinary offence in the CSA
(perhaps the only one?!), even if members of staff post in a
private capacity.
[snip]
C
John Ward
<934819528.4205.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>John Ward wrote in message <37b7...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
>[snip]
>>OBVIOUSLY some staff from the CSA read this NG! How
>>could anyone imagine otherwise? (On occasion they've
>>posted, but the reception has been discouraging).
>
>Worse than that, Jim...
>
>The reception has not been too bad (apart from one very
>arrogant individual).
That's the one I had in mind! (Note that the original post was actually
about the CSA reading the NG).
>The big problem is that posting on this newsgroup is a
>serious disciplinary offence in the CSA (perhaps the
>only one?!), even if members of staff post in a private capacity.
Ah!
I wonder where that would get to in court? (Think of the "whistle-blowers'
law").
James T Kirk, Captain (deceased)
Jill Ashmore
What I have focused on is: that while you are arguing the legal details of
the case, they start deducting arrears in big chunks, and are very slow to
take on board alterations to their original assessment, to make sure that
you can not pay for the legal advice you need to fight them, like it is a
race you were favourite to win, but now they have cut one of your legs off
just to see if you can still do it!
So, what should we do to make the CSA easier for us to deal with? The local
office has only just started to answer our letters since our MP wrote to
them. We surely can not pester him with every hic-cup we come across, can
we ?
Jill
John Ward <john...@iclweb.com> wrote in message
news:37b7...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> otherwise? (On occasion they've posted, but the reception has been
> discouraging).
>
Andrew Horwood
<Ladyd...@tesco.net> writes
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Ann Marie
>
>
>
Thanks A-M. like the Email address ! <g>
--
Andrew Horwood
Charles Atkinson
Jill Ashmore <57re...@lineone.net> wrote in message ...
[snip]
>So, what should we do to make the CSA easier for us to deal
with? The local
>office has only just started to answer our letters since
our MP wrote to
>them. We surely can not pester him with every hic-cup we
come across, can
>we ?
[snip]
Yes we can -- and it may be one of the best campaigning
tactics we've got.
The CSA (whatever it may think) is part of the civil service
and ultimately answerable to parliament. We've asked the
CSA to do its job properly endless times but they have not
and do not. What else can we do but make representations to
its masters? It may be helpful to send a separate copy of
every letter to our MPs to the Secretary of State for Social
Security -- or write direct to him with a separate copy to
our MPs
A formal complaint procedure can also help and draws further
attention to the problems. Unfortunately, the Independent
Complaints Examiner (ICE) now seems to have become bogged
down by overwork. If they are tardy (they are doing their
best but under-resourced) then why not send a letter to
their masters (Secretary of State and MP) asking that they
are given more resources?
C
Charles Atkinson
John Ward wrote in message <37b8...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
[snip]
>>The big problem is that posting on this newsgroup is a
>>serious disciplinary offence in the CSA (perhaps the
>>only one?!), even if members of staff post in a private
capacity.
>
>
>Ah!
>
>I wonder where that would get to in court? (Think of the
"whistle-blowers'
>law").
That's an interesting angle, Cap'n.
I wonder if we have any CSA staff lurking on the newsgroup
who are peed off enough with the agency to challenge them?
C
John Ward
>Jill Ashmore <57re...@lineone.net> wrote in message ...
[snip]
>>The local office has only just started to answer our letters
>>since our MP wrote to them. We surely can not pester him
>>with every hic-cup we come across, can we ?
>[snip]
>
>Yes we can -- and it may be one of the best campaigning
>tactics we've got.
[snip]
CSA complaints tend to be one of the largest single issues in MPs'
surgeries.
The result is that Parliamentary debates have a consensus that the CSA is a
mess that must be sorted out. They often have MPs apologising for helping to
create it in the 1st place. They want the pain (at least their own!) to go
away.
Evidence that the problem will continue after the reform would be one of the
strongest weapons for getting its grotty features sorted out. (For those MPs
who expect to be re-elected in the GE which will be about the same time).
John Ward
Angus Nicolson
<57re...@lineone.net> writes:
> We surely can not pester him with every hic-cup we come across, can
>we ?
Of course you should. That's what they are paid for - to represent
constituents interests. If the MPs realise the scale of the miserly caused by
the agency, then perhaps they will take a different attitude in the Commons.
Angus
Ann-Marie
Andrew Horwood wrote in message ...
>In article <7p2g7m$nd7$1...@epos.tesco.net>, Ann-Marie
><Ladyd...@tesco.net> writes
>
>Thanks A-M. like the Email address ! <g>
LOL......thanks Andrew....
At the time I was sorta thinking of a way of keeping the 'lady' (?!)
definition but still displaying a bit of patriotism....hence the choosing of
the Welsh Dragon.....
Didn't quite expect to be 'breathing fire' like I am at the moment though
courtesy of shit for brains himself...<g>
Cheers
Ann Marie
>
>--
>Andrew Horwood
Jill Ashmore
yards up the road. seems we could be on first name terms very soon.
Jill
Angus Nicolson <angus...@aol.com.aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990817190246...@ngol07.aol.com...
Binky
> >>wage guerrilla war on CSA" about fathers avoiding paying child
> maintenance.
> >
> >Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance legal. "Every man is entitled
to
> arrange
> >his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax liability", CIR v
Grosvener
> 1936
> >(IIRC).
> >
> >Why is there any moral difference between avoiding tax and avoiding
the
> CSA?
>
> Moral rather than legal?
>
> If you reduce your taxes by £1000 py, this affects all the people
concerned
> (59million people in the UK) by about 0.002P each py.
>
> If you reduce your CS by that amount, you are affecting a very few
people,
> hence by a vastly larger amount. & while you may choose to believe you
> haven't a responsibility to pay to build battleships, this is a flaky
> argument when it comes to paying for the upbringing & success of your
own
> children.
But of course if the system was fair, and payment was required only to
support the child (not the mother), to a reasonable standard (not this
bollox of if you earn more it costs more to bring up a child!!!), and
the payment was not drained off in admin costs of running the CSA, then
probably most AP's would willingly pay up.
Bloody wishy washy liberals always spoil it for everyone else.
--
Binky the Biker
Honda CBR600 '96
Yamaha SRX-6 '89
Honda TL125s '76
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
Pat Winstanley
Ann-Marie
Thomas wrote in message <37c502e4....@news.netcomuk.co.uk>...
>
>>Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
>
>to Yes. The reason is that one can "run" a child at different levels.
<snip>
Fair comments Thomas.....agree with it all - except:
And you
>can still get very good quality secondhand ones very cheaply.
Just about the only 'clothing' cost on children that you can't skimp on.
Their feet are still so soft and malleable with the bones still forming that
good quality, correctly fitting shoes are absolutely essential. Second hand
worn shoes will be 'fitted' to the shape etc of the feet of the previous
owner....this could damage the feet of a youngster that they are 'handed
down' to....
Sorry....having a child with some major foot problems does tend to clue one
up on this sort of stuff..... <climbing off soapbox>
>So you can see that a factor of five (at least) variation is quite
>feasible, and the kid will probably never notice the difference.
Or not for a couple of years anyway.....;-)
Cheers
Ann Marie
>
fried
>
>>Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
>
>Obviously you think the answer is No, but in fact the answer is closer
>to Yes. The reason is that one can "run" a child at different levels.
>
>To start with, when you drop the sprog you can go to Mothercare and
>blow away £1000 on the essentials to get started with (cot, etc). Or
>you can buy them secondhand for a fifth of that, at most.
Um, these calculations will no doubt exercise all sane mercenary capitalists
who are looking to gently nuzzle the discretionary spend from our pockets
wihtout us being aware of quite how.
Nevertheless, the answer is not really close to yes. This lot is elective,
at least while the supply of secondhand clothes more than meets demand.
Moreover, it is not necessarily a case of being rich and poor - middle-class
families sometimes have quite a penchant for the simple life in such things,
and foibles and quirks make for weird income-spend ratios, those who often
crave the legitimacy of the material tokens of society are also those who
will aspire to them.
Not close to yes at all.
Julian
John Hill
(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
Does it cost more to keep if you earn more ?
John Hill
Binky
> >But of course if the system was fair, and payment was required only
to
> >support the child (not the mother), to a reasonable standard (not
this
> >bollox of if you earn more it costs more to bring up a child!!!), and
> >the payment was not drained off in admin costs of running the CSA,
then
> >probably most AP's would willingly pay up.
> >
> >Bloody wishy washy liberals always spoil it for everyone else.
>
> Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
>
> Pat Winstanley
>
DOES IT COST ANY MORE TO BRING UP A CHILD JUST BECAUSE YOU EARN MORE!!!
My point is that there must be a sensible average cost for maintaining a
child, after all the Benefits system allows a certain amount,
unemployment allows a certain amount, it is not related to income, it is
related to what is needed as a minimal level of requirement, why is this
not the same??
John Hill
wrote:
>>
>DOES IT COST ANY MORE TO BRING UP A CHILD JUST BECAUSE YOU EARN MORE!!!
ONLY IF YOU ARE JOHN WARD, PAT W or HMG.
John Hill
John Ward
>>less?
>
Typically yes. Here are some factors which often cause children to COST
more:
- Parents who spend a lot of time earning often haven't time for all the
money saving methods. (Eg. shopping in markets; non-ready meals).
- Parents who spend a lot of time earning often rely more on childcare.
(People who use childcare a lot tend to spend MORE per-hour on childcare).
- Parents who intend to maintain their skills & careers often avoid career
breaks. This relies on childcare. (Perhaps £34k over a child's lifetime).
Usual disclaimers: these are not always true, they depend on local
conditions, and relate more to "time" & "skills" & "career breaks" than to
actual "earnings". But there are obvious correlations between these.
John Ward
John Hill
wrote:
>- Parents who spend a lot of time earning often haven't time for all the
>money saving methods. (Eg. shopping in markets; non-ready meals)
They're too lazy
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>- Parents who spend a lot of time earning often rely more on childcare.
>(People who use childcare a lot tend to spend MORE per-hour on childcare).
But don't have to of course
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>- Parents who intend to maintain their skills & careers often avoid career
>breaks. This relies on childcare. (Perhaps £34k over a child's lifetime).
Bring back the extended family I say.
John Hill
fried
>>can still get very good quality secondhand ones very cheaply.
>
>Just about the only 'clothing' cost on children that you can't skimp on.
>Their feet are still so soft and malleable with the bones still forming that
>good quality, correctly fitting shoes are absolutely essential. Second hand
>worn shoes will be 'fitted' to the shape etc of the feet of the previous
>owner....this could damage the feet of a youngster that they are 'handed
>down' to....
>
>Sorry....having a child with some major foot problems does tend to clue one
>up on this sort of stuff..... <climbing off soapbox>
You may be wrong - Clarkes certainly was for me.
<hops down nimbly off shoebox>
Julian
PS: Do points mean prizes for negative publicity towards a British shoe
manufacturer?
John Ward
[snip]
>DOES IT COST ANY MORE TO BRING UP A CHILD JUST BECAUSE
>YOU EARN MORE!!!
See my post in response to a similar question from John Hill.
Yes it obviously does.
>My point is that there must be a sensible average cost for
>maintaining a child, after all the Benefits system allows a
>certain amount, unemployment allows a certain amount,
>it is not related to income, it is related to what is needed
>as a minimal level of requirement, why is this not the same??
The benefit system is concerned with poverty relief - ensuring that people
don't starve. Is this what you want for your children - just not starving?
Income Support locks the claimant & children onto benefits, which means they
suffer social exclusion & massive lifelong loss of opportunity. It doesn't
provide the childcare needed for the claimant to really have a life. (It
assumes that the claimant IS the full time childcarer). This then locks the
CHILDREN onto the same level - and CHILDREN is what this is all about.
YOU may want to pay just enough to ensure that your children don't starve.
Society will continue to think that this is an inadequate target. Society is
more likely to see what a parent in your circumstances normally pays for the
children, & set a rate near (eg.60%) of this.
John Ward
John Rawson
<pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> writes
>>support the child (not the mother), to a reasonable standard (not this
>>bollox of if you earn more it costs more to bring up a child!!!), and
>>the payment was not drained off in admin costs of running the CSA, then
>>probably most AP's would willingly pay up.
>>
>>Bloody wishy washy liberals always spoil it for everyone else.
>
>
No, but you make adjustments according to your means. An absent father
with a reasonable income will have to pay either:
A) To a mother on benefit. In which case she will have to adjust to a
state minimum income while the surplus CS goes to the treasury.
B) To a mother not on benefit to spend the money as she pleases. In
other words (possibly) spending an absolute minimum on the children.
This is the basis for objections to the CSA, in my view anyway.
--
John Rawson
John Rawson
<fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk> writes
>>And you
>>>can still get very good quality secondhand ones very cheaply.
>>
>>Just about the only 'clothing' cost on children that you can't skimp on.
>>Their feet are still so soft and malleable with the bones still forming that
>>good quality, correctly fitting shoes are absolutely essential. Second hand
>>worn shoes will be 'fitted' to the shape etc of the feet of the previous
>>owner....this could damage the feet of a youngster that they are 'handed
>>down' to....
>>
>>Sorry....having a child with some major foot problems does tend to clue one
>>up on this sort of stuff..... <climbing off soapbox>
>
>You may be wrong - Clarkes certainly was for me.
My opinion is that I don't need shoe fitting experts and expensive shoes
for my boy. You make sure it goes on fairly easily, you feel round the
shoe and feel the toes for a bit of breathing space, you watch for signs
of discomfort. Kids aren't shy in letting you know that that something
is wrong or even just mildly annoying them so what's the problem ?
>
><hops down nimbly off shoebox>
>
>Julian
>
>PS: Do points mean prizes for negative publicity towards a British shoe
>manufacturer?
>
--
John Rawson
John Rawson
<fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk> writes
>>
>>to Yes. The reason is that one can "run" a child at different levels.
>>
>>To start with, when you drop the sprog you can go to Mothercare and
>>you can buy them secondhand for a fifth of that, at most.
>
>Um, these calculations will no doubt exercise all sane mercenary capitalists
>who are looking to gently nuzzle the discretionary spend from our pockets
>wihtout us being aware of quite how.
>
>Nevertheless, the answer is not really close to yes. This lot is elective,
>at least while the supply of secondhand clothes more than meets demand.
>Moreover, it is not necessarily a case of being rich and poor - middle-class
>families sometimes have quite a penchant for the simple life in such things,
>and foibles and quirks make for weird income-spend ratios, those who often
>crave the legitimacy of the material tokens of society are also those who
>will aspire to them.
>
>Not close to yes at all.
>
>Julian
>
Being a mere mortal ( and in a provoking mood ) and I didn't quite
understand what's being said here. Can we have this in laymans terms...
--
John Rawson
John Rawson
<john...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
>
>
>
No, but you might get a Christmas card from the treasury !
--
John Rawson
John Rawson
writes
>Binky wrote in message <7q0rcc$po0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>[snip]
>>DOES IT COST ANY MORE TO BRING UP A CHILD JUST BECAUSE
>>YOU EARN MORE!!!
>
>See my post in response to a similar question from John Hill.
>
>Yes it obviously does.
>
>>My point is that there must be a sensible average cost for
>>maintaining a child, after all the Benefits system allows a
>>certain amount, unemployment allows a certain amount,
>>it is not related to income, it is related to what is needed
>>as a minimal level of requirement, why is this not the same??
>
>
>The benefit system is concerned with poverty relief - ensuring that people
>don't starve. Is this what you want for your children - just not starving?
If you are a father paying the CSA for a mother on benefit then this is
the net result of your contribution!
>
>Income Support locks the claimant & children onto benefits, which means they
>suffer social exclusion & massive lifelong loss of opportunity. It doesn't
>provide the childcare needed for the claimant to really have a life. (It
>assumes that the claimant IS the full time childcarer). This then locks the
>CHILDREN onto the same level - and CHILDREN is what this is all about.
So why reduce the benefits by (almost) the same amount as CS payments ?
>
>YOU may want to pay just enough to ensure that your children don't starve.
>Society will continue to think that this is an inadequate target. Society is
>more likely to see what a parent in your circumstances normally pays for the
>children, & set a rate near (eg.60%) of this.
>
As I've just said, if the amount of CS would ensure that the children
don't starve then the government will adjust the benefit so that they
still don't, but only just.
>
>John Ward
>
--
John Rawson
Ann-Marie
John Hill wrote in message <37c60ab0...@195.8.69.73>...
>>(People who use childcare a lot tend to spend MORE per-hour on childcare).
>
>But don't have to of course
Nope......I come far cheaper than the half childcare costs that I and ex
would have to find each for the three kids...... The state sure doesn't pay
me £1.75 per hour (half of the £3.50 per hour c/c costs locally) per child.
There is no shared care arrangement for the kids (because he doesn't want
them) so realistically it could be argued from my POV that ex should be
responsible for half the childcare costs and pay me for looking after his
kids rather than pay a childminder. He is not prepared to reduce my 'time
requirement' by inputting hands on care himself..... Hmmm....now that would
soon add up to far more than the £30 ish average CSA payment....
In benefits I get less each week money wise to support myself and the three
kids than childcare would actually cost were I to return to work while one
child was still pre-school. It is ridiculous.
Child care cost is a *huge* issue facing single parents (both male and
female).....it won't go away and it can't be ignored......no matter how
'boring'....;-)
If I took my son's problems out of the equation and viewed it from a
'normal' family viewpoint.....if I didn't have to worry about c/c....I could
return to work at the drop of a hat! You wouldn't see me for dust...I'd be
down to the nearest temping agency lining up work for next week. But, in
reality, it is a totally uneconomical proposition.
Cheers
Ann Marie
fried
>>Not close to yes at all.
>>
>>Julian
>>
>
>Being a mere mortal ( and in a provoking mood ) and I didn't quite
>understand what's being said here. Can we have this in laymans terms...
No.
Julian
fried
wrote:
>
>John Hill wrote in message <37c60ab0...@195.8.69.73>...
>>On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:22:50 +0100, "John Ward" <john...@iclweb.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>- Parents who spend a lot of time earning often rely more on childcare.
>>>(People who use childcare a lot tend to spend MORE per-hour on childcare).
>>
>>But don't have to of course
>
>Nope......I come far cheaper than the half childcare costs that I and ex
>would have to find each for the three kids...... The state sure doesn't pay
>me £1.75 per hour (half of the £3.50 per hour c/c costs locally) per child.
>There is no shared care arrangement for the kids (because he doesn't want
>them) so realistically it could be argued from my POV that ex should be
>responsible for half the childcare costs and pay me for looking after his
>kids rather than pay a childminder. He is not prepared to reduce my 'time
>requirement' by inputting hands on care himself..... Hmmm....now that would
>soon add up to far more than the £30 ish average CSA payment....
>
>In benefits I get less each week money wise to support myself and the three
>kids than childcare would actually cost were I to return to work while one
>child was still pre-school. It is ridiculous.
>
>Child care cost is a *huge* issue facing single parents (both male and
>female).....it won't go away and it can't be ignored......no matter how
>'boring'....;-)
I agree, it is the one weak link in a stance which supports imple living
necessities as the default. It is already included as a component in our
blueprint for change for this reason.
It is a question of equity, and those who push equity arguments on one front
cannot simply ignore them on another.
I would be interested if you could come up with any suggestions as to how to
deal with separated parents who WILL not take their share of childcare. So
far we have failed to come up with anything which isn't
semi-fascistpotentially, apart from social coaxing, so we just exempted this
question from treatment, for the moment.
Julian
Binky
john...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:22:50 +0100, "John Ward" <john...@iclweb.com>
> wrote:
>
career
> >breaks. This relies on childcare. (Perhaps £34k over a child's
lifetime).
>
> Bring back the extended family I say.
>
> John Hill
>
revert to the Natural order of "Survival of the fittest" and every "MAN"
for himself!!
Works for me.
Binky
> YOU may want to pay just enough to ensure that your children don't
starve.
> Society will continue to think that this is an inadequate target.
Society is
> more likely to see what a parent in your circumstances normally pays
for the
> children, & set a rate near (eg.60%) of this.
>
> John Ward
>
>
Yes, But society is fake, it is/was generated under a false dilusion
that man is anything other than an animal that should live by it's
instinct and witts. Society is to blame for most of mans ills and
suffering, and the sooner that man starts to live by the code of
"survival od the fittest" and the most able, the better.
This sort of Mamby Pamby Liberal wish wash only extends the pain and
suffering.
And by the way, Yes the minimal level of support for my unplanned,
unwanted, unneeded and disowned (if it were possible) child would suit
me!!
Binky
over generations for!!
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>I would be interested if you could come up with any suggestions as to how to
>deal with separated parents who WILL not take their share of childcare
The simple answer is that they either do it themselves or must pay
someone else to do it for them (obviously if they can find someone to
do so for free then great). If they won't do it themselves and nobody
is prepared to do it for them for less than the going rate then they
pay the going rate (about minimum wage) to whoever is caring for their
child while they won't.Their choice.
So in A-M's case (but ignoring the special needs of one of the
children to make calculations easier) where Dad won't look after the
children himself for half the time, he should pay A-M half a week's
minimum wage for the childcare service she is providing him. How she
finances the other half of the childcare costs is her problem. This
childcare cost is on top of Dad's share of the children's other needs
such as food, clothing, housing, travel etc...
Let's say £3 per child per day (about benefit levels - around £20 per
week per child) for the food/clothing/heat/light/travel/miscellaneous
expenses - three kids - about £30 per week for A-M and the kids' dad
to find each. Plus about £70 from the Dad to pay for her doing 20 hrs
(all three kids) necessary childminding for him at minimum wage,
looking after his share of the children's childcare needs during the
working week... so he should be providing about £100 per week as a
fair *minumum* total towards the children's direct and indirect needs.
Or, of course, he could pay the 70 odd quid to a childminder (would
buy him about 7 hours per child per week of care, not 20 hrs), or he
could look after the kids himself for half the working week and take a
20 hr per week pay cut (how much would he lose in earnings for
dropping 20 hrs? More or less than £70?)... or she could use the 70 to
pay for a childminder instead of doing the work for him herself, and
hence have 20 hours free (the minimum time he SHOULD be caring for the
kids) in which she could earn in order to provide her half share of
the children's needs (inc their childcare for the other 20 hours) as
well as her own needs.
Kids are expensive, especially if there are several and they are
fairly young. You either have to pay someone else to care for them
while you earn, or you have to take a cut in earnings in order to do
it yourself. Both parents should be made to realise that they BOTH
have this problem to solve. For different people it may be economical
or not to pay someone else to care for their children while they are
out earning. A lot depends upon the children's needs, how many
children and their ages, suitable childcare availability and cost and
the availability of other paid work in the area and its rate of pay.
Often a SAH (unwaged) mum or dad is more economical in net terms than
commercial childcare while that mum/dad earns.
Childcare (the cost of it) has to be about the biggest problem facing
lone parents when they are trying to earn a living.
I reckon A-M (again taking no account of special needs) would have to
be earning about the national average wage (around £20k) to stand
still financially compared to benefits if the children's dad isn't
providing his (say £100 worth per week) share of their basic needs
(inc his share of the childcare or childcare costs while they BOTH are
out earning).
And this is a fairly typical family with children at toddler, infant
and early junior ages - the older two needing before and after school
and school holiday childcare and the younger full-time childcare..
That the average CS payment is about £40 per week at the moment makes
it pretty clear that such means one parent is almost bound to be on
benefits unless the other parent contributes their half of the normal
working week childcare costs in either time or money!
If NRPs want to see the PWCs earning rather than drawing benefits they
will have to provide either time or finance for their share of the
childcare *during the normal working week hours*. Weekend hands-on
care by the NRP is pretty useless as childminding for earning for the
PWC whose earning potential is, like most people's, 9-5, Mon-Fri etc.
If the parents manage to have a situation where one earns mainly at
the weekend and one mainly during the week then there's lots of
potential for sharing care without incurring more than minimal
childcare costs, but if both are weektime earners it's not as simple
as it looks.
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:22:50 +0100, "John Ward" <john...@iclweb.com>
>wrote:
>
>>- Parents who intend to maintain their skills & careers often avoid career
>>breaks. This relies on childcare. (Perhaps £34k over a child's lifetime).
>
>Bring back the extended family I say.
Which ones? The extended family members who are dead, infirm, live
many miles away, also earn a living during the normal working
week...?
Which ones?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>
>
>> >But of course if the system was fair, and payment was required only
>to
>> >support the child (not the mother), to a reasonable standard (not
>this
>> >bollox of if you earn more it costs more to bring up a child!!!), and
>> >the payment was not drained off in admin costs of running the CSA,
>then
>> >probably most AP's would willingly pay up.
>> >
>> >Bloody wishy washy liberals always spoil it for everyone else.
>>
>> Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
>>
>> Pat Winstanley
>>
>DOES IT COST ANY MORE TO BRING UP A CHILD JUST BECAUSE YOU EARN MORE!!!
>
>My point is that there must be a sensible average cost for maintaining a
>child, after all the Benefits system allows a certain amount,
>unemployment allows a certain amount, it is not related to income, it is
>related to what is needed as a minimal level of requirement, why is this
>not the same??
Because the benefit level is existence level... maybe... just about.
It isn't a sensible average cost for maintianing a child when
long-term factors are taken into account. It is the minimum that
people are supposed to be able to exist on for a few weeks/months, and
no more. It takes no real account of having to replace worn out or
broken or lost items. It takes no real account of the ability of the
family to continue things like life insurance, pensions etc for the
longer term. It makes no allowance whatsoever for the child to have an
even minimal social life for their emotional health/balance!
The sensible average cost for a child's overall development and growth
is a good deal more than benefit levels, but benefit levels will keep
the child alive and mainly healthy for short periods.
In order to maintain anything like a semblance of *normal* life for a
child of a family on long-term benefits the parents have to work far
more and harder than a full time job making ends meet at all even if
nothing goes wrong.
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<J...@sianotts.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Does a child cost less to support if you earn less?
>>
>>Pat Winstanley
>
>No, but you make adjustments according to your means. An absent father
>with a reasonable income will have to pay either:
>
>A) To a mother on benefit. In which case she will have to adjust to a
>state minimum income while the surplus CS goes to the treasury.
>
Nope... if there were a surplus the benefit claim would immediately
fail as the household income (inc CS) would be too high to qualify for
benefit.
>B) To a mother not on benefit to spend the money as she pleases. In
>other words (possibly) spending an absolute minimum on the children.
Or possibly spending far more... or more likjely spending all the CS
on the child (both hers and his shares) plus more.
Pat Winstanley
SJenki8495
>Date: Wed, 25 August 1999 11:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37c50a91...@195.8.69
>>- Parents who spend a lot of time earning often haven't time for all the
>>money saving methods. (Eg. shopping in markets; non-ready meals)
>
>They're too lazy
you know you dont mean that! there are only so many hrs ina day and peoepl in
my situation have to balnce domestic chores with spending time with child. Back
to when I win lottery I will never cook again!
Sue J
>
>John Hill
>
>
>
>
>
>
SJenki8495
>>(People who use childcare a lot tend to spend MORE per-hour on childcare).
>
>But don't have to of course
At the risk of sending you to sleep! Child care costs are teh key to this
wholle issue,and as I ahve very low housing costs are my bigist singel
expenditure by a mile! The point I want to make is that in order for me to
leave my kids I have to pay somone, and my chioces are limited by my lack of
money, ie unregisterd child minder/freind. The more I earn the more i would
spend (I am most defintly not ahppy with current arengemnt).My chioce but
surely not one you can critisise JH? As witht eh "bowl of rice" issue, why
shoudl kids in my situation have less good child care than those in intact
familys?
Ideally I would (when I win lottery) have them looked after int her own home by
somone compitent and caring who coudl help them with home work etc before i get
home. As I did before divorce, (7 yrs this week!!!!!). This is what I consider
to be best, not every one will agree but I think I should be ble to make such a
choice.
SueJ
>
>
>John Hill
>
>
>
>
>
>
SJenki8495
>Date: Wed, 25 August 19
>>DOES IT COST ANY MORE TO BRING UP A CHILD JUST BECAUSE YOU EARN MORE!!!
>
>ONLY IF YOU ARE JOHN WARD, PAT W or HMG.
Sorry JH stick me in here, my ex has rahter miraculesly just taken our kids to
Greece fro a week, it cost 3 and half grnad. my annuel income is 8K can any one
see that migth annoye me a bit?
The point is aprt from compaling that an 8 and 12 yr old were dreary ( theya re
not , theya re blissful normal kids) is that it is my ex who pays no CS, who
complains about t he standred of clothes they have. (clean mended, but not all
posh). I dont care how charcter building it is not to have stuff other kids do
I am quite unalbe to not strive to ensure they do. Which is why I plod on with
the CSA.
I am qute prepared to go along with the need to make preety huge adgustments in
sepertion situations, I can not how ever stomack IS amounts with the rest
discretinery spending, my ex is an example of what that leads to.
SueJ
>
>John Hill
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Hill
wrote:
>Child care cost is a *huge* issue facing single parents (both male and
>female).....it won't go away and it can't be ignored......no matter how
>'boring'....;-)
Not the issue - Pat's wittering on about it.
There are simple solutions if only there were executive will to
implement them.
Equal Parenting is part of that solution
Extension to school usage another.
John Hill
John Hill
>
>At the risk of sending you to sleep! Child care costs are teh key to this
>wholle issue,and as I ahve very low housing costs are my bigist singel
>expenditure by a mile! The point I want to make is that in order for me to
>leave my kids I have to pay somone, and my chioces are limited by my lack of
>money, ie unregisterd child minder/freind. The more I earn the more i would
>spend (I am most defintly not ahppy with current arengemnt).My chioce but
>surely not one you can critisise JH? As witht eh "bowl of rice" issue, why
>shoudl kids in my situation have less good child care than those in intact
>familys?
Sue I cannot and would not. If childcare is so central to the issue
why is it not being tackled by Saint Tony and his acolytes ?
Do they not see it as an issue.
If as JW infers constantly the govt / society have it right then why
is this not being tackled head on. For the same reason we don't have
subsidised trains perhap ?
John Hill
John Hill
>
>The point is aprt from compaling that an 8 and 12 yr old were dreary ( theya re
>not , theya re blissful normal kids) is that it is my ex who pays no CS, who
>complains about t he standred of clothes they have. (clean mended, but not all
>posh). I dont care how charcter building it is not to have stuff other kids do
>I am quite unalbe to not strive to ensure they do. Which is why I plod on with
>the CSA.
Then sort out the CSA.
or sue him for the debt.
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
> Is this what you want for your children - just not starving?
In my case - yes
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>YOU may want to pay just enough to ensure that your children don't starve.
>Society will continue to think that this is an inadequate target. Society is
>more likely to see what a parent in your circumstances normally pays for the
>children, & set a rate near (eg.60%) of this.
Society - I don't know them directly or indirectly. Who are society
John - the people on this ng, my partner, my family, you ?
John Hill
John Hill
(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>The sensible average cost for a child's overall development and growth
>is a good deal more than benefit levels, but benefit levels will keep
>the child alive and mainly healthy for short periods.
Plus discretionary spend from the parents. It might actually encourage
more of what the child really needs 2 parents.
John Hill
John Hill
(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>Or possibly spending far more... or more likjely spending all the CS
>on the child (both hers and his shares) plus more.
Dream on Pat
John Hill
John Hill
(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>>A) To a mother on benefit. In which case she will have to adjust to a
>>state minimum income while the surplus CS goes to the treasury.
>>
>
>Nope... if there were a surplus the benefit claim would immediately
>fail as the household income (inc CS) would be too high to qualify for
>benefit.
Read what he wrote . CS for benefits claimants is a Tax on the AP. No
more, no less.
John Hill
paul_jo...@my-deja.com
[snip]
> Sue I cannot and would not. If childcare is so central to the issue
> why is it not being tackled by Saint Tony and his acolytes ?
>
> Do they not see it as an issue.
> If as JW infers constantly the govt / society have it right then why
> is this not being tackled head on. For the same reason we don't have
> subsidised trains perhap ?
Perhaps - Saint Tony and his cronies have made noises about the
importance of childcare and insist that the new childcare tax credit
will help people get back into work, however the policy is not very
cohesive.
Under Working Families Tax Credit (now dubbed "The Better Deal for
Working Parents"!!) the childcare costs allowable are 70% of elligable
childcare costs up to £100 for one child or £150 for two or more, which
means that the absolute maximum is £70 for one child or £105 for two or
more. Also, the age at which childcare costs stop being payable is
raised from 12 to 15 (16 if the child is disabled).
However, from October Childcare costs for Housing Benefit purposes will
be allowable up to £70 for one child and £105 for two or more. This
sounds like the same thing until you actually look at an example:
Working parent(s) with one child and elligable childcare costs of £70
per week. Under WFTC they would receive an additional childcare credit
of 70% * £70 = £49. However, housing benefit would allow childcare
costs in full as it is within the limit of £70!
Somebody hasn't thought this through, how confusing is it going to be
for people who are claiming these costs?
John Hill
>Perhaps - Saint Tony and his cronies have made noises about the
>importance of childcare and insist that the new childcare tax credit
>will help people get back into work, however the policy is not very
>cohesive.
Yes, they are very good at making noises and not very good at cohesive
policies.
John Hill
tede-el
Binky <binky_t...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7q2puv$8b9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > YOU may want to pay just enough to ensure that your children don't
> starve.
> > Society will continue to think that this is an inadequate target.
> Society is
> > more likely to see what a parent in your circumstances normally pays
> for the
> > children, & set a rate near (eg.60%) of this.
> >
> >
> >
> Yes, But society is fake, it is/was generated under a false dilusion
> that man is anything other than an animal that should live by it's
> instinct and witts. Society is to blame for most of mans ills and
> suffering, and the sooner that man starts to live by the code of
> "survival od the fittest" and the most able, the better.
>
> This sort of Mamby Pamby Liberal wish wash only extends the pain and
> suffering.
>
> And by the way, Yes the minimal level of support for my unplanned,
> unwanted, unneeded and disowned (if it were possible) child would suit
> me!!
> Binky the Biker
> Honda CBR600 '96
> Yamaha SRX-6 '89
> Honda TL125s '76
>
Interesting, survival of the fittest conjours images of lions nobly stalking
the plains, or idolatorous dandy birds of paradise and their fancy tails.
Lets see.. other examples of survivial of the fittest, parasites, viruses,
bacteria. But they love, indeed thrive, on society. Oh oh invitation for all
fascists to agree, but what i meant was survival of the fittest is
environement driven, the nature of the environment is irrelevant, there is
no vacuum, or neutral state, there is environment full stop. Be it societal
or not. What there is the here and now. And many ways to respond, survive.
Room for herbivores, parasites and predators. This already exists. Are you
not surviving, or is it just not fit enough for you.
In fact society and survival of fittest are not mutually exclusive. Plenty
of examples of very fit succeeders around, ie millionaires. There is nothing
stopping you, assuming you are fit enough, from being a millionaire too,
(unless you are preoccupied with being a victim maybe?). When you are a
millionaire you will see this as just squabbling over peanuts. (no offence
to those who know those peanuts as only and/or most valuable commodities)
and wonder what the problem was, another kid? hey have a house in barbados.
We have choices, we/you could flee this country and its non existent sun,
(it is after all only a backwater pensioner country trying to fine tune its
retirement, by fiddling with benefits [literally and otherwise]). Why bother
being here. Survival of the fittestism includes the whole world as
playground, its your oyster. I probably should not be so bold as to suggest
that you get out there and enjoy.
Wish i was a millionaire
tdl
tede-el
John Hill <john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37cbf7f5...@195.8.69.73...
>
> In my case - yes
>
> John Hill
Why?, expand please?
tdl
John Hill
<to...@spacificrim.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Is this what you want for your children - just not starving?
>>
>> In my case - yes
>>
>> John Hill
>
>Why?, expand please?
Ex wife who won't work. Alienated 17 year old son who won't even read
cards from me so he returns them. I couldn't really give a damn any
more, however I still have to pay.
Load of b******s if you ask me.
She wanted hin exclusively she's got what she wanted. He could go out
to work, he won't even make the effort at school and I'm paying to
support them both. OK
I'm just pissed off with it all.
John Hill
tede-el
tede-el <to...@spacificrim.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:935679955.29082.1...@news.demon.co.uk...
>what i meant was survival of the fittest is
>environment driven, the nature of the environment is irrelevant, there is
>no vacuum, or neutral state, there is environment full stop.
And it is not necessarily fair.
Heck anyway isn't society the result of the this particular species
"survival of the fittest " imperative. Fairly reduntant dream to go back to
some square one on the snake and ladder of evolution and start all over
agian. Society will be reinvented once more.
Lets get really anarchic and play with what we've got. Relegate the dreams
of square one (survival of the fittest) to useful model/comparison role.
Sorry for going on
tdl
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:47:50 +0100, "Ann-Marie" <Ladyd...@tesco.net>
Fine... how do you make the reliuctant parent look after the kids 2o
hrs a week during working hours (or pay someone else to do so on their
behalf)? What is *your* magic solution?
>Extension to school usage another.
It's a possibility... who pays for the staff etc to look after the
children outside school hours but inside normal working hours? Your
magic solution?
Pat Winstanley
John Ward
>On 26 Aug 1999 07:19:28 GMT, sjenk...@aol.com (SJenki8495) wrote:
[snip]
>If childcare is so central to the issue why is it not being
>tackled by Saint Tony and his acolytes ?
>
>Do they not see it as an issue. If as JW infers constantly
>the govt / society have it right then why is this not
>being tackled head on.
[snip]
I believe the government is getting most things wrong.
I believe that, credit where credit is due, it is making a serious attempt
to reduce social exclusion & loss of lifetime opportunities with the New
Deal. Supplemented by WFTC, with its childcare credits, it may move things
foreward a lot.
The government has been going through the consultation process for
childcare. See discussion of responses [1]. It IS being tackled - now it is
up to you to consider whether in your terms this is "head on".
(My colleagues tell me that pre-school & post-school schemes, being staffed
by nursery staff, end up costing about the same amount as standard
commercial childcare. They are not a cheap scheme).
----------
[1] Meeting the Childcare Challenge
http://www.dfee.gov.uk/mcc/
----------
John Ward
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 07:04:05 GMT, pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk
>(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>
>>Or possibly spending far more... or more likjely spending all the CS
>>on the child (both hers and his shares) plus more.
>
>Dream on Pat
Well we all know, from your own words, that you spend as little as
possible on your child.
Most parents spend what they can!
Pat Winstanley
John Hill
(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>
>Most parents spend what they can!
This is the case we have been making.
John Hill