Forums Forums Wirral Information Law And Your Rights csa

Ste, I've read enough of your posts to realise you don't live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Thank you Candyfloss

I thought this post referred to Ste!! Beside that, it is evident that the OP is paying for his kids, as much as he can- the CSA seems to be wanting to suck out his life-blood!!!

Well he needs to pay for his children, (You say he does but how much that is the question, paying some nominal amount is 'paying' but is insufficient) I really fail to see why I as a retired taxpayer should do so instead! the csa is there to attempt to see that he does.

This is one of the problems in this once great country a lot those irresponsible people who procreate expect the country, in the form of the taxpayer, to pay instead. This attitude is absolutely deplorable.

This once great country, my mother had to take my so called father to court year after year for payments that was some fifty odd years ago, so it's nothing new !

50 odd years ago, benefits were not paid out for such things so the taxpayer didn't suffer. There was no csa either. If you watched the recent TV programme about the welfare state in those days you would be very surprised at how little was paid out in benefits. It was a stop gap between jobs and nothing else. If you didn't find work, you got nothing which is why people had to use the courts as you describe.
Now those with loads of kids get loads of cash, Sky TV, a free house, no council tax to pay, no prescriptions to fork out for,to get even the cap now of £25.000 pa one needs to earn £36,000 pa. This surely needs to be sorted so that those who procreate fork out in full, otherwise as I said earlier, do not have any kids. One has to consider the taxpayer, those on benefits pay nothing towards the benefits of others, but the poor old taxpayer does.

No it was not called CSA then but dress it how you like, it's all the same. Look up national assistance board my Mother was left with 3 children she was paid benifits from said N. A .B. The man who called himself my father was chased by the courts for non payment maintenance . And Oh by the way we never had Sky tv. Have a nice day !

It is far to simple to say if you have children you should pay for them.People get sick, relationships break down people become unemployed.People after relationship breakdowns still have to live and pay rent in another home.Every parent dreams of making a future for their children and it must be heartbreaking not to be able to support them. I am a taxpayer and I am more than happy to pay taxes to support people in need to have food and a roof over their heads. The National Ass Act 1948 gave everybody a chance and the 1963 Social Security Act extended the range of benefits.The 1948 Act Abolished the Board of Guardians which had previously been responsible for the poor including the provision of work houses.

One of the changes over the years has been an unwillingness by married couples to stay together "for the sake of the children". I'm pretty sure my own parents decided to do exactly that. Nowadays, partly because of the availability of benefits and partly because no opprobrium attaches to separation, couples separate at the drop of a hat.

Who would want to stay in an unhappy marriage 'for the sake of the children' in this day and age??? Not healthy for the kids to grow up in an un-happy situation.

I can't believe that it's any happier for a child to grow up without one parent and with the inevitable brainwashing that comes with that situation. I really don't know which path is preferable; both are unsatisfactory. Maybe the problem is that couples are too ready to have a child before they know whether they're going to stay together.

Exactly my point, too many unwanted children being born otherwise there would be no need for the csa. Marriage does make a big difference, having made a firm commitment 'Until death us do part' helps couples to stay together and to work at it knowing that at one time everything was hunky dory.
To refer to an earlier post by 'rossie' that not everybody can look after their children, still should not give cause for others to have to pay for their own children, their grandchildren and children of other people as well!! This guy was advised by another 'Do NOT pay' which gave rise to my response. The poster did not say he didn't have any money nor did he say he didn't have a job, he just objected to the amount deemed (by the csa) necessary to look after his children. It seems therefore self evident that what he deemed to be 'looking after his children' fell short of the correct mark. To tell him 'Do NOT pay' seems to be lousy advice and also to be out of order.

Sadly life is not black and white.

No Dilly life is not black and white but that does not mean that you should not support your children to a standard devised by the csa. Nor does it make 'Do NOT pay' reasonable advice, when not paying means that the tax payer has to fork out instead. They are not the taxpayers' kids after all are they?

The father IS a tax-payer!!!