Posted by: Will Rhodes
There once was a time when child maintenance (support) was decided by the court – it wasn’t perfect, far from it – but for the most part it worked. Then the CSA (Child Support Agency) was set up – something that our Polly seems to forget is that the CSA was set up to collect child support for the government, not mothers. I kid you not.
The CSA was only concerned with mother who were on welfare benefits – the rest has to do, well, erm, what they could.
Not only did the CSA only collect what was due to the government they took that money they collected off the mothers who were claiming it. So what was the CSA really for? Repaying the welfare system from which the mother was paid. If she got an amount above what she was entitle to – this didn’t happen very often, she would lose all rights to welfare benefits.
At first mothers had no incentive to chase fathers, as most maintenance was just deducted from their benefits. But now they can keep £20, and from next year, they can keep whatever fathers pay.
And that is right?! The mother isn’t working – the father pays NI and tax where the benefits come from so he has to pay thrice? And that is social justice? What Polly is saying is that now there is an incentive and that incentive is money – the government are going to allow mothers who do not work chase the father for more money, certainly not less, because they are going to keep all the money. But that is OK with Polly – you see, Polly only sees it as:
[…] newsrooms staffed with well-off divorced men resentful of paying maintenance dredged up every CSA error and every father’s hard-luck case to help destroy the agency.
Fathers employ smart accountants: penniless mothers have no chance of proving where their income is cached. A third of fathers lose contact altogether with their children. Of course some mothers behave badly, blocking access, but the big story is the mass refusal of so many fathers to pay anything – ever.
But the mothers who were married to these devilish men are all on income support? Many women I know have said that they willingly use the children, by denying access tot he father, as a ploy to get more money – odd that, eh, Polly?
What about the guy who works at Maccy D’s? How does he have access to an accountant that can fiddle his earnings?
There are already new powers to take money directly out of non-payers’ bank accounts…
Now, the UK government is saying that they will take away passports or driving licenses if the father doesn’t pay – and our Polly agrees with that. Now I am not going to do a bullet point list as to the holes in this but for starters that could make a father a criminal for going to work in his car, though Polly would say tough, use a bus, but pay for your kids.
No doubt some professional driver or commuter will claim their livelihood has been put at risk.
What about the guy, Polly, who works in a factory, is a Taxi driver, is a builders labourer?
You say at one point in your article:
Last year in the Lords, a group of Tory peers succeeded in taking the removal of passports and licences out of a previous bill, claiming such a move would be against the Human Rights Act – interesting how they use it when it suits them
Interesting that you do, too!
As a matter of information:
Yes, you could also say that the idle rich and famous fiddle the Exchequer out of £25bn every year through tax avoidance scams, but there has not been one squeak from Brown or Darling to suggest that anything is going to be done to stop this happening.