[Archived] Local Elections

[jim mk2]

I

Although I am definitely not in the same bracket as millionaire bankers. Their salaries are obscene and they don't care what risks they take with other people's money so long as they get their mammoth bonus. It's not attractive (and that honestly isn't jealousy speaking, there's such a thing as having too much money). So quite frankly, you can hit those keaners as hard as you like, suits me.

Quite right. 90 per cent for starters. And then more.

[broadsword]

5 more

Just think of the party you'll have in 5 years' time.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

tell you what bryan going off my csa and in the middle of your amounts,44% is a flaming killer. Its not tax but it still means i have to work every hour i can to live and go on holiday.

Just one more thing to be grateful to Mrs Thatcher for. The keaning CSA. I was dragged in from day one in 1991 or 1992. It was like Chinese torture, nobody at the CSA knew what they were doing and the amounts I had to pay varied dramatically from week to week ! Drove me to the edge of a nervous breakdown.

[ABBEY]

Broke me as well at one point , I had sort myself out or god knows what I would of done to be honest .

Bryan I'm having a week off work when that day arrives and I will be drunk a bit ha .. No offence or slight on my kids . One posts on here . Daddy loves you dude ya just cost too much .

[thenodrog]

Do you work in the city of London Gordon, or anything like that? This is a genuine question and not some sort of jibe.

Nope. I just believe that people should enjoy the fruits of their labour without having to carry other people and other peoples children on their backs. If people can't afford kids then they shouldn't have them.... and especially in this age of family planning and help with contraception. It is an act of supreme selfishness having children with absolutely no intention of providing for them but every intention of actually living off them.

[thenodrog]

In the absence of capping pay or setting pay rates, what other options are there for trying to make society more fair?

Communist revolution...... but then that's been tried and it never worked in favour of the majority within society did it? Only for the elite. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

[thenodrog]

What would put me off going to uni these days is having to pay out so much keaning cash for the privilege and then having to repay the state for the next 40 years, that's like bloody water torture. That's far more of a disincentive than what you might be taxed at if you do finally "make" it.

The country can't afford all these university places and tbh a good percentage of them are just a scive and a waste of time and money. Sending kids to Uni is just another way for the govt to get more bloody tax of us under another guise! If we returned to 35% attending uni and studying proper and useful subjects the country could afford to give em all a grant. That really would constitute an investment in the country's future.

Although I am definitely not in the same bracket as millionaire bankers. Their salaries are obscene and they don't care what risks they take with other people's money so long as they get their mammoth bonus. It's not attractive (and that honestly isn't jealousy speaking, there's such a thing as having too much money). So quite frankly, you can hit those keaners as hard as you like, suits me.

Quite right. 90 per cent for starters. And then more.

Maybe not in your case Bryan but in Jim's case I'd say it definitely is. In fact most definitely.

Just one more thing to be grateful to Mrs Thatcher for. The keaning CSA. I was dragged in from day one in 1991 or 1992. It was like Chinese torture, nobody at the CSA knew what they were doing and the amounts I had to pay varied dramatically from week to week ! Drove me to the edge of a nervous breakdown.

???..... You had an affair with Mrs Thatcher that broke up your marriage!!! Wow.... respect Dude!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The country can't afford all these university places and tbh a good percentage of them are just a scive and a waste of time and money. Sending kids to Uni is just another way for the govt to get more bloody tax of us under another guise! If we returned to 35% attending uni and studying proper and useful subjects the country could afford to give em all a grant. That really would constitute an investment in the country's future.

Maybe not in your case Bryan but in Jim's case I'd say it definitely is. In fact most definitely.

???..... You had an affair with Mrs Thatcher that broke up your marriage!!! Wow.... respect Dude!

I've been desperate for a jump before but I never got that desperate.

[Steve Moss]

tell you what bryan going off my csa and in the middle of your amounts,44% is a flaming killer. Its not tax but it still means i have to work every hour i can to live and go on holiday.

44% is shocking. I assume that is before tax?

In capitalist Arizona, for one child the basic support amount for one child is $184 on $750 (24.5%) or $854 on $5,000 (17%) of income. Though you get inclusions of medical and education expenses (but only a pro rata inclusion based on compartive income, which could be transformed to credits if the paying parent provides for medical and education), and a pure credit (reductions) for visitation (up to 48.6% for those who have near shared parenting time). The more a parent makes, the smaller percentage on income paid in support (the basic support obligation normally tops out at $1,708 on $20,000 in income or 8%). The objective is to provide for the child's reasonable needs without enabling the custodial parent to live off the paying spouse (and creating an incentive for the custodial spouse to work also) while at the same time creating an incentive for the paying parent to exercise a lot of visitation with the child (which is best for the child's long term development- assuming the paying parent isn't a nut).

Beyond basic needs the most important thing is parental contact between the child and both parents. Turning a parent into a wage slave, desperate for provide for both his child and his own needs interferes with that. You have my sympathies. Someone needs to reform your CSA.

[jim mk2]

T

Maybe not in your case Bryan but in Jim's case I'd say it definitely is. In fact most definitely.

This might surprise you in your closed little world but not everyone is motivated by money. I have this vision of you trying to take in and comprehend that and a load of sparks and smoke coming out of your circuits as you struggle to understand the concept.

[Paul]

44% is shocking. I assume that is before tax?

In capitalist Arizona, for one child the basic support amount for one child is $184 on $750 (24.5%) or $854 on $5,000 (17%) of income. Though you get inclusions of medical and education expenses (but only a pro rata inclusion based on compartive income, which could be transformed to credits if the paying parent provides for medical and education), and a pure credit (reductions) for visitation (up to 48.6% for those who have near shared parenting time). The more a parent makes, the smaller percentage on income paid in support (the basic support obligation normally tops out at $1,708 on $20,000 in income or 8%). The objective is to provide for the child's reasonable needs without enabling the custodial parent to live off the paying spouse (and creating an incentive for the custodial spouse to work also) while at the same time creating an incentive for the paying parent to exercise a lot of visitation with the child (which is best for the child's long term development- assuming the paying parent isn't a nut).

Beyond basic needs the most important thing is parental contact between the child and both parents. Turning a parent into a wage slave, desperate for provide for both his child and his own needs interferes with that. You have my sympathies. Someone needs to reform your CSA.

This is NOT in any shape a dig at ABBEY but a response to Steve's figures. Steve has taken one individual's experience, for which we have no information, and compared it with the statutory requirement in Arizona. The valid comparison is to compare UK statutory rates with US rates.

Steve, the statutory rates for child maintenance by the "absent" parent are 15% one child, 20% two, 25% three and then capped. This is calculated on net income, that is after deduction of tax and national insurance payments.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@benefits/documents/digitalasset/dg_198849.pdf

I wouldn't dream of commenting on an individual case but 44% suggests either a miscalculation which should be challenged or there are other factors not mentioned. Alternatively the official government website is incorrect.

From what I gather the average cost of raising a child is calculated at 8-10,000 pa depending on where one gets the figures from. Average UK earnings are 26500 gross pa. I think you can see the direction this takes us - raising a child in the UK costs approximately 50% of annual income.

Every family I have known has been financially stretched throughout the child rearing years. The whole process of life is very, very expensive. In our house we had a weekly budget after allowing for all the usual costs, mortgage, utilities, food, pension, etc. Once the remaining budget was spent that was it, no more spending. The only way to go.

In my experience one only appreciates fully how expensive children are when they leave home. I've raised three sons over the last 26 years and it's only in the last 18 months we, my wife and I, have found ourselves able to afford the things we have always wanted. Looking at friends with children of a similar age I see the same thing happening, we now spend our money on ourselves. Families we know who are younger often talk about being broke.

For lower and middle income Britain that's simply how life is. If you want kids it's very expensive for 20+ years. If you want cash don't have children.

[ABBEY]

basically paul the csa believed my ex . Long story short , I had a good month ,no a very good month back in 2010 and she told them . Then dec 2010 I got a bill of £5000 EXTRA . I sent wage slips in ,I went to the MP and I went to court. The CSA and the judge didn't and wouldn't listen to me that it was a freaky month . The judge screwed my paper work up and threw it in the bin and said its no concern to him. I now pay my normal 25% plus the extra to pay a 5k bill. They CAN take 44% of my wage which they do every month . I CANNOT appeal any further and theres nothing more I can do,

[Steve Moss]

Steve, the statutory rates for child maintenance by the "absent" parent are 15% one child, 20% two, 25% three and then capped. This is calculated on net income, that is after deduction of tax and national insurance payments.

. . .

For lower and middle income Britain that's simply how life is. If you want kids it's very expensive for 20+ years. If you want cash don't have children.

1. I think the UK statutory rates seem very reasonable. Are there deductions for parenting days or contribution toward education, or is this a flat rate?

2. Why the term "absent" parent? I assume that even the parent who doesn't get custody gets a couple days a week with the child, or is this wrong?

3. Why 20+ years? Isn't the child considered an adult and no longer eligible for support when he or she turns 18?

4. To what extent is the custodial parent tasked with providing financial support for a child?

[Paul]

Abbey I'm not suggesting you don't pay 44%. I was pointing out to Steve the basic rates which apply in the UK. I guessed you must be paying arrears, whether you agree with them is irrelevant, so was looking to inform Steve he shouldn't assume 44% is the norm.

[Paul]

Steve, I'm no expert and merely used the government website to check figures.

1. Yes there are deductions from the rate for parenting days. I don't know about education but then we don't generally pay for schooling directly in the UK.

2. I used "absent" as it was the only word I could think of to easily describe the parent not living with the child.

3. 20+ years simply because in my personal experience child will cost money for at least that time. In relation to statutory maintenance there are cut off points upon reaching 16,17 and 18 dependent on individual circumstance usually influenced by full time education

4. I don't know but presume yes

[Stuart]

Paul, it sounds like Abbey's CSA bill was calculated on the back of one good pay slip @, say 25%.

Now that he is back on a normal wage this isn't being reduce and he's now paying 44% of his current wage.

Sounds immoral to me.

The other question is, ignoring emotions, is his ex getting ALL of that money, and in a timely fashion?

[Paul]

Quite likely but I'm not trying to comment on Abbey's case. Abbey may have given Steve the impression the CSA routinely takes 44% of earnings when it is between 15-25% by law. I am trying to give Steve the government requirement.

Abbey appears to have an individual case, of which the media suggests there are many, but it's not what the legislation states.

I would guess if Steve looked around he would find similar examples in Arizona.

[Paul]

Stuart if you look at my and Abbey's posts you'll see I stated 25% for three children and Abbey said that is what he pays plus arrears. I presume he has three kids?

The arrears are seperate and I'd agree if the CSA ignored his arguments than the extra payment is wrong.

[thenodrog]

basically paul the csa believed my ex . Long story short , I had a good month ,no a very good month back in 2010 and she told them . Then dec 2010 I got a bill of £5000 EXTRA . I sent wage slips in ,I went to the MP and I went to court. The CSA and the judge didn't and wouldn't listen to me that it was a freaky month . The judge screwed my paper work up and threw it in the bin and said its no concern to him. I now pay my normal 25% plus the extra to pay a 5k bill. They CAN take 44% of my wage which they do every month . I CANNOT appeal any further and theres nothing more I can do,

Resign and join the Fire Service Abbey. They'll take 44% of your salary just the same, don't do any overtime and your cash for 'foreigners' can all go in the back pocket no questions asked.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Nope. I just believe that people should enjoy the fruits of their labour without having to carry other people and other peoples children on their backs. If people can't afford kids then they shouldn't have them.... and especially in this age of family planning and help with contraception. It is an act of supreme selfishness having children with absolutely no intention of providing for them but every intention of actually living off them.

Superbly put and couldn't agree more.

And what worries me is these morons are reproducing at a rate of knots whilst the birth rate amongst people who've made a success of themselves is significantly below a self-sustaining level. Its reverse evolution. Makes you wonder what kind of country this is gonna be in 100 years.

[LeChuck]

Communist revolution...... but then that's been tried and it never worked in favour of the majority within society did it? Only for the elite. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

Yeah I couldn't agree more. Pure communism I can defintely buy into, but in practise it allows leads to power and corruption at the top. But then, so does capitalism. It seems people are people, regardless of what system they live under.

That's why I think high tax on the very rich is neccessary. In the absence of a new system it's the only way to reign in the greed of those at the top and attempt to redistribute some of the wealth. Pay capping / pay scales just sounds like a layer of bureaucracy and plenty of bickering / legal bills.

[jim mk2]

Superbly put and couldn't agree more.

And what worries me is these morons are reproducing at a rate of knots whilst the birth rate amongst people who've made a success of themselves is significantly below a self-sustaining level. Its reverse evolution. Makes you wonder what kind of country this is gonna be in 100 years.

I agree too. The upper class have always spawned a huge number of offspring most of whom contribute little to society. The Russians had the right idea in 1917.

[dave birch]

Can someone explain the difference between "Capitalism and Communism"?

As far as I can see,

With capitalism, the bosses want to get as much out of the workers as cheaply as possible.

With Communism, the bosses want to get as much out of the workers as cheaply as possible.

Am I mistaken......?

[Guest Norbert]

It depends what you mean by Communism. There have been quite a few versions of it, from what Marx and Engels originally wrote, to Stalinism, to Maoism, to the Communism of Western European countries. All different, and all 'Communist'. You're probably thinking of Stalinism or Maoism, which basically ended up as a dictatorship with a personality cult based around the leader, and had little regard for human life and living standards for the people they claimed to represent. They used the terms Marx put forward, but never got round to getting rid of the state (quite the opposite in fact).

[dave birch]

So, Norbert, the "bosses" got as much as possible out of the workers? Whilst the workers got.......to live.....