Is this some kind of joke?! How much more do they want us to suffer?!

[WantingABubba]

.

 

[Ceejay123]

.

 

[Mummy1995]

It's absolutely disgusting. Means ill never be getting a penny from Isabella's 'dad' x

 

[Dream.dream]

Here in Canada maintenence enforcement which is the same thing charges for theirs services , but they charge the dad interest on the amount of arrears he has and for paying late , they don't take it from the child's money

 

[babycrazy1706]

Disgraceful!!!!

 

[teal]

This is disgusting.

 

[Mummy1995]

Dream that is a much better (and sort of understandable) way of doing it. If they're going to do this then they should up the percentage that children are entitled to from their other parent so they don't miss out!

 

[aqualung]

This seems like a means by which the UK govt would induce more indigent women to avoid carrying to term, delivering a baby, and negotiating CSA via the govt. It might also reduce the # of indigent parents who divorce/split up expecting the govt to mediate their monetary squabbles for free. This proposed law sends a signal that staying together in one household (w/o CSA interference in their business) is cheaper for poor parents.

During a nation's difficult economic times, its citizens can afford fewer children. The UK is in a recession.

 

[babycrazy1706]

I guess that there are a good number of ppl that use the csa for convenience when they could come to a personal arrangement but there are those who really need the service too! Maybe its about changing attitudes but this isn't. The. Way to. Do. It. Xx

 

[teal]

This seems like a means by which the UK govt would induce more indigent women to avoid carrying to term, delivering a baby, and negotiating CSA via the govt. It might also reduce the # of indigent parents who divorce/split up expecting the govt to mediate their monetary squabbles for free. This proposed law sends a signal that staying together in one household (w/o CSA interference in their business) is cheaper for poor parents.

During a nation's difficult economic times, its citizens can afford fewer children. The UK is in a recession.

I don't think it will influence a womens decision to keep her baby or not. While I disagree with the charge, 4% isn't life changing. It's 4 pence out the pound (£). My issue is the government taking money that could ultimately affect the most vulnerable.

As far as the message goes, it could have devastating consequences if it's trying to influence staying in a relationship just because you're poor.

Personally, it doesn't affect me because I do not claim child support but why should my child suffer a 4% loss? As mummy1995 said, Why not just charge the other parent an additional 4%?

 

[Desi's_lost]

This seems like a means by which the UK govt would induce more indigent women to avoid carrying to term, delivering a baby, and negotiating CSA via the govt. It might also reduce the # of indigent parents who divorce/split up expecting the govt to mediate their monetary squabbles for free. This proposed law sends a signal that staying together in one household (w/o CSA interference in their business) is cheaper for poor parents.

During a nation's difficult economic times, its citizens can afford fewer children. The UK is in a recession.

The UK being in a recession has much more to do with govt and financial sector mismanagement. That is no reason to punish needy children or parents.

 

[WantingABubba]

.

 

[WantingABubba]

.

 

[aqualung]

I don't think it will influence a womens decision to keep her baby or not. While I disagree with the charge, 4% isn't life changing. It's 4 pence out the pound (£)...

Right. The proposed law won't deter wealthy or upper-middle class people. If people only carried to term planned babies that they could support without either parent being impoverished, then CSA would manage many fewer cases. This measure is NOT aimed at people with money.

The proposed law is a signalling mechanism. The government is trying to deter behavior of which it disapproves: low-income single people parenting. The comments posted below the article on the gingerbread website seem to indicate that plenty of low-income custodial parents want/need every penny and pound.

Here's why I doubt that the proposed law will deter poor folks from single parenting. It will not work because **MOST** of the people it targets lack the sophistication and foresight required to plan families. The kids for which they navigate CSA were not planned. The low-income custodial parents conceive accidentally or recklessly, carry to term a kid that they cannot support, and default to reliance on contributions from the govt and the non-custodial parents. And then often they do it again.

A 4% difference will not alter the plans of people who don't plan. Reliance on CSA will continue whether or not the government gradually withdraws support.

 

[Desi's_lost]

So you've just proven its utterly pointless and still wrong. You've gone about it in the most offensive way, but none the less proven it.

 

[aqualung]

Well, it is the way American lawmakers often think. UK folks might be different.

ex: Offer a 5 cent payment per recycled bottle, and more people will be incentivized to recycle. People will collect cans and bottles to recycle in the future.

ex: Require section 8 residents in the projects to pass drug tests, and the addicts in project housing will get clean (or get evicted from their $500/month 3-bedroom apartments). Addicts will avoid the projects in the future because of the testing.

It doesn't work if
a) people are unaware of the new rule when they plan their actions or
b) even when made aware of the new rule, people don't adjust their plans as intended by the new rule.

Today's impoverished 13 year old kid who gets pregnant by her 15 year old boyfriend doesn't know this law now. It'll be too late for her to care about it when she files for CSA in 2023 (after her boyfriend gets a steady job). But between now and 2023, she and her baby will require a lotta govt assistance. Those politicians had better go back to the drawing board to develop a better deterrent!

 

[Mummy1995]

What about those poor women and children in positions of domestic violence? Would be disastrous if they stayed with their partner because they couldn't afford to leave them!

 

[teal]

I don't think it will influence a womens decision to keep her baby or not. While I disagree with the charge, 4% isn't life changing. It's 4 pence out the pound (£)...

Right. The proposed law won't deter wealthy or upper-middle class people. If people only carried to term planned babies that they could support without either parent being impoverished, then CSA would manage many fewer cases. This measure is NOT aimed at people with money.

The proposed law is a signalling mechanism. The government is trying to deter behavior of which it disapproves: low-income single people parenting. The comments posted below the article on the gingerbread website seem to indicate that plenty of low-income custodial parents want/need every penny and pound.

Here's why I doubt that the proposed law will deter poor folks from single parenting. It will not work because **MOST** of the people it targets lack the sophistication and foresight required to plan families. The kids for which they navigate CSA were not planned. The low-income custodial parents conceive accidentally or recklessly, carry to term a kid that they cannot support, and default to reliance on contributions from the govt and the non-custodial parents. And then often they do it again.

A 4% difference will not alter the plans of people who don't plan. Reliance on CSA will continue whether or not the government gradually withdraws support.

Even though you've starred the word most that is very offensive. My child wasn't planned, does that mean I'm lacking in sophistication and foresight? My birth control failed, does that mean I'm reckless?

Regarding only carrying planned babies to term. Why should a baby with parents with fewer resources be targeted in such a way? It's becoming close to only the wealthy should have a child. It's not ideal but plenty of families and single parents are on low incomes and manage. To go from a 4% cut to suggesting it will influence women's decision on terminations. That is a very personal decision and to suggest it is a decision that can be bought is disgusting.

So if someone works, doesn't claim benefits but has an abusive ex partner, they're being targeting with this 4%? In a situation where it could be dangerous to make a personal agreement.

I don't think it will change anything, other than the government, yet again, taking money from those who need it.

 

[Desi's_lost]

I don't think it's neccesary to try to think the way American law makers think. It's dangerous enough that they think that way, we don't need to join them.

Requiring drug tests for section 8 is limited to only a few states and questionably unconstitutional. See, that's a very American way to look at a problem anyway. There is a reason why people act the way they do. Living a life in poverty makes people seek a way out. Often times they think that way is drugs so then we punish them for looking for a way out of they're day to day struggle. Then there is always the question of those who self Medicate with things like cannabis instead of taking anti anxiety or depression meds. Do they not deserve aid because they prefer that path? Well anyway, the point is its never usually the simple solution in these situations. Ie charging people for CSA isn't going to stop children being born. It's just gonna hurt them. If they are somehow trying to help the poor, they should go about it in a more helpful way.

 

[wishuwerehere]

the people who are likely to be unable to come to an arrangement without CSA intervention are also likely to be the most vulnerable (ie. victims of domestic abuse)
Ultimately I think the idea of charging interest on arrears makes sense (although if arrears have built up over time how likely are you really to see that money...) but honestly I think this is a horrid idea esp when you think of the govt talking about tax breaks for married couples...just keep slamming single people who have very feasibly had no control over their situation. Ridiculous.