15 July 2006
I would have thought this may be in recognition of the move this week to encourage – and have taxpayers foot the bill – single women and lesbians to have children via IVF. After all, if fathers are not necessary (in the eyes of our Big Sister Overlords) then surely their money isn’t necessary either?
But no, they’re just replacing it with something else to hunt down men to pay for their children – even though, to all intents and purposes, children are regarded solely as belonging to their mothers these days.
Greater use will also be made of “deduction of earnings orders” to collect payments. These orders are now issued only in exceptional cases but will become routine, government sources say.
Private debt collectors will also be invited to bid for contracts to enforce payments.
See? Instead of demanding payments from men they’ll just take it straight from their wages and hand it straight over to mummy to spend on Lottery scratchcards and Lambrusco…I mean, on the child. Or, if that’s too much like hard work, the New Improved CSA will perhaps just send the heavies in to steal the man’s possessions.
The only reason the CSA is being scrapped is because it isn’t as effective as it should be at holding men upside down and shaking them until every penny has fallen from their pockets and handed over to ex-wives, ex-girlfriends.
(Obviously I accept there are genuine deadbeat dads around, who deliberately abandon children, and such guys aren’t getting my sympathy. However, many “absent fathers” have just been dumped by their wives and ex-girlfriends, and often never wanted to be absent in the first place! Furthermore, women have the ultimate control over contraception these days; “My body, my choice” they shriek. Fine. It’s your responsibility then.)
They point out that 20% of single mums never even lived with the father of their bastard; maybe women should be damn well told to try not to whelp kids on a whim with guys who clearly have no intention of sticking around (it’s like illegitimate bastard central at my workplace with three single women having kids – two to criminals, one to a married guy – in the last year; they’re due their own rant-filled post any day now.)
“The power of the State should only be used against people who fail to meet minimum requirements of good parenting.”
I certainly agree with this in principle; that the State should get its nose out of people’s business. But what it’ll translate to is:
“The power of the State should only be used against men who fail to cough up whatever figure the courts decide he should pay to his ex-wife or ex-girlfriend.”
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 2:48 PM
At 4:29 PM, Captain Zarmband said…
The real issue with the CSA is that the means they use to calculate how much “disposable income” the man has is fatally flawed in favour of the CSA. There are many examples of this but here are the main points. The CSA makes no allowance for the repayment of debts. Just after divorce these may well be debts run up by the ex-wife which the man always gets saddled with. Secondly the amount allowed for rent or mortgage repayments is pitifully low. They only allow a maximum of £ 240.00 a month for your mortgage and council tax. Can you tell me where you can rent or buy a house for that piddling amount? This means that even if you’re paying more than £ 240.00 a month for rent or mortgage the CSA don’t recognise it and count money over this amount as disposable income. This is why men end up with an income of minus £ 200 a week after the CSA have finished with them and their mortgage is paid. Politicians and the CSA say that men are always left with enough to live on…this is a blatant lie as shown above. Any child support is only effective if it is fair and realistic. The current system is blatantly unfair and many men just cannot pay. No matter how you work it out you cannot pay for two households with one income. In reality many men are left with huge bills from the CSA which are completely unrepresentative of how much disposable income he has. Coupled to this the fact that many of these men have lost all the equity in his marital home and probably never sees his kids and you get a fair idea of the lot of the divorced man in Britain. I know about this first hand as all of this has happened to me. Oh and by the way I divorced my wife because of her adultery. My advice to men is do not get married.
At 5:01 PM, Duncan Idaho said…
They only allow a maximum of £240 a month for your mortgage and council tax.
Fucking hell, that’s a feeble amount!
I rent a one-bedroomed apartment and it’s £320 a month. Council tax is another £70 a month!
My advice to men is do not get married.
This needs to be printed on billboards all across the Matriarchal West. The marriage rate is plummeting and the co-habitation rate is falling too now that women are increasingly able to bleed dry some poor sucker who allowed them to move in. But there are still too many naive fools who continue to get married.
It’s gotten to the point whereby, whilst it’s traditional to feel envy if you see a man walking down the street arm-in-arm with a good looking woman, I actually feel pity; I imagine all the shit such a guy must go through, all the emotional terrorism, the expense, the fear of being bled dry should she find a Bigger Better Deal.
Every man is born a bachelor; but only the lucky ones die bachelors.
At 12:45 AM, Anonymous said…
“against men who fail to cough up whatever figure the courts decide he should pay to his ex-wife or ex-girlfriend.”
Jesus Christ on a bicycle, over in England even your girlfriend can shake you down anytime she feels like it? At least the US isn’t that far gone … yet.
At 2:55 AM, Anonymous said…
My concern is that this “Man Tax” thing was never successful because it was opposed by married women whose husbands would have been taxed.
What happens when there are no married women to oppose it? There are enough pussy whipped losers on the male side of things to let it get through I think.