Baroness Hollis

A commentary from a UKMM member, Darren Winter :

THE CSA AND THE TAX ON FATHERHOOD

The notorious Child Support Agency (CSA) has just placed an official tax on fatherhood.

The Minister responsible for the CSA, Baroness Hollis, has maintained all along that child support payments should be regarded as a statutory tax, "We are trying to turn it into a tax" she said in advance of the CSA White Paper debate in January 2000.

The subject of the White Paper debate was a discriminatory new formula of child support introduced by the government on 3rd March this year. The government have replaced the existing formula with a fixed rate levy of 15% of net income for one child, 20% for two and 25% for three or more.

According to Child Support law, the parent who has custody of the child (in nearly all cases women) is called the 'parent with care' (PWC) and the parent who does not have custody (in nearly all cases men) is called the 'non-resident parent' (NRP) - also known popularly in government press releases as 'absent father', 'errant father', 'feckless father' and 'deadbeat dad'.

According to Baroness Hollis, PWC's (mothers) now, "pay in kind" while NRP's (fathers) carry the financial burden alone with no housing costs or travel-to-work costs considered under the new formula. Therefore, the long-established principle of both parents contributing financially towards the upbringing of their children, if they are able to, has been abolished.

To make matters worse, the choice of whether the CSA becomes involved after a seperation is dependent entirely on the PWC. If the PWC moves on to state benefits, the CSA becomes involved automatically, regardless of whether or not the NRP is already paying, and maintenance paid by the NRP is used to replace benefits pound for pound. In private cases, the PWC has a free choice of whether or not to use the services of the CSA to collect maintenance on her behalf.

Certainly, in all cases, involvement by the CSA will be outside the control of the NRP.

Fatherhood tax is official and like income tax and council tax, 'child support' payments are mandatory by threat of force.

The penalties for non-payment of often crippling CSA demands, regardless of ability to pay, are severe and can involve loss of driving licence, bailiff action, county court action, charging orders placed on property, garnishee orders and prison.

The prospect of these draconian measures actually being applied is exacerbated by the CSA themselves who administer with such mind- boggling inefficiency that delays are inevitable and have meant huge arrears demands by the CSA along with ongoing liability. The result is NRP's face a financial situation they are simply not equipped to deal with where, in some of the more extreme cases, 50% of monthly income is being taken by the CSA.

There is no common moral ground to justify the existence of the CSA. It is a self-serving bureaucracy which costs the taxpayer over £250 million to run each year, employs over 10,000 staff and provides £5 less to children than the court system provided a decade ago. Indeed, it is a marvel that the CSA exists at all and probably would not, but for the highly effective state-inspired myths of 'errant fathers' and 'deadbeat dads' to hoodwink a suspicious public whenever another CSA related suicide story appears in the press.

So, how did the government succeed in taxing fatherhood?

It happened because of a systematic government propaganda campaign to demonise fathers who, for one reason or another, became seperated from their children. The term 'absent father', a beloved government term at the time, is inherently sexist and demeaning in every conceivable way. It is also a strategically very clever term because the public perception of the CSA is of a government agency set up to chase 'absent fathers' trying to evade responsibility for their children.

Anyone who claims the current government term, "non-resident parent" is any less sexist or demeaning a term than "absent father" should consider this: ''absent'' quite simply means you are not there; "non-resident" quite simply means you are not there.

Isn't the selective use of words the stock-in-trade of the government after all?

The term "non-resident parent" is an abject negative and has precisely the same effect on public perception as "absent father".

So the names have changed but, the game remains the same. So now we have fatherhood tax. Worse yet, the government intends to consider charging 'service' fees again when the new formula is running smoothly (for a 'service' that no one requested) to add to the burden of ongoing liability.

Taxation, as most people recognise, is simply theft. No more and no less. Theft is the taking of a man's property by the use of force or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim's consent.

What else is taxation but theft?

Would any appreciable revenue find its way into government coffers if taxation became suddenly voluntary? And would men voluntarily choose to be tax-paying slaves instead of actually being fathers to their children? I think not.

The kickback will be because of the detrimental effect this fatherhood tax will have on the relationships of fathers with their children. This is, of course, entirely dependent on whether or not 'contact' has not already been thwarted.

Already there are cases where fathers have lost their homes because of unrealistic CSA demands. Is it possible that a father, made homeless by the CSA, can enjoy any meaningful relationship with his child? There is no possibility of a shared-care arrangement - where would the child eat or sleep?

More importantly how is this discrimination against one parent, while disproportionately favouring the other, compatible with the Human Rights Act? Under Article 8 (Right to Family Life) the European Court has held that 'the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life'. This is case law. It is clear, unambiguous and doesn't apply to one gender alone.

As Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, aptly put it in January 2000: "Taxing fatherhood while the system stops thousands of fathers from seeing their children is sexist and untenable. The government seems unwilling to put the interests of children before those of the Exchequer. The new CSA looks like another disaster in the making".

Indeed.

Comment : have people like Hollis got fathers, brothers, uncles, and male friends ? They can't have surely, which man would be friendly to them ?