I have anonymous posters. I like. It is an odd thing never being entirely sure if the words are from a stranger, or someone you know. Perhaps this is the thing about blogging, a kind of cerebral vomit. So does that make it modern day voyeurism or modern day exhibitionism?

Today's random thought process: are peoples view on money a reflection of their personality. I know two people: One (person A) pays a lot of tax and is happy too. Their view being that they earn the money, tax pays for society and there is no issue contributing. She claims the obvious, never taking advantage. She feels that she is paying her due.

Take another example.Person B. Their apparent income is the same as person A's tax bill. Yet they use every trick in the book to reduce tax and avoid paying. In fact, a large part of their lifestyle is put through as expenses. Not a bad idea, since you keep your income down and your lifestyle up. When it comes to tax, they do not see it as they are contributing to society, they see society taking from them.

Perhaps then, your view on money is a true reflection of your view on life. If you feel that people take from you, then perhaps you feel attacked and persecuted. You will want to contribute the bear minimum because anymore would involve people taking more from you. You can never be open because you can never take the risk of exposure.

Yet person A is happier. Happier because in this life you get what you give, eventually. Person A may have a big tax bill but being of a giving nature she has a lot of people who adore her. She is open and honest and she gets that back.

Perhaps people do not wear their heart on their sleeve but firmly tucked in their wallet. For those that control, money is a tool. If you want to judge someone, perhaps their attitude to money is a good start.

I posted a while back about the CSA. It still blows my mind. I have discovered more that has blown my mind further.

In this country you get child allowance for each individual child. For those unfortunate to have to resort to using the government to get Fathers to pay for their children, they only recognise 3 children. So if you have 6, tough because Daddy will not have to pay for all since in the Governments eyes, they do not cost anything. CSA dads are no doubt happy to accept this since despite knowing its not true, they are complying to a pretty handy calculi.

It gets better, in a society where children are used as pawns and one in which fathers are apparently marginalised. The Government allow those Fathers already paying the bare minimum to take off money for contact, a sum NOT dependant on the amount of children.

So take the scenario of 6 children. Daddy has them to stay occassionaly. Daddy then realises that by having them more, he gets to pay less. So he suddenly starts having them more, but not all of them. The Government in their wisdom have not only created a system where the Father is better off, but then gets to take off 1/7th per week of minimum contribution. Better still, he can do this even if he only has one child.

So Mummy, already responsible for the bulk of all costs in raising her 6 children, has one child stay at Dads and Daddy can take away the money for all 6 (or 3 according to CSA).

So you end up in a situation where it becomes very clear that women are penalised for encouraging contact. On the basis that those resorting to CSA are doing it because they have to, they end up in a situation where seeing Dad would make survival almost impossible. I would love to meet the person who made these rules up. With men all over the country totting up the nights they see their children in a bid to save a little money, there will be a disproportionate number of children that end up seeing there fathers less. Parents cannot co-parent if one is taking advantage of loopholes. Mothers cannot ask fathers to help when they are ill, let them have a holiday etc if they know that the extra night may cost them hundreds of pounds each year.

It still leads me back to the same point about CSA. It is a vehicle for bare minimum legal requirements. Even men that are not being chased by the CSA will use it as a guideline to get away with a weekly contribution per child, of less than they probably pay for a starter and main course. There is the irony, in bare minimum contribution, you get to go out. The other irony is that the minute you get over a set amount of nights, a baby sitter and a photograph of Daddy is a cheaper option.

So back in full circle to Person A and Person B.

Person A recognises the cost involved and feels the need to contribute what they know is needed. It is the right thing to do. Person A is giving.

Person B feels everyone is taking. It is not about what children need, it is about using every rule in the book not to provide it. It is about getting away with more than the minimum and still being able to say that they are following guidelines.

Still within the law, but not particularly morale and ethical. Still, neither were ever particularly good companions.

Generosity of spirit is little to do with financial means. Situations have no bearing on morality. Ethics and integrity are not something you can wear for a couple of days when it suits and discard at leisure. Rules may be there to be challenged, principles are no bad things.

Is it really no more complicated than knowing if you are person A or person B?

The future does not bode well for generational emotional stability