What does 15% of my salary pay for?

PlayingHardball

It is almost as if you want to punish/give a bad name to all PWC who stoop so low as to take 15% from their childs non resident parent, and further label them as money grabbing if they do need to claim WTC or CB?

As I stated earlier, those of us who are PWC are not 'money grabbers' and I make this statement based on my own personal experience of those around me.

i_hate_the_csa

"The OP question is what does 15% pay for. My answer is 'not alot'. In my circumstance I pay 100% of my net take home towards the day to day needs of my child. That isn't naive, it is fact."

Have you never bought clothes,had your hair cut or socialized with friends? Just to name a few things :rolleyes:

Gorgeous_George

If I thought that 30% of my salary would be spent on my child and that he would know where the money came from, I'd pay it.

The point of this thread was to gauge people's views on what the thought it was reasonable for the NRP to pay for. It seems taht some people think that they should be housed so taht theu can look after the child(ren) while others believe that the 15% covers some or all of the additional expense of having the child(ren) in their custody.

(Some of) my 15% is spent on horses and running three houses.

GG

DUTR

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

If I thought that 30% of my salary would be spent on my child and that he would know where the money came from, I'd pay it.

The point of this thread was to gauge people's views on what the thought it was reasonable for the NRP to pay for. It seems taht some people think that they should be housed so taht theu can look after the child(ren) while others believe that the 15% covers some or all of the additional expense of having the child(ren) in their custody.

(Some of) my 15% is spent on horses and running three houses.

GG

George, as discovered everybody's mileage varies on this issue, some good points raised , some not so good, the % model will work well in some situations and not others.
My parents were not able to afford to by me a raleigh chopper when I was a child, does that make them bad parents ? I don't think so, my friends parents were able to buy them more or less anything they wanted, does that make them better parents? I don't think so. If an NRP was taking home £200 pw they would have to pay £30 pw , some pwc's would complain it is not enough, if someone was taking home £1000 pw they would pay £150pw (figures assume no reductions and one child on csa2) £150 pw is enough in fact more than enough since the items and activities are a fixed price. Perhaps if a maximum contribution cap was levied at less than the £2000pw (say £50pw with no reduction) could make things fairer and less susceptible to abuse by either parent .

marksoton

PlayingHardball wrote: »

As PWC of child, I receive child benefit, no tax credits. That is not 'making the state pay' in my opinion as it is a benefit for all children, whether parents are divorced, separated or in 2 parent homes. My statement was to make a point that not all PWC live off the state and their poor ex's.
Then your household has a very high income. No one is suggesting your latter point.
The OP question is what does 15% pay for. My answer is 'not alot'. In my circumstance I pay 100% of my net take home towards the day to day needs of my child. That isn't naive, it is fact. You are not qualified to say whether I am in the minority or the majority in doing this, you obviously think everyone is like you and your ex. Not so.
You do not spend 100% of your income on your child. And neither does anyone else.

PlayingHardball wrote: »

It is almost as if you want to punish/give a bad name to all PWC who stoop so low as to take 15% from their childs non resident parent, and further label them as money grabbing if they do need to claim WTC or CB?
Not at all, i have no idea where you have got that from
As I stated earlier, those of us who are PWC are not 'money grabbers' and I make this statement based on my own personal experience of those around me.
You may speak as you find, but these boards suggest there are a fair few who are.

I have had this " what does it pay for " debate many times before. As i stated earlier there will never be a conclusive answer.

samizdat

serbask wrote: »

loss of earnings due to being unable to work full time AND/OR child care costs

Isn't this potentially the most significant point? Of course, in some cases it will not be.

NOVASTAR

Ok - so what if the NRP has the child stay with them for one week - is it fair to say that that week's CSA payment should not be paid to the PWC but instead kept by the NRP to cover that week?

i_hate_the_csa

NOVASTAR wrote: »

Ok - so what if the NRP has the child stay with them for one week - is it fair to say that that week's CSA payment should not be paid to the PWC but instead kept by the NRP to cover that week?

What a interesting question point novastar.I look forward to seeing the replies.

leo110303

It pays for the PWC to spend clothes on themselves (as i personally buy the clothes for my son) :mad::mad:

Gorgeous_George

NOVASTAR wrote: »

Ok - so what if the NRP has the child stay with them for one week - is it fair to say that that week's CSA payment should not be paid to the PWC but instead kept by the NRP to cover that week?

***lights touchpaper***

Don't forget that the PWC should pay 15% of their income to the NRP for that period as well. Oh, and all of the child benefit. CTC etc..

***walks away***

GG