What reasons for advanced payments on arrears?

speedster

kelloggs36 wrote: »

you are funny!!!

i know, but what's that gotta do with the statement?

not getting the £30, £40 or £50 a week child maintenance is worse than losing say, £200 a week out of your wages?

you need to learn some basic maths if you think a 40% deo is better than not getting CM.

Sensemaya

speedster wrote: »

i know, but what's that gotta do with the statement?

not getting the £30, £40 or £50 a week child maintenance is worse than losing say, £200 a week out of your wages?

you need to learn some basic maths if you think a 40% deo is better than not getting CM.

It appears you don't understand K's comment just like you didn't understand mine on the other thread.

Obviously you are a very biased person as you can only see things from your point of view!

As for basic maths all PWCs are capable of that. I suggest you go on a course of double entry bookkeeping :rotfl:

DX2

Sensemaya wrote: »

As for basic maths all PWCs are capable of that. I suggest you go on a course of double entry bookkeeping :rotfl:

;)especially if we have to juggle fags, and booze money!

speedster

Sensemaya wrote: »

It appears you don't understand K's comment just like you didn't understand mine on the other thread.

Obviously you are a very biased person as you can only see things from your point of view!

As for basic maths all PWCs are capable of that. I suggest you go on a course of double entry bookkeeping :rotfl:

and i still don't understand it.

i made a simple statement. cant see what's so funny about it. it's not a case of being biased.

could you live with 40% of your wages gone?? would you find it easier to go without CM or 40% of your income??

Sensemaya

DX2 wrote: »

;)especially if we have to juggle fags, and booze money!

Indeed! Everything must balance :T Credits and debits and all that.

Sensemaya

speedster wrote: »

and i still don't understand it.

i made a simple statement. cant see what's so funny about it. it's not a case of being biased. You are biased because you can't see the point of view of PWCs.

could you live with 40% of your wages gone?? would you find it easier to go without CM or 40% of your income??

40% of my wages? I don't have a hubs. I couldn't look after my kids without the CM and I work.

If I was in your shoes I would manage.Somehow I managed when I wasn't receiving any maintenance. You just have to adjust to the circumstances.

Loopy_Girl

DX2 wrote: »

;)especially if we have to juggle fags, and booze money!

Nah, no worries there...that's a priority purchase....get the fags and tonic wine in AND then do the budget;)

PlayingHardball

speedster wrote: »

and i still don't understand it.

i made a simple statement. cant see what's so funny about it. it's not a case of being biased.

could you live with 40% of your wages gone?? would you find it easier to go without CM or 40% of your income??

I personally would not ever find myself with having to live with 40% less of my wages, if I were a NRP, I would always choose to put my children's needs above my needs.

speedster

PlayingHardball wrote: »

I personally would not ever find myself with having to live with 40% less of my wages, if I were a NRP, I would always choose to put my children's needs above my needs.

not all nrp's have the choice though.

unless you believe the insane ramblings of certain posters who claim all csa assessments are accurate and genuine. :rolleyes:

Sensemaya

speedster wrote: »

not all nrp's have the choice though.PWCs have no choice when the NRP refuses to pay. They have to wait!

unless you believe the insane ramblings of certain posters who claim all csa assessments are accurate and genuine. :rolleyes:

What posters are you referring too?
They are always genuine as they are generated via CSA, so we all know assessments and especially arrears are often inaccurate. Goes without saying.:rolleyes: