This seems like a lot of money.....

butterfly72

My brother has 3 kiddies under 5 with his ex. for a year now my brother has been happily paying her £900 a month maintenance independently and willingly. (plus buying things for the kids himself and having them for full days/weekends etc) She wasn't happy with £900 a month so went to the CSA and now my brother has to pay £1100 a month :eek: Grating, as the ex is always seen out and about with nice new clothes, hair do etc.

Reading on here some of the amounts people are paying, £1100 seems an awful lot of money for 3 kiddies under 5. He earns an ok wage... but not that good!! How do the CSA work these things out?? Can he contest this?

thanks.

missbunbury

There's a calculator on the CSA website, but it'll basically be 25% of his net income. There are other factors to be considered - if he has the children overnight for at least one night a week (on average) he'll get a reduction, and if he has other children living with him his assessable income will be reduced. £1100 is a lot of money, but it's not about the amount, it's about the percentage - he must earn a fair bit to have such a high assessment.

butterfly72

missbunbury wrote: »

, but it's not about the amount, it's about the percentage - he must earn a fair bit to have such a high assessment.

Thanks for the reply.

That seems a really unfair system!! So the harder he works the more she gets despite not really needing it for the kids... just pure greed and malliciousness.

Not a lot of incentinve to work hard then is there. I guess thats why some blokes will take the easy route and just not bother working! It ends up costing the country (us tax payers) more in benefits.

Why don't they do it on a needs basis? I really don't understand this. Its madness.

McKneff

So your friend who is on an okay salary should pay the same as someone working 40 hours a week minimum wage?

I dont think so.

Keep posting though, sometimes its an incentive for other men and women not to have so many kids !!!!

butterfly72

McKneff wrote: »

So your friend who is on an okay salary should pay the same as someone working 40 hours a week minimum wage?

Well, yes I suppose it is. Why compare two extreme salaries... it should be what the kids need. What difference does a high salary make to the low earner.. it doesn't all go into one big pot for even distribution. The poor parent's kid won't benefit from the better off parent paying more than needed. Why should more than needed be given? (I can guarentee mum isn't saving the extra in a university fund!)

i don't have kids but I'm sure 3 under 5s don't cost £1100 per month!!

missmontana

Does he have them so many nights a week? that might lessen what he has to pay...
If he's paying all that money he shouldn't need to be buying them extra stuff,

I take it she works? or she wouldn't see all of that money.

AnxiousMum

butterfly72 wrote: »

Why don't they do it on a needs basis? I really don't understand this. Its madness.

But it is done on a needs basis. It is always assumed that a PWC spends a certain percentage of whatever income they have, on their children.

If both parents are together, it is roughly assumed that a certain percentage of joint income is spent on the children (housing, food, heat, electricity, transportation, clothing, activities, schooling, clubs, holidays etc.) Usually the amount of money spent on these things for each individual family, is in a direct relationship to the earnings of the parents. EG you may have one family earning decent money where the kids go on an annual overseas vacation, have horseriding lessons, go for weekends away, are enrolled in numerous extracurricular activities etc., because with the joint incomes, parents can afford to do this and do it as they believe it best for their child. Another family whose both parents might be in low paid/minimum wage jobs, obviously won't be going on a vacation overseas everyyear, have many extracurricular clubs, but will look out for inexpensive/free activities for their children. They may not have as many new clothes, birthday gifts, Christmas gifts etc.

So the 'need' of the child is in direct relationship to the salaries of both parents - as had the parents stayed together, the child's expected standard of living would be directly related to parental income.

And.....it's not about being a better parent if you can spend more money on them - it's just human nature. A child is ENTITLED to a standard of living that they would've had if both parents stayed together.

Too often the rights of the child are forgotten about.

Caz3121

butterfly72 wrote: »

He earns an ok wage... but not that good!!

If the assessment does not include any arrears this says his salary is £80k - pretty good in most people's eyes

I think the way they look at it is that if the children lived with that parent then they would benefit more from a higher income than a lower and probably more than the 25%.
edit AnxiousMum beat me too it....and worded it much better :-)

McKneff

AnxiousMum wrote: »

But it is done on a needs basis. It is always assumed that a PWC spends a certain percentage of whatever income they have, on their children.

If both parents are together, it is roughly assumed that a certain percentage of joint income is spent on the children (housing, food, heat, electricity, transportation, clothing, activities, schooling, clubs, holidays etc.) Usually the amount of money spent on these things for each individual family, is in a direct relationship to the earnings of the parents. EG you may have one family earning decent money where the kids go on an annual overseas vacation, have horseriding lessons, go for weekends away, are enrolled in numerous extracurricular activities etc., because with the joint incomes, parents can afford to do this and do it as they believe it best for their child. Another family whose both parents might be in low paid/minimum wage jobs, obviously won't be going on a vacation overseas everyyear, have many extracurricular clubs, but will look out for inexpensive/free activities for their children. They may not have as many new clothes, birthday gifts, Christmas gifts etc.

So the 'need' of the child is in direct relationship to the salaries of both parents - as had the parents stayed together, the child's expected standard of living would be directly related to parental income.

And.....it's not about being a better parent if you can spend more money on them - it's just human nature. A child is ENTITLED to a standard of living that they would've had if both parents stayed together.

Too often the rights of the child are forgotten about.

Wow, thats exactly what i wanted to say but couldnt get my head into gear. :T

butterfly72

Ok, that makes sense, ensuring they get the standard of living they would have done, had the parents stayed together. Thanks. Just a shame she doesn't spend it on the kids then eh?! Had she not had the money given to her, I'm 100% sure my brother would provide on a need basis for any activity they wanted to do/item they wanted. (he even bought the ex a car so she could take the kids out) I just feel sorry for him that she wasn't happy with £900 and wanted £1100. I'm sure that extra £200 wouldn't make too much different to the standard of living the kids expect.

And as for my brothers wage, I didn't realise he was on that much!! Well done him for working hard.:T

Thanks again.

woody01

McKneff wrote: »

So your friend who is on an okay salary should pay the same as someone working 40 hours a week minimum wage?

I dont think so.

Keep posting though, sometimes its an incentive for other men and women not to have so many kids !!!!

Why not?
Your argument makes no sense at all.
If the rich nrp pays more, that will not benefit the child from the poorer family.

Its about what is reasonable to live on surely.