Does NRP rent get taken into account for CSA?

lizzielondon

mitchaa wrote: »

Hold on a minute here.

My point was made about how I agree that 16% of his income is sufficient. It is as the CSA state it is.

Lizzie in London seemed like she wanted to bankrupt the poor guy. I repsonded that he has expenses to pay too and that I am in agreement that 16% of his salary was indeed fair as per CSA guidelines.

Where are you coming from reference he shouldnt be paying for the other children? I'm astonished to read that from yourself. When you move in with someone you agree to take on all the ''baggage'' that comes with that. Surely you see that?

Perhaps that is the going rate for rent in his area? Unlike an NRP, he would not be given a priority boost up the council housing list.

If the CSA take too much from someone rendering them with no money to live on, then the only option is to give up employment. That of course benefits no1 and the children lose out.

that's not true

I said it doesn't seem enough and i stand by that

feeding two children who aren't his shouldn't be his priority. Feeding, clothing and housing his own children should be

alwayspuzzled

lizzielondon wrote: »

that's not true

I said it doesn't seem enough and i stand by that

feeding two children who aren't his shouldn't be his priority. Feeding, clothing and housing his own children should be

How much would you want to see a nrp parent pay in order to seem enough? This is an honest question as I curious as to other peoples expectations to level of support.

The 15% of income benchmark seems fair to me but I know theres many who think it should be more. Personally I only ask my nrp for less than 1/2 that but I'm really getting fed up of the poor me attitude and if he keeps acting so hard done by he's going to get a shock when he sees the csa letter arrive:rotfl:at the moment he only gets asked for 1/2 of school/childcare related activities and nothing else. Where as OH's pwc has constantly belittled his contributions even though they were always above the csa guidelines and has got a big shock now shes gone through the csa and found out shes not entitled to "more than 1/2 of what you both earn put together" after all.

missmontana

ballsonyournose wrote: »

Honest question, but why do most PWC think its solely the NRP's duty to provide financially?
Im of the opinion woman are equal to men, but it seems most PWC harp back to the stone age where woman cook/clean/breastfeed and the men bring home the bacon.

If i dared suggest that to my fianc!e, i'd be castrated on the spot!

I really don't think that's the case, I'm sure most PWC's provide financially as well as doing all the other jobs!
Its not about equality, most of us believe in that, but the PWC is the one who has daily care of the children, and the NRP only see's them on a limited basis in the majority of cases. SO how else are they supposed to "provide"?

AnxiousMum

ballsonyournose wrote: »

Honest question, but why do most PWC think its solely the NRP's duty to provide financially?
Im of the opinion woman are equal to men, but it seems most PWC harp back to the stone age where woman cook/clean/breastfeed and the men bring home the bacon.

If i dared suggest that to my fianc!e, i'd be castrated on the spot!

I'm a PWC, and I most certainly contribute financially towards my children. The child support that they are entitled to receive from their father is to further provide for them. I have worked since my eldest was 9 months old, worked as a single parent, and still work now with a new partner and a total of five children.

When we were married, both their father and I contributed to their financial needs - child support is just a means of allowing that to continue - BOTH parents providing financially for their children.

jacklink

i agree it usually always about what the n.r.p. gives but rarely about what the r.p. gives at the end of the day the r.p. gets a lot of help from the government whereas the n.r.p. gets none even though he may have just as much input toward the child/ren.

obviously n.r.p. provides on a big scale as they are subject to the money factor

Blonde_Bint

shipr!!!95 wrote: »

I don't know whether he pays a pension, but I suspect he may set one up quick

Can I just point out that I think they're saying that within 2 yrs you will be forced to have your own personal pension whether you want one or not. Not having a private pension wont be an option soon. So that may be why people are taking up pensions now as well.

This is the case isnt it? confirmation please good people:)

It will be bad news for us as we cant afford it at present but there you go.

Kimitatsu

jacklink wrote: »

i agree it usually always about what the n.r.p. gives but rarely about what the r.p. gives at the end of the day the r.p. gets a lot of help from the government whereas the n.r.p. gets none even though he may have just as much input toward the child/ren.

obviously n.r.p. provides on a big scale as they are subject to the money factor

Can I just say that is an incredibly sweeping statement :eek: I know many PWC's who work and have just as much input into the children.

I am a parent with care and I can hand on heart tell you that I DONT get any help from the government apart from my CB. I get £5 a week for my two boys from the CSA because he thinks he doesnt need to contribute to their upbringing.

Ballsonyournose - its not about being the mainstay of support for the PWC even after the NRP has left but had the relationship worked out then the children would have had the benefit of at least 50% of the income that the NRP generates. Now I am not for one minute suggesting tha should continue after the relationship has ended, the NRP has to have somewhere to live and be able to visit their children and have a standard of living that enables them to be a parent. So for me the CSA rates are there, thats the law, live within that means, and up until recently those were included in the means testing process so all of that money went into the household. If the NRP then chooses to add in voluntary contributions by buying clothes paying for trips etc then that is their right but it is not a right on the half of the PWC to demand it.

My only point would be that whilst the NRP has to put in a set amount of their salary, the PWC not only pays for their children but has the main caring role, frequently meaning that it makes it difficult in many cases to put aside money for their own pension. I realise that a PWC gets home responsibility protection, but in order to have flexible hours or to ensure that the children are the priority then the PWC often has to take a part time job or lower salary to be able to have these options.

PlayingHardball

I'm a PWC and work full time, not just because I have to but because I enjoy working. I have a partner and between us we happily bring home the bacon!!). I receive no child support from the NRP. I receive no benefits other than child benefit.

WTC is available to both parents, so Jacklinks statement about inequality is incorrect. It is vital to remember that NRP are free to work and pursue well paid jobs (if they so wish) It is much harder for a PWC. But the vast majority of us PWC somehow juggle jobs, childcare, homes, the lot.

I think it is just so sad that there are so many NRP out there who begrudge the small level of support asked of them. At the end of the day, it is their child/children.

speedster

small level of support asked of them?

please tell my suicidal friend that. the csa have driven him to unemployment, he's lost his house and they are still hounding him. he's now told them to fook off and jail him as there is no way they will be getting any more blood out of that stone. with the house and CM she's had off him it totals about 150k. the income they left him with didn't even cover his rent.

his ex meanwhile is sitting in the mortgage free home that he worked half his life for and is now screaming because the gravy train has bit the buffers.

we even had to bring him round to ours last week just to make sure he got a decent meal in him.

i do love the sweeping comments on here.

chriszzz

speedster wrote: »

small level of support asked of them?

please tell my suicidal friend that. the csa have driven him to unemployment, he's lost his house and they are still hounding him. he's now told them to fook off and jail him as there is no way they will be getting any more blood out of that stone. with the house and CM she's had off him it totals about 150k. the income they left him with didn't even cover his rent.

his ex meanwhile is sitting in the mortgage free home that he worked half his life for and is now screaming because the gravy train has bit the buffers.

we even had to bring him round to ours last week just to make sure he got a decent meal in him.

i do love the sweeping comments on here.

I think some on here are quite single minded and forget that some NRPs really do have a tough time, its almost like they are not allowed to think after seperation and how dare they even consider having other children if they carnt afford to pay for the ones he already has. (as some have expressed that on csa thread). So a NRP can be the most loving, giving parent, takes years to build a home for his family and then one day PWC tells him that she wants him gone because she wants to move her new fella in and then says Oh by the way if you carnt afford to support the children I suggest you dont have anymore. Oh please how much control do PWC think they have.

How can some dictate that NRPs should not go onto having more children, some on here forget that a PWC can have part/time job,child support, new partner and maybe maybe not be eligible for wtc/ctc plus the government dont consider the new partners financial contribution to the family household. Some are driven by the money and nothing else.