I Don't Have Kids Why Pay For Someone Else's?

dreamywings1

When my now fiance moved in with me we came to an agreement and split the bills accordingly. I have 3 children living at home so most bills we divided between 5 and he pays 1/5 and I pay the rest
eg rent £650 / 5 = £130
electric £65 / 5 = £13
Food £400 / 5 = £80
etc etc etc
But things like council tax, car insurance/road tax/diesel we pay half each.
This works for us and maybe something to think about. I pay everything for my children and wouldnt expect my fiance to contribute to this although he does slip them the odd tenner now and again and we both do our fair share of housework and cooking.

adouglasmhor

I treat my son's GFs son as a Grandchild.
My Brother treat's his Fiancè's kids as grandkids (But they call him Uncle Euan as Grandad is still about, just divorced from Gran).
My mum would be black affronted if it was any other way. (Though TBH it never occured to either of us).

B00

I can't believe how parts of this post has turned out.

These are children we're talking about, not nuisences that have to be paid for by someone.

I agree with the majority of people that state that the OP shouldn't be embarking on this relationship, if he's not at least prepared to shoulder some of the responsibility of them.

I have to admit though, the bickering about the finanicial side of these children which followed rests uneasy on me. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I truly believe children are a gift, not something to have spats about over who pays what.

lisamummytoarchieplusbump

unfortunatly i know a few single mothers that will suit you attitude, that put random blokes before their children, that let them play daddy when it suits them and ignore the kids the rest of the time and put up with it. and basicly treat the bloke as a lodger that they have sex with

1 of the women infact had 2 children from a prievious relationship and ended up marrying a man and having a child with him, he would only take HES child out for day trips and buy HES child stuff and wouldnt contribute for the other childrens birthdays ect as they wasnt hes children.

and from you post it seems like this is the sort of set up you want

Jomo

Zaine_UK wrote: »

You see thats the problem with society today. It always sides with the women. Ok, look at it this way...

I give her £100 a week and she loses £35 a week because money isn't everything as she has someone they who loves her and will help her. I bet most of you are horrified at the idea. Because you feel it should always be the man who pays through the nose. If you didn't want equal rights you shouldn't have burnt your bras.

Yes, a problem that Labour created but hopefully will be sorted out by Cam/Clegg

jonnyb1978

Surley the whole basis of moving in together is based on love and trust.
To give the OP a bit of chance his view on 'rent' may have been blown out of proportion and wordly slightly incorrect. If the girl pays £300 mortgage then what is wrong handing over £300 a month contributions towards the bills. Whether it is the mortgage cost or proportions of other bills. (Half phone, wate, gas etc etc) it still comes to £300. He may have possibly used the word 'rent' to simplify things.

I was in the same boat. Moved in with my gf with a child. Her own house etc.
I gave her £350 a month initially. It was not the mortgage, half of gas phone or whatever, it was a contribution to all bills whatever the percentage was. Its what we agreed on. I now have my name on the mortgage, not because im a gold digger, the house was less than satisfactory, it was because we could remortgage, get a bigger one and do some work on the house so the whole family could live in better surroundings. I currently pay the whole mortgage. I let her use my car but never dreamt of asking her for half of the costs. The house is now to a nice standard with nice garden we can all enjoy and hopefully move to a bigger one. If anything my gf will get the most money and thats when i kick the bucket. But who cares. Its about love and trust, yet some mse'ers on here are quick to judge the op without knowing the true facts. Maybe 'rent' was a bad choice of words.

Though the choice of attitude regarding his girls kids was very harsh. Simple fact is you accept her children as part of the family. You provide for that family and the OP, gf should work as parents for the kids whether or not the OP is not the biological father and work as a family based on love and trust.

adouglasmhor

Zaine_UK wrote: »

You see thats the problem with society today. It always sides with the women. Ok, look at it this way...

I give her £100 a week and she loses £35 a week because money isn't everything as she has someone they who loves her and will help her. I bet most of you are horrified at the idea. Because you feel it should always be the man who pays through the nose. If you didn't want equal rights you shouldn't have burnt your bras.

Do you understand what equality means?
I do and I have never worn a bra.

FatVonD

Zaine_UK wrote: »

Hello all,

I have a quick question which is worrying me because i'm a honest person. My GF has 2 kids and the dad pays maintence.

We have been going out for 2 years and are talking about moving in together. I will pay her rent. My income for 2009/2010 was about 6K as i worked Part Time.

I'm starting a new job near her and my income will be 20K. She just told me her income is 12k, but she gets £135 a week! Tax Credits as a single working mum of 2 kids.

What i want to know is will she lose her £135 a week and if she does why should i have to pay another £600 a month on top of the rent i was going to pay her for living they. It doesn't seem fair if this is true. I've choosen not to have kids.

I think the issue is not so much whether you’re having to support them but more that you were expecting your living expenses to be subsidised by a benefit to which they, in their current family unit, are entitled. So in effect, though you are complaining about you maybe having to support them you are actually miffed that they aren’t going to be subsidising your rent as you’d hoped.

If their mother inviting you into their home means that they are going to be out of pocket then it is perfectly right and fair that you should make up the shortfall.

pinkkiss

FatVonD wrote: »

If their mother inviting you into their home means that they are going to be out of pocket then it is perfectly right and fair that you should make up the shortfall.

Why should the OP be out of pocket so the gf isnt? If moving in together is something they BOTH want, he shouldnt be 'reimbursing' her for the benefits she's missing out on :cool: she's not entitled to the money anymore as she's no longer single , simples. If she really wants her bf to move in, she should be willing to sacrfice the extra money, not charging it to her bf in the form of 'rent' or 'mortgage'.
I agree he should pay something .... but not because of her loosing out on benefits !

JimmyTheWig

pinkkiss wrote: »

I agree he should pay something .... but not because of her loosing out on benefits !

While I agree with you in principle, I think that a single mum with children receiving benefits is likely to be struggling for money. It is unlikely that she and the kids can make significant cut-backs from what they spend at the moment.
The single bloke, on the other hand, has probably got various things he can cut back on without much difficulty.