Can you help me see how this is fair

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

If the new partner can't accept that her partner is going to have less money coming in because he had children before, than she better walk away right away.

I don't expect my new partner to support my children, of course he contributes as part of the overall bills, but I could never stop working and think he should be paying everything for them, and he doesn't even have children of his own!

If you read my posts I keep stating that I have no problem with maintenance being paid.

What I have found difficult to understand is how he/we would receive less benefits as he/we would be assessed on 100% of his income and not the reality of the 80% that is available to us.

Thank you very much for your opinion but I will most definately not be walking away from my husband!!!

You don't expect your partner to support your children but you expect the partner of an NRP to. That seems fair!!!

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

Surely if he managed before meeting his new wife, he should manage afterwards, unless there is an expectation that he should support her too and he isn't able to do that whilst continuing to support his children.

What like having children.

Oh yes of course I forgot that NRP's must never move on with their lives and God forbid he have any more children.

pipscot

FBaby wrote: »

Surely if he managed before meeting his new wife, he should manage afterwards, unless there is an expectation that he should support her too and he isn't able to do that whilst continuing to support his children.

He's obviously not going to be able to contribute the same amount to his original family once he has more children to support.

I'm not saying the system is fair - it clearly isn't!! I just disagree with the idea that the NRP can't have more children in a new relationship just because he has existing children from a previous relationship.

Emmzi

they can have as many kids as they like as long as they pay for them and don't expect the first set of kids to be worst off because of it.

fannyanna

pipscot wrote: »

He's obviously not going to be able to contribute the same amount to his original family once he has more children to support.

Not directed at you but.....

It's not even because it's a new family. I'm one of three children (same parents). My older sister would have obviously benefitted from 100% of my parents finances until my brother came along. Then they would have been split between the two of them and then reduced even further when I came along.

So should my parents have not had me as my brother and sister would then have benfitted less from my parents income. No. Then why on earth should anyone have the audacity to say that my husband should not have anymore children just because he already has two.

We are able to financially support our child. We will not need to live off benefits. Both hubby and I will be working full time so that we can support all three children.

My question stems from curiosity as to what we would be entitled to benefits wise and I noticed how the amounts vary quite a bit depending on whether you assess us on 80% or 100% of my husbands income.

fannyanna

Emmzi wrote: »

they can have as many kids as they like as long as they pay for them and don't expect the first set of kids to be worst off because of it.

And at what point have I suggested the other children should be worse off?

catfish50

Emmzi wrote: »

they can have as many kids as they like as long as they pay for them and don't expect the first set of kids to be worst off because of it.

They can have as many kids as they like and can conceive, with no conditions about whether or not they can pay for them. So can everyone. So far, there's fortunately no legislation on the books to say who can or cannot have children.

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

If you read my posts I keep stating that I have no problem with maintenance being paid.

What I have found difficult to understand is how he/we would receive less benefits as he/we would be assessed on 100% of his income and not the reality of the 80% that is available to us!!!

.

I'm not saying at all that the new couple shouldn't have more children, just that they should concentrate on how they can up their income by bringing more in themselves rather than expecting more from the tax payers or previous children having to do with less. It might mean having to wait a few more years before going ahead, it might mean having to work more hours than would have liked, it might mean having to sacrifices other things, but that's the same choice than young couple -with children on either side- have to make too.

fannyanna wrote: »

You don't expect your partner to support your children but you expect the partner of an NRP to. That seems fair!!!

It is not YOUR salary that is affected, but your husband, it is not YOU contributing towards his children but him. It might mean you have less disposable income in the end as a family, but it is not YOUR money.

FBaby

pipscot wrote: »

He's obviously not going to be able to contribute the same amount to his original family once he has more children to support.

Why not? Surely before you decide to have another child, you insure you can afford it without it affecting your other children?

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

Not directed at you but.....

It's not even because it's a new family. I'm one of three children (same parents). My older sister would have obviously benefitted from 100% of my parents finances until my brother came along. Then they would have been split between the two of them and then reduced even further when I came along.

So should my parents have not had me as my brother and sister would then have benfitted less from my parents income. No. Then why on earth should anyone have the audacity to say that my husband should not have anymore children just because he already has two.

We are able to financially support our child. We will not need to live off benefits. Both hubby and I will be working full time so that we can support all three children.

My question stems from curiosity as to what we would be entitled to benefits wise and I noticed how the amounts vary quite a bit depending on whether you assess us on 80% or 100% of my husbands income.

In most case, your salary goes up with years of experience and this is how you make up the difference. This is why, at least in the past, the rate of births went down drastically during recession times. Sometimes too, you can afford two or more children from the start, but most have to start with one

I do understand your frustration, but I don't think there is one family who doesn't find themselves hard done by somehow!