Can you help me see how this is fair

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

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

As we pay through the CSA the monthly child maintenance payments will reduce in line with the CSA rules. That will be the only impact on the maintenance payments.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Precisely we are a family unit and as such we have joint finances and joint bills. I appreciate I am not directly paying for the children (although I have in the past) but you've hit the nail on the head about less disposable income. I end up having to pay more towards our bills as my husbands salary is in effect reduced due to maintenance.

This is not an issue and comes with the territory.

AnxiousMum

pipscot wrote: »

So if a guy whose wife leaves him, takes his children with him - but he manages to get over it and after a few years remarries a woman who does not have children - is she not allowed to have any children at all because of something that happened before she came on the scene?

Did I say they are not 'allowed' to have children? No, we do live in a free country remember? However, if he cannot afford to support his current children, then how does he think he's going to be able to afford mroe children without working out his income, outgoings and his new partner's income and outgoings? If there is no room in there to have another child, then don't have it! Quite simple really.....As a couple, you would normally discuss how many children you want to have, whether you can afford it or not - so why do you think that NRP's can't have that same discussion and come to a mature decision as to what is realistic?

Personally, if my current partner had had children, I don't know that I would've gone on a second date with him - as I don't know that I could be as unselfish as would be required, to put his first children before our own - and that's not being nasty, that's just me being honest. I also don't know that I could treat someone elses children as fairly as my own - so wouldn't put myself in that position. My head would've gotten in the way before my heart became involved.

Again, as couples, we have as many children as we feel we can comfortably afford. I have five boys - just say I had really wanted a girl - should I keep having more kids hoping for one, 'because it's my right', or should I be sensible and think we have our hands full with the five I have? Luckily for me, it was always a boy that I wanted...after that I didn't care

It's like everything else - if you go to a restaurant and the meal you really want is £49.99, but you can only afford £30.....you have and enjoy the £30 meal - silly comparison.....but in reality it's the same with kids - if you can't afford them at a lifestyle you are comfortable with, then don't have them! Some people are willing to do away with certain things, others not - so you have to look at it as it pertains to your particular situation.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

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

And I completely agree. As I have said at somepoint during this thred I do appreciate that there are often losers in such situations. Sometimes it's the PWC, sometimes the NRP and sometimes the NRPP.

As I've said before it's not the child maintenance that's the issue. I just found it unfair that we'd be assessed on benefits on 100% when we only get 80%.

Either way it's academic as the likelihood of me being a stay at home Mum is extremely slim as being the bredwinner (horrid term but you know what I mean) we couldn't live on just 80% of husbands salary and we wouldn't get a lot in benefits.

So because we will need to provide financial support for three children we will both need to work full time and pay for full time childcare for our child - as I appreciate many people do.

AnxiousMum

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.

I;m not saying any child is entitled to the benefits of 100% of their parents income - don't be ridiculous.

I also haven't said that your husband shouldn't have more because he already has two. However, he does already have two children to financially support, so when considering whether he should have more, he needs to determine whether or not it's within his finances to do so - children aren't cheap. Maybe he can't really afford it, and might be prepared to downgrade other things in his life so that he can afford another child - but that's for you guys to decide.

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

My head would've gotten in the way before my heart became involved.

Sensible lady - my heart clearly works quicker than my head :rotfl:

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I;m not saying any child is entitled to the benefits of 100% of their parents income - don't be ridiculous.

I also haven't said that your husband shouldn't have more because he already has two. However, he does already have two children to financially support, so when considering whether he should have more, he needs to determine whether or not it's within his finances to do so - children aren't cheap. Maybe he can't really afford it, and might be prepared to downgrade other things in his life so that he can afford another child - but that's for you guys to decide.

Not sure my post was directed at you - but there's been a few and I get confused with who said what

Edit: yep, just looked back and it was a response to something someone else had said - basically he shouldn't be having more as it will be making his other children worse off. So wasn't me being ridiculous :-)

That is exactly what we are doing. We have wanted children for a number of years but as you've rightly said it makes it all the more difficult considering he already has two.

We have held off for a number of years so that we've reached the point that we are now at - able to afford to have a baby.

AnxiousMum

Fannyanna - I do agree iwth you on your initial post on this thread - it does seem unfair the way the calculation is done. But, given that is the way it is done, that's when the 'can I afford it' or 'can I do this and not begrudge the children' has to come into play.

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Fannyanna - I do agree iwth you on your initial post on this thread - it does seem unfair the way the calculation is done. But, given that is the way it is done, that's when the 'can I afford it' or 'can I do this and not begrudge the children' has to come into play.

Not sure I've mentioned begrudging the children.

Ultimately it's the system and with anything in life you can't please everyone and someone is always going to feel hard done by. I guess in this case it's me that feels that way. Nothing I can do about it though so you just need to dust yourself off and move on. Life's too short

FBaby

Really what is unfair, as it's been stated before is that income from maintenance is not counted when assessing benefits. So it's not a question of you getting less than you should, but the pwc getting less tax credits because of the maintenance she receives every month.

Otherwise, on the same principle, should those pwcs who receive no maintenance be able to get more tax credit than those who do?