Can you help me see how this is fair

Emmzi

fannyanna wrote: »

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

you didn't, was a reply to pipscot

themull1

My nearly '40 yr old ex husband going through a mid life crisis' is paying me 20% of his salary for our two kids, he decided to go off after 13 years and 'go out' with a 25 year old, why shouldn't he pay? the kids are his responsibility as well. At least it won't be easy for him to have any more kids unless he has his vasectomy reversed, but i wouldn't agree with a man going from one woman to the next, getting them pregnant, leaving and paying nothing for all the kids he's leaving.

Men paying 20% of their salary might think a bit harder before getting someone else pregnant.

fannyanna

themull1 wrote: »

My nearly '40 yr old ex husband going through a mid life crisis' is paying me 20% of his salary for our two kids, he decided to go off after 13 years and 'go out' with a 25 year old, why shouldn't he pay? the kids are his responsibility as well. At least it won't be easy for him to have any more kids unless he has his vasectomy reversed, but i wouldn't agree with a man going from one woman to the next, getting them pregnant, leaving and paying nothing for all the kids he's leaving.

Men paying 20% of their salary might think a bit harder before getting someone else pregnant.

I obviously missed the bit where my husband isn't paying!

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

Maybe because he had a family first and can't erase it just because he happens to now have a new family????

Maybe if he became a househusband he could offer to care for all of his children, and the PWC could pay 20% of her income to support them

He tried to make it work once and it failed. That happens and like most 'errors' you have to pay for them.

As did his ex, presumably. Unless you know it was all his fault?

I am not talking about the kids being the error and paying for itbeing maintenance, I am talking about having to start again and accepting that this means having to do so with less. 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.

He won't have any money coming in if he becomes a househusband!

My ex is 20% better off to support his new family because he doesn't pay a penny towards the children we had together. His partner doesn't work and expects him to support her and her two children 100%. As if that wasn't bad enough, they then decided that they should bring another child into the world. Are you saying that it is totally acceptable that he shouldn't pay towards our children so that his partner, two step children and child to be have a better life? 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!

Well I won't disagree with you there. The problem is that the system expects far too much from NRPs who start new families, or who have step-kids. It expects them to support their own kids who they don't live with, plus other peoples' kids who they do live with. It expects the same % of his income regardless of how many other kids he has to support.

zagfles

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.

Why not? If a "normal" family has 2 kids, then decides to have 2 more, the first 2 will get a lesser share of the parents' incomes because it has to be divided between 4 kids instead of 2.

Same if a PWC has more kids.

melly1980

themull1 wrote: »

My nearly '40 yr old ex husband going through a mid life crisis' is paying me 20% of his salary for our two kids, he decided to go off after 13 years and 'go out' with a 25 year old, why shouldn't he pay? the kids are his responsibility as well...

Correct. But the current system sees the father as 100% responsible financially for these kids when in reality you should be 50% responsible. Its nothing more than grabbing what you can.

themull1 wrote: »

Men paying 20% of their salary might think a bit harder before getting someone else pregnant.

Id say losing 20% of my wages to bash a 25 year old would be a good deal. I may look into that.

michelle1506

Personally I am pig sick of all the whining - only ever on these boards!! People come on here for help but rarely ever get it! Usually they are judged for their circumstances. Easy for some of these posters on here to pass comment about the op's family, for taking up with someone who already has children, and not to have any of their own if they can't afford them! I'm sure the posters would feel differently if they didn't have any children of their own!!

zagfles wrote: »

As well as this if you don't have a full entitlement and no other pension then you can claim pension credit which is much more than the full basic state pension. You can claim winter fuel allowance, free bus pass, and you're likely to need the NHS much more than younger people.

It's the next generation's taxes which are going to paying for all the above. Something which those who whine about supporting "other peoples' kids" need to think about.

melly1980

fannyanna wrote: »

I obviously missed the bit where my husband isn't paying!

There was no part. It was just some irrational bitter person using your circumstances to lash out at someone else. No wonder he's now banjoing a 25 year old.

fannyanna

melly1980 wrote: »

Id say losing 20% of my wages to bash a 25 year old would be a good deal. I may look into that.

Haha :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

AnxiousMum

FBaby wrote: »

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?

Possibly, but if that were the case, (and, I honestly believe it should've been the case when maintenance was regarded in any means tested benefits) the NRP should be gone after by the government for child support to offset the addiitional monies being paid to support his children