Can you help me see how this is fair

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

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.



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

Why ever do you think that PWC's are not seen as 50% responsible for the cost of raising their children? Okay, it may not be 50%, but what is considered is that a PWC will also spend 15, 20, 25% of their income on their children each month, therefore, the NRP does as well, making them both responsible according to their incomes (and I mean the PWC is responsible by means of we don't sit and let them starve if daddy does't pay CS do we? If you happen to be aware of such a pwc, then the nrp should be going for custody on grounds of neglect).

My ex certainly doesn't cover the costs of the children in whole - I work also to provide for my children, always have, always will. If he didn't pay his CS, we'd survive, but the CS allows them to have a 'normal' lifestyle that they deserve.

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

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

Do you mean where NRP's are not compliant and not paying or over and above the maintenance amounts set by the CSA?

AnxiousMum

fannyanna wrote: »

Do you mean where NRP's are not compliant and not paying or over and above the maintenance amounts set by the CSA?

if an NRP isn't paying, they should be pursued by the government, rather harshley, to cough up their child support so that the taxpayer was not responsible for kicking in his share

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

if an NRP isn't paying, they should be pursued by the government, rather harshley, to cough up their child support so that the taxpayer was not responsible for kicking in his share

I agree that NRP's need to pay and it's a shame that so many non compliant NRP's seem to get away with it.

zagfles

AnxiousMum wrote: »

if an NRP isn't paying, they should be pursued by the government, rather harshley, to cough up their child support so that the taxpayer was not responsible for kicking in his share

It makes no difference to the taxpayer. Child support payments don't reduce benefits or tax credits. PWCs get support off both the taxpayer and NRPs who pay

AnxiousMum

zagfles wrote: »

It makes no difference to the taxpayer. Child support payments don't reduce benefits or tax credits. PWCs get support off both the taxpayer and NRPs who pay

You are right......but if you read more than just that post, we were discussing the fact that it should, and I was responding to a question about PWC's who receive no child support - should they get more tax credits.......

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Why ever do you think that PWC's are not seen as 50% responsible for the cost of raising their children? .

The very fact that if the NRP suddenly gets a nice pay rise he has to pay more. Has the kid suddenly costed more? Nope. Because its not about that. Its about raping the bloke for as much as humanly possible rather than working out proportionate responsibility.

zagfles

AnxiousMum wrote: »

You are right......but if you read more than just that post, we were discussing the fact that it should, and I was responding to a question about PWC's who receive no child support - should they get more tax credits.......

Ah yes - sorry.

SingleSue

melly1980 wrote: »

The very fact that if the NRP suddenly gets a nice pay rise he has to pay more. Has the kid suddenly costed more? Nope. Because its not about that. Its about raping the bloke for as much as humanly possible rather than working out proportionate responsibility.

Not if he/she has a private agreement....then it is discussed between the two ex spouses (well, if the NRP decides to let on that is)

Not all NRP's pay via the CSA....please remember that.
Not all NRP's are male...please remember that too.

melly1980

SingleSue wrote: »

Not if he/she has a private agreement....then it is discussed between the two ex spouses (well, if the NRP decides to let on that is)

Not all NRP's pay via the CSA....please remember that..

But we were talking about the systems in place for determining these things, not mutual agreements.

SingleSue wrote: »

Not all NRP's are male...please remember that too.

Lets cut to the chase here. The only way that the woman does not end up with the kids is if either

a) she doesnt want them

b) She is a drug user

or

c) Her best friend is Ian Huntley.

Other than that she is going to get them even though we all p1$$ about and pretend we live in an age of equality.