Can you help me see how this is fair

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

As an example - has anybody written to their MP about this matter? Several posters on here have mentioned they are in a similar position - who out of those posters, has taken a proactive step in addressing it and bringing it to the attention of someone who may be able to have the situation looked at?

I did once write to a couple of MP's (local and DWP/benefits) about something similar in relation to child maintenance and how it impacts the "new family".

Didn't get a response from either MP.

nannytone_2

the people that know how to 'play' the system are laughing.
proplr that choose to do the right thing will always lose out.

my partner has 2 sons with his ex. she works 16 hours a week and gets wtc, ctc ,cb and maintenance. mortgage paid ( house falling apart because she doesnt maintain it)

the eldest boy is 20, and moved in with us a year ago when he finished college...............encouraged by his mother, because, although working, couldnt afford to pay her what she was lsoing.
the younger boy is 17 and starts a 4 year course in the Ascension Islands ( chance of a lifetime) in August.

she and her unemployed fiance are now trying for a baby.
guess why?

AnxiousMum

Then I'd be off to their next surgery to have a discussion and ask for a response

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

From the man who doesn't like assumptions - you make a large one here

In trying to quickly to mock me you have missed the point in spectacular fashion. I never said thats how it works. I was pointing out that it should work that way because you should only be 50% responsible for the kid. By then demonstrating that a kid does not cost 800 per month to bring up then the person paying 400 per month is overpaying for that child in terms of financial responsibility. They are getting a raw deal from the system.

pipkin71

fannyanna wrote: »

If only it were that simple eh

It's not simple fannyanna but power of the people can get laws changed or prevent new laws taking shape. I speak through experience there.

fannyanna

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Then I'd be off to their next surgery to have a discussion and ask for a response

I understand the sentiment behind this and appreciate what you're saying - basically stop winging unless you're prepared to do something about it .

BUT, ultimately it's not going to change. As others have said it's pretty much a case of those who shout the loudest. Individuals and couples can't really compete with the organisations in support of single parents etc.

nannytone_2

melly1980 wrote: »

In trying to quickly to mock me you have missed the point in spectacular fashion. I never said thats how it works. I was pointing out that it should work that way because you should only be 50% responsible for the kid. By then demonstrating that a kid does not cost 800 per month to bring up then the person paying 400 per month is overpaying for that child in terms of financial responsibility. They are getting a raw deal from the system.

so a NRP on 100k a year should just contribute the minimum amount needed to keep the child alive?

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I've had a look through our local paper tonight - and if I were on my own, a one bedroom apartment would run me about £400 per month, however, to give a child a home with a garden, in a safe neighbourhood, I'd be looking at that costing about £750 per month. Right there, you have about £350 per month that is benefiting the child - possibly the NRP as well, but also creating alot more work for the NRP garden care, maintenance etc.

Complete rubbish because without the child the PWC would need to house themselves anyway. they dont need 2 houses because they have a kid do they? Nope, they stick to the 1 that the PWC would have to pay for anyway. It hasnt cost them anymore.

As for the res of that section you are talking about what the person wants, not needs. Its all very well talking about a nice house and a gardener (are we on desperate houswives here or something ) but then in a heart beat will happily watch the person who is providing this living in some $h1thole flat above a bookies.

fannyanna

melly1980 wrote: »

In trying to quickly to mock me you have missed the point in spectacular fashion. I never said thats how it works. I was pointing out that it should work that way because you should only be 50% responsible for the kid. By then demonstrating that a kid does not cost 800 per month to bring up then the person paying 400 per month is overpaying for that child in terms of financial responsibility. They are getting a raw deal from the system.

Obviously as an NRPP I often feel as though my hubby and I are being scr*wed over.

Only problem with what you're suggesting is how do you put a price on a childs head. You think the system is already a mess imagine how difficult things would then become

nannytone_2

with the best will in the world...............a PWC with 2 toddlers is severely restricted in the hours they can work. a NRP has no restrictions, as they dont have 'care' of the kids, so obviously their earning power is greater.
maybe it should be an out and out percentage thing.
regardless of earnings, both parents pay the same percentage?

but if you have a PWC that doesnt work at all...........what happens then?