Can you help me see how this is fair

nannytone_2

fannyanna wrote: »

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

thats it! every decent parent is going to give their child the maximum they can.

if you earnt the wonderful 100k, youre not going to say..........well the kid can only have 5k spent on them because thats what it costs to provide the minimum for them!

fannyanna

nannytone wrote: »

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

They claim full benefits and get maintenance from the NRP as a top up as the income from the maintenance is not used in the benefits assessment.

Yes the NRP gets less benefits as they're assessed on 100% of their income even though they never benefit from 100% of their income.

*Tongue in cheek*

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

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.

LOL - I don't have to mock you Melly - you do it all yourself

I didn't say they would need two houses because there was a kid - did I? If I were a single person, obviously my living accommodation needs are a little different than if I have a child to consider as well - unless, you of course would have your child live in an environment which was not in their best interest?

A gardener? LOL - yeah right - I believe I stated that by having a house there would be more responsibility taken on by the pwc....as in, time taken to maintain a garden......it's not all about money you know - some of us value our time as well.

It's not about the 'wants' of a PWC, it's about you continuing to have the ballls you supposedly had when you had the child, and continue doing the right thing about them, without trying to screw the pwc over because she didn't think you lived up to your own perfect image of yourself The PWC doesn't look for loopholes not to feed the child a meal each night - yet, by trying to get out of child support (if that way inclined) that is what a non compliant NRP does. I guess there will always be the different camps - too bad there wasn't a 'this is what benefits my child' camp

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

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

My views are mixed on this so I will try to expalin.

If the NRP was earning 100K while living with the child and mother then yes, the NRP should be paying the big bucks to ensure that the child is not suddenly thrown into a crappier life after living a good standard of living.

However if the NRP say for example earned 30K when with the mother then through their own hard work managed to get themselves up to a great wage like 100K then they should be judged on providing that lifestyle at the time of the split. The kid is no worse off than what it was used to. It should then be up to the NRP to "treat" his child with additionals as he sees fit like many fathers will do. He shouldnt be used as a ticket to give the PWC a better standard of living.

nannytone_2

fannyanna wrote: »

They claim full benefits and get maintenance from the NRP as a top up as the income from the maintenance is not used in the benefits assessment.

Yes the NRP gets less benefits as they're assessed on 100% of their income even though they never benefit from 100% of their income.

*Tongue in cheek*

the system 'assumes' that everyone 'does the right thing' and only claims if totally necessary.

in the past 2 years my partner has lost all of his overtime. he has also lost his company car and fuel card. so he HAD to get a loan for a vehicle. and he HAS to travel 70 miles a day to and from work.
while his ex on benefit ( remember she has only 1 kid now because she 'encouraged' the older one out) still expects her £70 a week.

she is seriously scared now as come august all her benefit stops. hence her tryng for another baby at the age of 44 ( id rather top myself than have another baby lol)

nannytone_2

melly1980 wrote: »

My views are mixed on this so I will try to expalin.

If the NRP was earning 100K while living with the child and mother then yes, the NRP should be paying the big bucks to ensure that the child is not suddenly thrown into a crappier life after living a good standard of living.

However if the NRP say for example earned 30K when with the mother then through their own hard work managed to get themselves up to a great wage like 100K then they should be judged on providing that lifestyle at the time of the split. The kid is no worse off than what it was used to. It should then be up to the NRP to "treat" his child with additionals as he sees fit like many fathers will do. He shouldnt be used as a ticket to give the PWC a better standard of living.

thats so clinical. surely every parent wants to give their child the best?

ok so the parents split.............so is the child from the 'old' relationship and lesser than the child of the 'new' relationship?

my kids are both adults now, and both financially responsible for their own families...........
it's only been recent that i have been unable to work. after i split with their father, yes i worked less hours than he did, but i had the responsibility of the kids.
he was always great, but his new partner already had 2 kids of her own. and i'd have been severely offended if he was contributing more to her family then he was to his own!

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

LOL - I don't have to mock you Melly - you do it all yourself

I didn't say they would need two houses because there was a kid - did I? If I were a single person, obviously my living accommodation needs are a little different than if I have a child to consider as well - unless, you of course would have your child live in an environment which was not in their best interest?

Nope. I dont do it all by myself. You think Im stupid because you dont understand the posts as demonstrated before and in the above text which I feel the need to (yet again) explain for the terminally stupid amongst us.

I never claimed that you said they need two houses. I used the 2 houses reference as an example to show that it is mot required and therefore the child will be housed with the PWC in 1 house a house that the PWC already has to pay for. The PWC will not be incurring anymore costs because those house costs are there anyway. The council tax cost is there anyway. The gas, electricity and water cost is there anyway. These are costs that the PWC has to pay anyway and are not incurred as a result of them having the child with them. There is no reason that the NRP should have to foot the bill for these so to add them on as a "cost of maintaining a child" is clutching at straws.

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

My views are mixed on this so I will try to expalin.

If the NRP was earning 100K while living with the child and mother then yes, the NRP should be paying the big bucks to ensure that the child is not suddenly thrown into a crappier life after living a good standard of living.

However if the NRP say for example earned 30K when with the mother then through their own hard work managed to get themselves up to a great wage like 100K then they should be judged on providing that lifestyle at the time of the split. The kid is no worse off than what it was used to. It should then be up to the NRP to "treat" his child with additionals as he sees fit like many fathers will do. He shouldnt be used as a ticket to give the PWC a better standard of living.

However, on the same point - if they were then to lose their £30k a year job - would you also hold them responsible for the child support they WERE paying whilst being unemployed? Likely not eh?

My ex is on a great salary now - and it's regular. He used to be self employed, and was doing great, but starting cutting back so that he could go to school and get further qualifications. Those were lean years However, now he is doing alright for himself earning a great salary. Hmmmm, who supported the family when his earnings were low? Oh right, that was me!!!! lol - so yes, his income has increased significantly, do I feel bad for getting what is rightfully owed to the kids? Not one bit

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

However, on the same point - if they were then to lose their £30k a year job - would you also hold them responsible for the child support they WERE paying whilst being unemployed? Likely not eh?

What happens then is what happens to every other family in the country whether as a unit or not, the welfare state foots the bill. This is no different for a separated couple.

nannytone_2

the 'welfare state' isnt a seperate being.

it is other working people that foot the bill.
like they foot the tax credit bill for people that CHOOSE to have multiple children oops did i say that again? lol