Can you help me see how this is fair

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

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.

However, there is a 'two house' scenario. If I were a single working person, I'd be quite happy (as I used to be) in a one bedroom flat in the town centre that was central to everywhere I wanted to go. I've given you the price for that in my local town centre. However, with a child - I don't think that's an appropriate place to live - could a 12 yr old son stay with a mum in a 1 bedroom flat? You would think that appropriate? Or do you think that by that time a two bedroom place might be more appropriate? They do cost more than one bedroom you know
As part of a couple - we CHOSE to raise our children in suburban areas, now rural areas, and to be close to GOOD schools - should this not be taken into account when a couple separates or is the hell hole of a school with cheap housing around it all of a sudden suitable for your child?

Yes there are utility bills to begin with - are you saying that laundry for a child comes free? their hot water heats up automatically and with no charge? Their furniture just appears at the times they need it?

So, again, for the - as you refer to - terminally stupid amongst us - children do not come free.....they do have expenses, and they are over and above the expenses for a single person

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

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.

And you're calling me terminally stupid? lol

No, the state does not foot the bill for the lost maintenance due to the man losing his job - as maintenance is not regarded in the calculations for means tested benefits - remember?

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

However, there is a 'two house' scenario. If I were a single working person, I'd be quite happy (as I used to be) in a one bedroom flat in the town centre that was central to everywhere I wanted to go. I've given you the price for that in my local town centre. However, with a child - I don't think that's an appropriate place to live - could a 12 yr old son stay with a mum in a 1 bedroom flat? You would think that appropriate? Or do you think that by that time a two bedroom place might be more appropriate? They do cost more than one bedroom you know
As part of a couple - we CHOSE to raise our children in suburban areas, now rural areas, and to be close to GOOD schools - should this not be taken into account when a couple separates or is the hell hole of a school with cheap housing around it all of a sudden suitable for your child?

Yes there are utility bills to begin with - are you saying that laundry for a child comes free? their hot water heats up automatically and with no charge? Their furniture just appears at the times they need it?

So, again, for the - as you refer to - terminally stupid amongst us - children do not come free.....they do have expenses, and they are over and above the expenses for a single person

Im well aware that they are not free. But I am also well aware that they do not cost the amount you say when you are tagging on costs that the PWC would have to pay anyway.

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

Im well aware that they are not free. But I am also well aware that they do not cost the amount you say when you are tagging on costs that the PWC would have to pay anyway.

Yes, housing is required for the PWC anyway - but you refuse to acknowledge the 'additional' costs for housing a child in the same household. As mentioned, in my local papers - the additional cost would be in the region of £300 per month if renting.

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

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

the point is that if it is available for couples with children it should be available for separated couples with children. This has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with the welfare state.

As for choosing to have kids, I have demonstrated with ease in the other thread how not all people who have had kids have chose this.

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Yes, housing is required for the PWC anyway - but you refuse to acknowledge the 'additional' costs for housing a child in the same household. As mentioned, in my local papers - the additional cost would be in the region of £300 per month if renting.

No. You have just randomly doubled your housing cost on the basis of something that you'd want (garden etc).

If you want a garden (and it maintaining for you :rotfl:) then you earn the reddies to do that rather than expecting your ex to just provide it for you.

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

No. You have just randomly doubled your housing cost on the basis of something that you'd want (garden etc).

If you want a garden (and it maintaining for you :rotfl:) then you earn the reddies to do that rather than expecting your ex to just provide it for you.

Can you only read certain words or what? I've already commented on the 'garden' and the 'maintenance' - and if as a couple we chose to move from a flat into a house with a garden as we felt it important for our children, why is that no longer of importance when the child is with the PWC? I have never expected my ex to provide a bloody thing for me - I have worked hard to get where I am now, and ALL of his child support actually goes from my bank account into my sons bank account by direct debit every month. Just because I make him pay what he should, doesn't mean I am getting it to fulfill my desires

anguk

I think the fairest way would either be that the amount of maintenance a NRP pays should be disregarded when claiming any benefits or the amount of maintenance a PWC receives is regarded when claiming benefits.

I still can't get over the fact that the PWC can claim full IS, CTC, housing & council tax benefit and then get maintenance on top of that. As it stands now it's almost as if a NRP is punished for paying maintenance, when there's thousands of NRPs who get away with paying nothing.

melly1980

The fairest way is that the cost of maintaining a child is worked out. The benefits then received by the PWC subtracted from this (rather than getting them on top of maintainance) then the remaining cost split 50/50 between the two people that are financially responsible.

Naturally, most PWC wont have this because they prefer the currect situation of "stiff the bloke for as much as possible irrespective of if he is overpaying in real terms for what it takes to maintain a child".

AnxiousMum

You know Melly - as you said you are married with children and quite happy - I find it interesting that you have this attitude having never been in the situation of being either a pwc or a nrp. Not everybody is out to 'stiff the bloke'.......some of us are out for 'best interests of the child', and if that means that my ex feels stiffed.......then tough - we made plans together as a couple, I'm doing my bit, he needs to do his. I don't kick my kids out of the house the minute I don't get CM for them, this is their home. I can say no to them (such as a £3,800 summer field trip which would not have been something that they would've gotten had both parents been together), but I do ensure that they have all the support they need - both financial and emotional. Their dad does his part financially (thanks to enforcement proceedings on child support), but will call once a month to discuss latest sports scores etc.

Just totalled up my petrol costs for last week lol - transporting kids to various sports events, return trip to university, away game for sports game, lifts into train stations for trip up north to see girlfriend, etc., and having to have a 7 seater vehicle to fit all the family into, I spent over £120 in petrol - all but £20 of that would've been purely due to costs of transporting kids to where they needed to go. But you're probably thinking that 'well you need a car anyways'.....yep I do, but a single person wouldn't need a people carrier, and could run something alot more affordable than that in petrol. Too bad if I thought the same way as you do though - I wouldn't have the ability to transport the kids and their equipment where they need to go