Can you help me see how this is fair

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

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.

You can find it as interesting as you want. My views are based on that I see a system that is unfair and its a system that could (touch wood that it doesnt) affect me in the future.

It is unfair because the default status is for the woman to get custody of the children (despite the use of sex as a determining factor for any other thing in this country is illegal)

It is unfair because in the example provided a bloke is assessed on money that he quite simply does not have

It is unfair because the woman in this example gets under-assessed with regards to tax credits and ends up with more than her fair share.

Its unfair because the driving force behind what money is distributed out is not on what it costs to maintain a child but what money is avaliable to take.

These are points that any normal, rational and reasonable person would sit back and think that they were unfair. (except of course someone who benefits from the system in question)

nannytone_2

melly1980 wrote: »

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.

so it's just coincidence that i only ever had 2, despite the fact that i always had a healthy sex drive?

AnxiousMum

LOL - and again, you fail to acknowledge that there are additional costs related to children - you want to see it as a case of your wife would screw you over for everything she could get should the situation arise, but as said, some of us actually do put money aside for our children's futures (and I know that if I didn't, and he paid 'less', his new partner certainly would not allow him to put money aside for his future, as she was the one who caused him to stop paying his child support in the first place - feeling that he was more responsible to her son than he was to his own), who do ensure that our children benefit from their child support,and who also work hard to ensure that we are contributing just as much, often more, than what the ex does.

The only thing I agree with you on is that child maintenance SHOULD be taken into account for ALL means tested benefits for the PWC, and that the NRP's means tested benefits should be based on income MINUS the PAID child support - not the assessed, but the PAID.

melly1980

nannytone wrote: »

so it's just coincidence that i only ever had 2, despite the fact that i always had a healthy sex drive?

As expalined in the other thread. You have only chosen to have children if that was the intention when having sex. If you were just having sex for the pleasure of it then you havent chosen to have a kid, even if it did end up that way.
At the risk of repeating what I posted in t'other thread, if this is considered to be choosing to have a kid then its as stupid as saying that someone who crossed the road and got knocked down chose to get knocked down. They didnt chose that, there is another option, chance / luck or the plain old making a mistake.

In your instance it could be anything. It could be good planning, low mistake making or just good luck (if you see it that way) that you havent had more kids and in all likelyhood a combination of all of those.

nannytone_2

the reason they stopped taking maintenance into account was because they said it detterred NRP from paying if they felt the extra money would be deducted from benefits. meaning they would be paying at no benefit to the child.

personal responsibility was a dirty catchphrase for the labour government. they wanted as manypeople as possible reliant on the state.
to them that meant votes.
now we have a minority goventment..........even with all of labours incentives.
just proves how skewed the dydtem was/is?
not for too long hopefully

nannytone_2

ihad sex for pleasure........on numerous occasions lol
i just chose not to procreate at the same time!

i chose to have 2 children, and i had 2 children.
i chose on numerous occasions not to 'chance' having a child.
and amazingly i never had any more!!!!

melly1980

AnxiousMum wrote: »

LOL - and again, you fail to acknowledge that there are additional costs related to children - .

No I dont. I just dont agree with the value that you attribute to it. I have explained this earlier when posting

Im well aware that they are not free. But I am also well aware that they do not cost the amount you say

You keep trotting out the same old line that I refuse to accept that kids cost additional money when I have posted no such thing. Its just a straw man argument.
What I have posted is that when taking money from a man there is little or no consideration as to what the child costs to bring up. It is just a broad calcualtion based on what he earns. not what it costs to maintain a child.

nannytone_2

so if i have sex and dont take precautions then its 'good luck'?

i call it stupidity

AnxiousMum

nannytone wrote: »

the reason they stopped taking maintenance into account was because they said it detterred NRP from paying if they felt the extra money would be deducted from benefits. meaning they would be paying at no benefit to the child.

Exactly why if a PWC is on any means tested benefits, there should be an agency (DWP? don't know) which pursues the NRP for the child support - parents need to realise that it is the responsibility of the PARENTS (yup - both of them!) to provide for their children, and not receiving majority of income from the state while letting the NRP off scott free.

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

No I dont. I just dont agree with the value that you attribute to it. I have explained this earlier when posting

Im well aware that they are not free. But I am also well aware that they do not cost the amount you say

You keep trotting out the same old line that I refuse to accept that kids cost additional money when I have posted no such thing. Its just a straw man argument.
What I have posted is that when taking money from a man there is little or no consideration as to what the child costs to bring up. It is just a broad calcualtion based on what he earns. not what it costs to maintain a child.

well, when it comes to your turn, let's hope your wife goes for the set calculations and not what it actually costs