OS contraception

princesstippytoes

pigpen wrote: »

Because he is a kn0b to put it quite bluntly.

But he has to pay. By law. And the children have regular contact with him so it's not like he's done a runner. I don't understand.

Lozzy88

Even if pigpens ex did pay for their kids the amount of benefits she would recieve would be the same anyways so i dont see why its really a problem

cbrown372

so how much tax has your current oh contributed towards paying for the benefits for his child plus 1?

Izzy.

lozzy88 wrote: »

Even if pigpens ex did pay for their kids the amount of benefits she would recieve would be the same anyways so i dont see why its really a problem

If everyone had that attitude the country would be in even worse trouble than it is now. Its down to personal responsiblity. I can't afford 10 kids so I won't have 10 kids. Simples. Pigpen cant afford 10 kids but she had them anyways so somebody else has to pay for them. Tax payers who get up off their arris and go to work thats who pays for them.

pigpen

lozzy88 wrote: »

Even if pigpens ex did pay for their kids the amount of benefits she would recieve would be the same anyways so i dont see why its really a problem

he would probably also lose his house and not be able to have contact with the children either... but that is obviously less important.

I don't see why my income is relevant to this thread but I am still entertained and will laugh and walk away when I am not.

cbrown372

lozzy88 wrote: »

Even if pigpens ex did pay for their kids the amount of benefits she would recieve would be the same anyways so i dont see why its really a problem

thats what makes a mockery of the whole benefit system

cbrown372

I have no doubt you can laugh as you seem to be sitting pretty.

delain

princesstippytoes wrote: »

Pigpen, why does your OH not contribute to his children? Isn't that what the child support agency is there for?

My ex has not paid a penny for his three... he was recently granted supervised contact and refused point blank to even bring them a packed lunch or a drink 'because she gets all the money for them' we get child tax credit and child benefit, he seems to think they have made me a millionaire

lostinrates

I dislike the personal tone this takes.

I'm afraid I'm one of those who both environmentally thinks no more than two is best usually. However, I aso recognise this is MY opinion, not everyones, and unless it becomes legislated against (v. unlikely because the pension crisis is considered more immeadiate than environmental concerns to those seeking election on all sides of the house) I can only voice my opinion generally and have no right to direct it personally.

we're also a high tax paying household, and hate seeing the amount of tax we pay while wondering if we'll be able to install heating this year...but these too are personal choices of lifestyle and the home we've bought etc etc. But we are lucky to afford this choice, and my frustration is not having a support system, which I'd find in uncivilised to be without, but rather the extent of that support system.

I would much rather live in a lower provision, lower tax society, but I also like living in the uk. I have to accept majority decision on this.

I think these things SHOULD be discussed more because they do impact a lot on the finances of our society a lot, but to make them personal I find extremely uncomfortable and it renders me unable to offer support to the general argument.

Izzy.

pigpen wrote: »

he would probably also lose his house and not be able to have contact with the children either... but that is obviously less important.

I don't see why my income is relevant to this thread but I am still entertained and will laugh and walk away when I am not.

Yes you laugh at the rest of us who pay for you and your children. Hilarious.