Are Maintenance Payments Based on Household Income or Individual Income?

DUTR

princessdreamer wrote: »

Interesting point again in that NRP think responsibility ends at the set minimum the states for maintenance and anything more is an outrage.

That's not what I was saying, but from your own circumstance (remember I don't know what you earn or anything) but could you comfortably afford £144 per week for your child's schooling on top of the other usual expenses such as school run, after school club etc then the regular everyday living costs

Gillyx

princessdreamer wrote: »

Interesting point again in that NRP think responsibility ends at the set minimum the states for maintenance and anything more is an outrage.

I didn't say it was an outrage, I said was they are legally obliged to, not that they couldn't contribute more if needed.

But realistically on an average income of even say £20000 p/a, I'd assume the NRP would still have bills to pay too? Mortgage/rent, council tax, food, travel, etc. So may not be able to contribute more than the required amount.

I know of one family member who doesn't live in the lap of luxury, he survives and manages to pay what he's told to. Would he like to contribute more to his children? Of course he would, he wants to give them everything in the world, but he just can't afford to.

I should point out the man in question is single, so only has one income coming in.

At the end of the day, when a couple split, cloths have to be cut accordingly, even my own parents with no maintenance involved, it's common sense to realise that 1 wage won't stretch as far as 2.

princessdreamer

Hang on so if I add my child benefit, to 20% of my wages then I should not be expected to pay anything else for my children. Sounds good

princessdreamer

DUTR wrote: »

That's not what I was saying, but from your own circumstance (remember I don't know what you earn or anything) but could you comfortably afford £144 per week for your child's schooling on top of the other usual expenses such as school run, after school club etc then the regular everyday living costs

Nope but that is one extreme case.

msb5262

DUTR wrote: »

I agree things cannot stay the same when people split and it seems from some of the responses on this thread is that the non resident should absorb all/most of the change or indeed put up with change 1st.
In all this I'm not sure why Mummy's new friend cannot help out with the schooling costs? :eek:

a) where did anyone say that the non resident parent should absorb all/most of the change?
and
b) do we even know that Mummy has a new friend??
...and c) can you find an even more coy way to imply that the OP has a new partner? No, probably not actually!

Marisco

princessdreamer wrote: »

Hang on so if I add my child benefit, to 20% of my wages then I should not be expected to pay anything else for my children. Sounds good

So what do you expect your ex to do? Pay all your bills as well as his? I presume you get the benefit of a roof, gas, electric, water etc etc as well as the kids? Well, that is what your money pays for! Your ex's maintenance is for the kids, not you. Add up 20% of your wage and 20% of your ex's, that's 40% being spent on the kids, is that not enough for you?

princessdreamer

DUTR wrote: »

I suppose it's a ridiculous amount to the 'average' houshold, my niece went to private school for a time, if anything I would say it has had a negative impact.
I agree things cannot stay the same when people split and it seems from some of the responses on this thread is that the non resident should absorb all/most of the change or indeed put up with change 1st.
In all this I'm not sure why Mummy's new friend cannot help out with the schooling costs? :eek:

Cool you can marry me and pay for my kids to go to private school:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

i'm sure you said you would lower your standards earlier

princessdreamer

Marisco wrote: »

So what do you expect your ex to do? Pay all your bills as well as his? I presume you get the benefit of a roof, gas, electric, water etc etc as well as the kids? Well, that is what your money pays for! Your ex's maintenance is for the kids, not you. Add up 20% of your wage and 20% of your ex's, that's 40% being spent on the kids, is that not enough for you?

Erm nope it would still just be my 20% ex pays nowt, my money pays 100% of everything.

DUTR

msb5262 wrote: »

a) where did anyone say that the non resident parent should absorb all/most of the change?
and
b) do we even know that Mummy has a new friend??
...and c) can you find an even more coy way to imply that the OP has a new partner? No, probably not actually!

In your post #82

The rest you can try and entertain an argument all you like, but as we are not sleeping together, 1) I don't have to argue with you and 2) I don't have to let you win.

So if you want a sensible debate then that is fine, but if you want to spread rumour that the bloke in this case is wrong and the woman is right, then just say so, all you seem to be doing at present is trying to be-little what I type as if you are very narrowminded or a serious man hater, how do you know the Op does not have a new friend? And if she does why can he not pay the schooling ? I already know the answer, because it is WRONG to do so, well only if they opt to do so.

Gillyx

At the end of the day opinions differ, the law is there for a reason whether you agree with it or not. There was obviously enough research put in to come to the figure of 15%/20% as I hardly doubt they pulled that figure from thin air.

There are always people who will work the system and find a way to wriggle out of there responsibilities.

In the scenario that is closest to my heart, my brothers mother and her extremely rich fiance could afford to take him on holidays to Disneyland, but he'd turn up on our doorstep with clothes that didn't fit and shoes with holes in them, my dad was paying the required amount stated by CSA but she'd complain that wasn't enough and that was why he had no clothes? What should he have done then?