Should I pay for this? What's fair?

tescobabe69

mazza111 wrote: »

So it's ok for an NRP to pay nothing towards child maintenance and that's ok? He can run a car, buy spoilers etc, Can't feed them for a couple of days?
Of course if it was my x you were referring to, he can afford to go to the states at least once a year so why shouldn't he feed his kids for a couple of days.
Are you for real?

I thought NRP payments were discounted for benefit purposes ? Thus ensuring benefits are sufficient, and if the taxpayer is supplying cash for the children, surely that is where it should be spent.
As for your ex I'm sure I dont know how he affords holidays, regardless, as I say the taxpayer supplies enough or are you suggesting benefit payments are too low ?

BitterAndTwisted

I think all of us are suggesting, based on the info supplied by the OP, that this father of six, although being on benefits, has some form of income in addition to that. Otherwise how could he afford these "spoiler" thingys and be able to afford to run a car. How many people do you know on £70 a week JSA can afford to run a car?

mazza111

tescobabe69 wrote: »

I thought NRP payments were discounted for benefit purposes ? Thus ensuring benefits are sufficient, and if the taxpayer is supplying cash for the children, surely that is where it should be spent.
As for your ex I'm sure I dont know how he affords holidays, regardless, as I say the taxpayer supplies enough or are you suggesting benefit payments are too low ?

As BitterAndTwisted said. They have money for luxuries, but not to feed their children for a few days??

My x pays (i think, been so long since i checked) £5/week from his benefit to the csa. It was the same amount of money when the 2 children were there. Which in all honesty, wouldn't have kept one of them going in milk for the week, never mind 2. But beside the point.

Do you think it's fair that the NRP can afford to (in my case) go overseas on holiday, once, sometimes twice a year and then ask for food for his child (ren) for 2 days while I'm away?

I'm sure the OP is a wee tad angry seeing her x, spend all the money on luxuries, when he could/should be spending some money on his children.

To the OP. As you've probably noticed, your children will see him for what he is one day. Although I've always encouraged my children to have a relationship with their father, it's failing atm due to the age of the children and them starting to see things clearly.


So basically any PWC who's maybe working but getting maintenance from NRP (who's on benefits) shouldn't go away anywhere without paying the father's for childcare?


Thankfully mine are of the age now they won't need to go round there with their bag of groceries when I go away for the weekend.

TBH I could have done without the measly maintenance from him. But I don't see why he should have gotten away without paying it. After all, he was there at conception as much as I was.

I can hold my head high and know that I worked my darned hardest for my kids. It's more than some of these NRP can do, especially those who give up perfectly good jobs to do so.

tescobabe69

mazza111 wrote: »

As BitterAndTwisted said. They have money for luxuries, but not to feed their children for a few days??

My x pays (i think, been so long since i checked) £5/week from his benefit to the csa. It was the same amount of money when the 2 children were there. Which in all honesty, wouldn't have kept one of them going in milk for the week, never mind 2. But beside the point.

Do you think it's fair that the NRP can afford to (in my case) go overseas on holiday, once, sometimes twice a year and then ask for food for his child (ren) for 2 days while I'm away?

I "think" parents should pay for their kids, full stop.

As the taxpayer appears to be saddled with the responsibility (bearing in mind NRP payments being discounted) whether the NRP gives money to enhance the life of his kids or spends it on him/herself seems irrelevant. The taxpayer is ensuring sufficient funding for the kids.

AFiancee

If the ex really is on JSA only - thats £70 a week, could you afford to feed 3 children and pay the bills on that?

Maybe he had the car before he was unemployed, and it is possible that running it is cheaper than public transport, or the only way he can see his children, as he may have to drive to pick them up etc - OP is it necessary for him to have a car - do you live near him?

Someone could have bought him the spoilers, speakers etc for presents etc.

I think you actually should give him something, it is not easy to live on £70 a week never mind be responsible for 3 children as well.

OP - I assume you get benefits for the children, give him the amount of benefits you would normally get for those few days (and not just the CB - although that would still be a start).

mazza111

This is nothing to do with taxpayers or not. I'm a taxpayer too and have been all my life. And I pay plenty for MY children, as I should, he stopped paying towards them almost 10 years ago, he also stopped being their father in my eyes when he asked for food to be sent round, can afford holidays abroad at least once a year but can't afford to feed his son for 2 days? Come on...

I just can't believe some of you who think a father shouldn't feed his kids for a couple of days. The mind boggles. Fair enough if he's on JSA and this is his only income, but we all know there are dodges that are going on, more so with some NRPs who don't want to pay for their children. Which I'm assuming is with this NRP.

Sounds to me like he's maybe got a CIH job undeclared.

And tbh, how much extra does it cost to feed a child for 2 days. In the eyes of most benefits, 2 can live almost as cheaply as 1.

Bowl of cereal
Couple of sandwiches for lunch
2 extra sausages (that's all my kids ever ate at their father's)
Bowl of cereal/slice of toast at suppertime.

Hardly going to break the bank, and would think it's more important to any father to show his children he's supporting them, rather than make himself look like a prat in the meantime asking for food for a couple of days.

Ok granted, the OP has 3 kids to be fed while she's away. I would still give the advice to take some ready meals round for the kids, or a couple of things they like. And go with him to put petrol in the car yourself rather than give him money for it.

I was determined I was not giving my hard earned money to a lazy lay about to spend as he wished. Hence I went down the food avenue.

tescobabe69

mazza111 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with taxpayers or not. I'm a taxpayer too and have been all my life. And I pay plenty for MY children, as I should, he stopped paying towards them almost 10 years ago, he also stopped being their father in my eyes when he asked for food to be sent round, can afford holidays abroad at least once a year but can't afford to feed his son for 2 days? Come on...

I just can't believe some of you who think a father shouldn't feed his kids for a couple of days. The mind boggles. Fair enough if he's on JSA and this is his only income, but we all know there are dodges that are going on, more so with some NRPs who don't want to pay for their children. Which I'm assuming is with this NRP.

Sounds to me like he's maybe got a CIH job undeclared.

And tbh, how much extra does it cost to feed a child for 2 days. In the eyes of most benefits, 2 can live almost as cheaply as 1.

Bowl of cereal
Couple of sandwiches for lunch
2 extra sausages (that's all my kids ever ate at their father's)
Bowl of cereal/slice of toast at suppertime.

Hardly going to break the bank, and would think it's more important to any father to show his children he's supporting them, rather than make himself look like a prat in the meantime asking for food for a couple of days.

Ok granted, the OP has 3 kids to be fed while she's away. I would still give the advice to take some ready meals round for the kids, or a couple of things they like. And go with him to put petrol in the car yourself rather than give him money for it.

I was determined I was not giving my hard earned money to a lazy lay about to spend as he wished. Hence I went down the food avenue.

I suggest you compare what you get from the benefit system now (with kids ) to what you would get if you didnt have kids, and then say "Its nothing to do with the taxpayer". Unless of course you dont claim any benefits.

property.advert

tescobabe69 wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the benefit system gives people too much money ?

Yes.

Benefits need to be reduced and withdrawn and the lazy forced to work for benefits. If they don't, they can be put down.

mazza111

tescobabe69 wrote: »

I suggest you compare what you get from the benefit system now (with kids ) to what you would get if you didnt have kids, and then say "Its nothing to do with the taxpayer". Unless of course you dont claim any benefits.

I suggest it's nothing to do with benefits. It's to do with whether a PWC should pay their X for food/petrol while looking after their children.

DaisyFlower

I agree that both parents should support any children they have and not the state but its a view not held by many anymore.

OP, it depends - if this means parting with your wages then no I wouldn't but would share the CB as you wont have any of the six children anyway. If you don't work and purely claim benefits then of course you should use that money to feed the children.

Is the trip a work one or a holiday, its quite a lot to ask of people to split 6 children between them to go away not for work purposes but I cant envisage having a holiday and not taking the children.