We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should I help my OH subsidise his nasty ex so the kids can see their Mum?
Comments
-
No, because that would suggest you that you think society/the government (or whatever) should cover all costs for your children when you should be expected to fund luxuries like dance classes (for example) yourselves if you are earning but she isn't. Child benefit is in place to pay for necessities, not luxuries.
OK, so dance classes aren't necessary but clothes, school uniforms and other things are I'm afraid. I wouldn't call birthday or christmas presents, to some extent, a luxury either....0 -
NewKittenHelp wrote: »So is maintenance but this 'mother' isn't paying anything. If this were a father and not a mother he would have been crucified for not paying for his kids.
Exactly my point earlier! Same if the woman was giving the man money for having his kids half the week. Everyone would have gone nuts and gone on about his responsibilities etc! And said tough he'd have to manage on his benefits, you're entitled to keep all the TC and CB etc! I thought we have left the days of sex discrimination behind!
If it was a bloke I bet everyone would go, go to the CSA and make sure you get your £5 off his benefits too!I'm never offended by debate & opinions. As a wise man called Voltaire once said, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend until death your right to say it."
Mortgage is my only debt - Original mortgage - January 2008 = £88,400, March 2014 = £47,000 Chipping away slowly! Now saving to move.0 -
FatVonD..... What I am saying is, at the moment she receives more than she spends on the kids. This is obvious by her lifestyle. (we can argue to we are blue in the face about this one, but I'm asking you to take my word for it. it'snot just a case of me being "bitter")
At the moment this is paid for by the tax credits my partner receives.
This is his money and his business.
BUT if we move in together, this money will stop. It will not be there anymore.
I earn more than my partner so will be paying a larger chunk of the rent and household bills plus child related expenses that I previously haven't had to budget for, which again, I have no problem with at all.
As discussed I am also willing to contribute towards making a realistic contribution to their mother so that the children can visit her in comfort. What I am NOT willing to do is make additional contributions so that she can continue to buy new clothes, go on nights out and get her hair done........ Because it wouldn't be just my OH's money that would be paying for this it would be mine as well, and although I will do my best for these children, I am not rich and certainly don't have money to give away like that.
Do you really think that is so wrong?0 -
While I can see an argument for sharing out benefits according to the number of nights I really can't understand why the RP should be paying any more than that to the NRP?! While the household income will be larger that's because the RPP works, overall the NRP's income will decrease. How can it possibly be fair to suggest that the RPP should make up the shortfall?
And why would she not be able to manage on a job a Tesco, if she really wanted to work she'd take it until she was able to get one she feels more appropriate - there's a reason it's easier to get jobs when you're already in employment, employers like to see that you get off your arris and muck in even when the chips are down. And local housing allowance will be paying the rent if she's on benefits so as she's not the resident parent this is NOT maintenance and she should probably be declaring it...! I wonder what might happen if they decided to investigate, she may well lose her benefits to the tune of the amount he's subbing her by.
OP - as I said before, it's probably worth maintaining the status quo for the simple reason of preventing something kicking off. That does not mean there is any moral obligation on you to do so. She is no worse off than many NRPs with a 3rd leg.Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants - Michael Pollan
48 down, 22 to go
Low carb, low oxalate Primal + dairy
From size 24 to 16 and now stuck...0 -
19lottie82 wrote: »FatVonD..... What I am saying is, at the moment she receives more than she spends on the kids. This is obvious by her lifestyle. (we can argue to we are blue in the face about this one, but I'm asking you to take my word for it. it'snot just a case of me being "bitter")
At the moment this is paid for by the tax credits my partner receives.
This is his money and his business.
BUT if we move in together, this money will stop. It will not be there anymore.
I earn more than my partner so will be paying a larger chunk of the rent and household bills plus child related expenses that I previously haven't had to budget for, which again, I have no problem with at all.
As discussed I am also willing to contribute towards making a realistic contribution to their mother so that the children can visit her in comfort. What I am NOT willing to do is make additional contributions so that she can continue to buy new clothes, go on nights out and get her hair done........ Because it wouldn't be just my OH's money that would be paying for this it would be mine as well, and although I will do my best for these children, I am not rich and certainly don't have money to give away like that.
Do you really think that is so wrong?
what about a couple of bags of shopping & no cash at all.0 -
The question that the OP is asking is a bit like those programmes where an MP who has stated that JSA is plenty to live on then proves that you can live a week on JSA but doesn't take into account Christmas, Birthdays etc.......you get my drift
Personally I can't see why maintenance, according to the guidelines - and only that - be given to the ex - whether she spends it on the children is neither here nor there - yes it might stick in the OP's throat but if we follow the OP's logic then we'd be giving out vouchers that could only be exchanged for food instead of JSA.
The only other alternative , if this is too galling for the OP, is to remain in separate households until the girls no longer qualify for CB or tax credits2014 Target;
To overpay CC by £1,000.
Overpayment to date : £310
2nd Purse Challenge:
£15.88 saved to date0 -
what about a couple of bags of shopping & no cash at all.
I think that could well be the way to go and suggested it earlier.The kids will be fed and there's no additional money to waste.If it's gone for though just be aware of different opinions on food lol
She should be able to manage ice creams at the park herself,afterall nrps on JSA can pay a fiver a week maintenance so little things like that can be done (not sure if your oh currently claims anything from her though-although with reductions it wouldn't be much!).
Out of interest,how do you know she gets her hair cut every eight weeks and pays so much for it?I know sometimes people are quite obvious,but on JSA that seems quite a push.Unless she's either lying about cost/frequency,your oh gives her way too much or she's receiving benefits other than JSA?If women are birds and freedom is flight are trapped women Dodos?0 -
mountainofdebt wrote: »The question that the OP is asking is a bit like those programmes where an MP who has stated that JSA is plenty to live on then proves that you can live a week on JSA but doesn't take into account Christmas, Birthdays etc.......you get my drift
Personally I can't see why maintenance, according to the guidelines - and only that - be given to the ex - whether she spends it on the children is neither here nor there - yes it might stick in the OP's throat but if we follow the OP's logic then we'd be giving out vouchers that could only be exchanged for food instead of JSA.
The only other alternative , if this is too galling for the OP, is to remain in separate households until the girls no longer qualify for CB or tax credits
MoD - I'm not going to begrudge giving her some cash to look after the kids,They are the main focus here and I want them to be happy, so if this includes covering THEIR expenses while they spend time with their mother, so be it. all I'm asking for is opinions on what others thing is reasonable based on the circumstances that I have described and bearing in mind that their father is the resident parent0 -
Out of interest,how do you know she gets her hair cut every eight weeks and pays so much for it?
Good question......My OH goes to the same salon for a trim once a month, he is friends with the owner who often drops in to the conversation if his ex has been in. He knows how much it costs as he used to pay for it when they were together.0 -
Although this has been suggested by others and it could be tempting (!!!), it would be pretty condescending, and I want to avoid "rocking the boat" as much as possible for the sake of the kids.what about a couple of bags of shopping & no cash at all.
I don't feel the need to embarrass (?) the woman by treating her like a child - , I just want a fair solution for everyone involved0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards