Should I help my OH subsidise his nasty ex so the kids can see their Mum?

FatVonD

19lottie82 wrote: »

How would you describe un realistic?

Do you think all job seekers should be allowed to set a £20k minimum for jobs that they will apply for regardless of their circumstances?

If someone has been out fo work for a number of years and has recently been applying for jobs at >£x pa, and after 6 months, hasn't had any luck. I'd say that they are being un realistic and should lower their salary expectations.

The job centre will expect all job seekers to apply for NMW jobs after they have been out of work for a certain period of time. Surely that's better for the person in question than living on benefits?

I'd say unrealistic is anything higher than you have previously earned but I don't personally think £20k is a large salary (the company I work for has just employed 3 junior designers, straight from uni, on £20k each) but I appreciate I live in London and that may not be the case everywhere but I genuinely thought you meant she was holding out for twice that amount.

It may well be that she simply can't afford to take a job at Tesco. I wouldn't imagine any single person could afford to rent their own flat on what they pay. I think probably that anyone working there is either living with parents, retired, part of a couple or has children and is therefore entitled to tax credits to top up what they earn which your partner's ex wouldn't be. Perhaps she needs to earn £20k in order to live independently.

So, are you going to tell us what your partner is currently giving her and what you think is a reasonable amount for him to continue to give her?

FatVonD

Sorry, by live independently i mean live in a flat of their own where it is possible for the children to live as opposed to say, a flat share.

19lottie82

FatVonD wrote: »

It may well be that she simply can't afford to take a job at Tesco. I wouldn't imagine any single person could afford to rent their own flat on what they pay. I think probably that anyone working there is either living with parents, retired, part of a couple or has children and is therefore entitled to tax credits to top up what they earn which your partner's ex wouldn't be. Perhaps she needs to earn £20k in order to live independently.

I understand that this may be the case in London, but the 2 bed flat she currently rents is £350 pcm, pretty much standard for the area.

FatVonD wrote: »

So, are you going to tell us what your partner is currently giving her and what you think is a reasonable amount for him to continue to give her?

How about you tell me what you think is a necessary figure to look after 2 children 3 nights a week? Bearing in mind that she
never really takes them anywhere that costs money, or pays for clothes, xmas / bday presents / dance classes / school trips etc

FatVonD

19lottie82 wrote: »

How about you tell me what you think is a necessary figure to look after 2 children 3 nights a week? Bearing in mind that she
never really takes them anywhere that costs money, or pays for clothes, xmas / bday presents / dance classes / school trips etc

3/7th of the child benefit plus 3/7ths of the child tax credit.

I'm assuming that this is what she's currently getting but as you keep skirting around the issue of exactly (or even roughly) how much and just keep saying she gets 'lots more' than she needs for the kids it's unclear whether you think this is too much or she is getting lots more than the 3/7ths she is entitled to.

19lottie82

FatVonD wrote: »

3/7th of the child benefit plus 3/7ths of the child tax credit.

Sorry, what I meant was how much you thought it costs to look after 2 kids 3 nights a week, not how much you think she is entitled to at the moment?

This is relevant as, if my OH and I stick to our plans and move in together, his tax credits will stop, so we can't give her 3/7 of nothing?

My OP is discussing how much is a reasonable figure to look after the kids if the benefits stop, not at the moment.

And again, slightly off topic, but would 3/7 only be a reasonable share if she paid for 3/7 of the other expenses that I have mentioned?

FatVonD

19lottie82 wrote: »

Sorry, what I meant was how much you thought it costs to look after 2 kids 3 nights a week, not how much you think she is entitled to at the moment?

This is relevant as, if my OH and I stick to our plans and move in together, his tax credits will stop, so we can't give her 3/7 of nothing?

My OP is discussing how much is a reasonable figure to look after the kids if the benefits stop, not at the moment.

So you're still not going to answer?!

I think it should be the same, just because the 3/7ths of what was previously tax credit money is now coming from your (increased) combined income the children won't be needing any less so they will be the ones missing out.

FatVonD

19lottie82 wrote: »

And again, slightly off topic, but would 3/7 only be a reasonable share if she paid for 3/7 of the other expenses that I have mentioned?

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.

NewKittenHelp

FatVonD wrote: »

So you're still not going to answer?!

I think it should be the same, just because the 3/7ths of what was previously tax credit money is now coming from your (increased) combined income the children won't be needing any less so they will be the ones missing out.

It sounds as if the children aren't benefitting from this money currently. And while the OP and her partner's income will increase, so will their outgoings.

I actually cannot believe that people are saying that this deadbeat mother should be paid maintenance by the resident parent so she can continue to get her hair done!

NewKittenHelp

FatVonD wrote: »

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.

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.

19lottie82

FatVonD wrote: »

So you're still not going to answer?!

I think it should be the same, just because the 3/7ths of what was previously tax credit money is now coming from your (increased) combined income the children won't be needing any less so they will be the ones missing out.

But you're not answering either!

I'm asking you what you think it costs to look after 2 kids 3 nights a week? (which is relevant to my OP) NOT what you think she is entitled to at the moment.