Will I get my money?

shoe*diva79

labyrinth84 wrote: »

How about the PWC seeking employment to also contribute to the cost of their children?

I find it laughable that people who turn their noses up to earning a living think they have a right to tell others so change jobs/ get more hours etc etc.

And if god forbid the Non Resident parent loses job, or also chooses not to work- UPROAR! ''How dare he not work, and not contribute to his children?!''....I say the same to the PWC that don't work! If you have no intention of earning and paying for your children, do not have them.

We have no issue with providing for my partners children, we do however have an issue that it is not based on my partners earnings alone and leaves my child without. And those who say ''paying £90 just to see them has nothing to do with contributions'' are the ones who believe the money aspect is more important than the relationship between the children and parents, because if we stopped doing that then there would be uproar that he's not seeing his kids.

I have never claimed CSA from my daughters father. I know he struggles to keep a roof over his head, and I want him to be able to provide my daughter with a comfortable, warm roof over her head when she stays with him. My daughter maintaining a relationship with her father is paramount to her development.

I want her to grow up with ambition, to know you have to strive in life and earn your way. I want her to have a stable and loving relationship with her father, quality time with him in a home-away-from-home. My daugher will not be a pawn in a money-war. So I will not start one just because another female chose to.

We will struggle paying money that is given to me for her to pay for other children. But when she looks back in a few years time, she will remember a mother who worked, gave and struggled but who NEVER attempted to jeopadise her relationship with her father. My daughter will be proud, with no emotional scars.

How many PWC can honestly say the same? Judging by alot of these posts- not many, thats for sure!

Won't pay for extra's- you're not seeing your kids!! What fantastic parents some PWC are

Im sorry, but I have little sympathy in your case. I totally understand where your coming from with relationship meaning more then money. I am a PWC but have also been a NRPP so can see both sides (The PWC in my case was always asking for extras, messed around with contact etc so believe me, I have been there!)

The reason I have little sympahy tho is you CAN change our situation. YOur partner CAN earn more money by gaining employment. You CAN request your ex pays towards the cost of raising your daughter instead of relying on the states (which is what your doing with tax credits,...)

Agree to disagree, but not all PWC are money grabbing *insert bad word here*!!!

A small minority may not work because they cant be bothered - alto with our generous state system they are probably better off on benefits! You don know everyones circumstances so maybe best not to tar everyone with the same brush?

galangm8

anonx wrote: »

why isnt it relevant if she works or not ? i think that is the big issue - so you say it doesn't matter if she works or not? thats ok yeah? thats ok that the tax payer picks up her bill? is that what yr saying? someones gota pay for her, i think your wrong here

If you're giving your babies away to women who are happy to live 24 hours a day feeding, cleaning, minding. teaching, washing the clothes, kitchen, bedroom, all the mess, illness - temperatures hot, cold, vomiting, are they breathing, are they not breathing, running to doctors, hospitals, etc, etc. etc for years and years and years on end, all for £85.00 per week (at most) and if she's also copped a nasty council house because you impregnated her, then you've got no one else to blame but yourself, for mixing with such desperate hussies.

My grandsons'nursery charge £155 pw for only 50 hours care, therefore split between both parents for the whole duration of care per week for a child 24/7, guess we're talking £250.00 per week, per parent.

NRP's do not realise how lucky they are that the mother of their child/ren have a sugar daddy like David Cameron to pick up the tab to raise 'their' children.

DUTR

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

I remally dont know what the fairest way to do things are. There are so man variables. PWC who dont want to work causing resentment to the NRP (and their new partners!)' PWC lokin for work but having to rely on the state in the meantime, PWC who work full time bu still get slated for one reason or another...

Then you have the NRP variables - want to pay, greedy exes, dont want to pay, go self employed blah blah blah.

The way the current system is set up appears fair for straightforward cases. 15% of someones earnings for 1 child isnt much. NRP and NRPP jus need to stop torturing themselves that the PWC is spending all the money on fags, booze, haircuts, horses, cars etc. as long a the kids have good standard clothing, a nice home, food in their bellies...

You contradict your argument there, if it isn't much I don't see psosts saying " well I could claim CSA but as it's only 15% net I won't bother"
Saying 15% is not much is demonstrating greediness on your part.
I don't begrudge contributing as in my case I'm ££££s up too.
Where it has cost, no money can buy, and the bragging rights soon become more fool than cool.

shoe*diva79

galangm8 wrote: »

If you're giving your babies away to women who are happy to live 24 hours a day feeding, cleaning, minding. teaching, washing the clothes, kitchen, bedroom, all the mess, illness - temperatures hot, cold, vomiting, are they breathing, are they not breathing, running to doctors, hospitals, etc, etc. etc for years and years and years on end, all for £85.00 per week (at most) and if she's also copped a nasty council house because you impregnated her, then you've got no one else to blame but yourself, for mixing with such desperate hussies.

My grandsons'nursery charge £155 pw for only 50 hours care, therefore split between both parents for the whole duration of care per week for a child 24/7, guess we're talking £250.00 per week, per parent.

NRP's do not realise how lucky they are that the mother of their child/ren have a sugar daddy like David Cameron to pick up the tab to raise 'their' children.

Remind me of a couple of weeks ago, my younges had severe chicken pox (was hospitalised) I had no sleep for 3 days and asked the NRP if he could come and help one night. His answer - sorry, camping (20 miles away in new forest), will be back friday and will help then if needed. It was Tuesday I asked him.

Selfish *^*%#!!!

shoe*diva79

DUTR wrote: »

You contradict your argument there, if it isn't much I don't see psosts saying " well I could claim CSA but as it's only 15% net I won't bother"
Saying 15% is not much is demonstrating greediness on your part.
I don't begrudge contributing as in my case I'm ££££s up too.
Where it has cost, no money can buy, and the bragging rights soon become more fool than cool.

How is 15% greedy? Greed is expecting more then what is reasonable.

Do you think it should be a set figure then? Regardless of income? And if so, what do you think is reasonable?

labyrinth84

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Im sorry, but I have little sympathy in your case. I totally understand where your coming from with relationship meaning more then money. I am a PWC but have also been a NRPP so can see both sides (The PWC in my case was always asking for extras, messed around with contact etc so believe me, I have been there!)

The reason I have little sympahy tho is you CAN change our situation. YOur partner CAN earn more money by gaining employment. You CAN request your ex pays towards the cost of raising your daughter instead of relying on the states (which is what your doing with tax credits,...)

Agree to disagree, but not all PWC are money grabbing *insert bad word here*!!!

A small minority may not work because they cant be bothered - alto with our generous state system they are probably better off on benefits! You don know everyones circumstances so maybe best not to tar everyone with the same brush?

I didn't come on here for sympathy, I came on for discussions.

My partner could go and get a standard 9-5 yes, but building a business (which is always slow process) has better prospects for the future. He could also start paying me for the work I do to help him build his business, but I'd prefer not to lower myself into lowering his 'deductable income' for gain for myself. We are trying to be as fair as we can.

Tax credits is not me dependant on the state...I pay tax, I get tax credits. Whether I tried fleecing my ex or not, I would still get Tax credits. So, I'd rather stick with keeping my child happy and stable with both parents than start all that. Is that so wrong?

I may take on another job, or attempt to increase my hours to a 6 day week. I suppose earning more and taking myself out of the Tax Credit bracket would stop me being so angry at PWC, but I doubt she would say the same about me!

shoe*diva79

labyrinth84 wrote: »

I didn't come on here for sympathy, I came on for discussions.

My partner could go and get a standard 9-5 yes, but building a business (which is always slow process) has better prospects for the future. He could also start paying me for the work I do to help him build his business, but I'd prefer not to lower myself into lowering his 'deductable income' for gain for myself. We are trying to be as fair as we can.

Tax credits is not me dependant on the state...I pay tax, I get tax credits. Whether I tried fleecing my ex or not, I would still get Tax credits. So, I'd rather stick with keeping my child happy and stable with both parents than start all that. Is that so wrong?

I may take on another job, or attempt to increase my hours to a 6 day week. I suppose earning more and taking myself out of the Tax Credit bracket would stop me being so angry at PWC, but I doubt she would say the same about me!

I really think you need to stop focusing your anger on the PWC. It wont do you any good in the long term. I learnt the hard way, just dont let her bother you or it will drive you crazy! Be assured that your raising your child, plus her kids can see, that you are working and providing.

I can see why she might be narked about not receiving a reasonale amount of Cm if your partner is trying to build a business. At the end of the day kids stll need clothing, feeding etc etc. Its not the kids falt he isnt earning so why should they 'suffer' (i use this term loosely' but as you say your paying the CM maybe you need to stop and let your partner deal with it so it dosent gripe you?

Ad your right, you may still have tax credits if you got CM, but you would also have more then £32 a week to then spend on your daughter. You cant have it all ways. You know yourself kids cost!

Maybe you could get your ex to look at his SOA and post on the debt free wannabe board. He should be legally and morally providing a contribution alongside having a good relationship with his daughter.

**Patty**

DUTR wrote: »

yes it costs more, but with metered water costing £1.52 per 1000 litres, it's a small difference, I run a house too, the temperature is 23c here warm enough for me or any other occupants in the house, I wouldn't be turning it down , I'm in a 3 bed house solo, so I know what it costs to run a house.
I saw my daughters Mum yesterday, well I can tell you the CS money funds the horses, but it's up to her what she spends the money on, as long as I contribute my amount.
But as others have mentioned we know what it costs for children, and house costs.

O/T... How did that go DUTR? Did you update elsewhere?

DUTR

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

How is 15% greedy? Greed is expecting more then what is reasonable.

Do you think it should be a set figure then? Regardless of income? And if so, what do you think is reasonable?

Well if you were on £250 pw and had to give up 15% would you say that is reasonable?, from between the lines of what you write 99% would not be enough either.
In answer to your question though, yes I do think there should be a fixed amount something like £30 per week.
It would make the CSA stats look good, there would be less people avoiding contributing, and less bickering.
Who knows the NRP may wish to contribute more .
But as others have pointed out, obtaining more money or buying fancier goods for the offspring does not make one a better parent.

shoe*diva79

DUTR wrote: »

Well if you were on £250 pw and had to give up 15% would you say that is reasonable?, from between the lines of what you write 99% would not be enough either.
In answer to your question though, yes I do think there should be a fixed amount something like £30 per week.
It would make the CSA stats look good, there would be less people avoiding contributing, and less bickering.
Who knows the NRP may wish to contribute more .
But as others have pointed out, obtaining more money or buying fancier goods for the offspring does not make one a better parent.

Good idea in theiry, but in practice... Not really fair.

NRP 1 earning net £200 per week.
NRP 2 earning net £500 per week

Personally I think a % is much fairer to all parties. Not sure what gives you the impression that I think 99% of someones earnings wouldn't be enough!

I have a private agreement with the NRP in my case and I used the CSA calc as a guideline on his net salary. I didnt include other income he has (rental property, shares) and I suggested a figure that was below the CSA guildeline. I also didnt include his annual bonus which is in excess of £10k net. Instead we agreed 10% of his bonus would go into our childs CTF for her future. He does pay £72 per term for her swimming lessons. And that is it. If I was to use the CSA the payment would rise around £180 per month.

Cause im that greedy...