Dilemma; Maintenance Or Savings

wayne0

FBaby wrote: »

I can see both positions and it very much depends on the actual amount of maintenance. Let's face it, kids are expensive when we want to offer them a nice upbringing rather than just the minimum they require (which parent, nrp or pwc only cares to offer the strict minimum if they can genuinely afford more?).

you know, i think this sums up most of the stuff and issues.

who can genuinely afford more!

the csa system is designed to collect off people who dont pay etc... yet if they dont pay the csa still cant collect (unemployed and so on) its people who do pay that get shafted. and the PWC uses this to their advantage.

IF i can afford more I pay more.I always have. taking kids out etc.

FBaby

To be fair, I have heard all this from my ex over and over, how he can't AFFORD to pay any maintenance, or no more when all he had paid in the past was pittance.

What he means is that he can't AFFORD to provide anything to support his kids every day costs (which are no fun paying) AFTER he has paid everything he deems more essential (more fun to spend on). That includes spoiling them for Christmas buying them designer clothes, getting sky sports, buying his partner new clothes and of course, getting a new car (that he doesn't actually need as close to the train station and bus stops).

He also couldn't afford to support his two existing children, but that didn't stop him considering whether he would be able to afford a new baby despite crawling under debts and struggling to keep a job.

I'm sorry Wayne, I don't know you personally, but I can't help but sometimes imagine my ex when I read some of your posts. In the end, what you can afford includes the choices you make in life. You have chosen to have two children close in age with a wife who I believe cannot work so fully reliant on you, despite you being on minimum wage with a bad back and clearly some debts to your name.

In the end, most people can afford what they prioritise. There are many things that I can't afford either despite being on a good wage, but I always find ways to afford what I believe my children should have because they are my priorities and will always come first.

wayne0

but peoples circumstances change. i used to be on a better paid job when our decisions were made etc... these decisions were based on agreements on what to pay and when. and income at the time.

many people got made redundant. and it isnt only the PWC's income that gets effected by the loss of a job resulting in a CSA reassesment. but as DUTR rightly said... NO child would every starve/go without in this country... well with the exception of the child in the current household of a NRP. who are left with LESS than the LEGAL MIN to live on.

HappyMJ

wayne0 wrote: »

and understanding that NOT ALL PWC get these benefits... IF THEY ARE ELEGIBLE im sure they will still claim - and still be elegible despite ANY CSA payments.

any money PAID in CSA payments have no effect on benefit liability for benefit purposes...

What I was trying to say is that the child will be housed either by benefits...housing benefit or by the PWC working or by having a house or having enough money already. The child will also have either child tax credits and child benefit or the PWC is working and earning a reasonable wage/salary or has a partner that earns too much.

What concerns many NRP's is that the PWC seems to always have more money than the NRP so they just won't pay more and will find ways to avoid paying more such as quitting a reasonably paid job so they have more money on JSA (jobseekers)..or by declaring themselves self employed...and doing a little cash work on the side.

Every situation is different...and I know kids cost a lot more than just the bare minimum on benefits...but they will get by on virtually nothing. You'll always have co-operative NRP's and non-co-perative NRP's.

clearingout

HappyMJ wrote: »

What I was trying to say is that the child will be housed either by benefits...housing benefit or by the PWC working or by having a house or having enough money already. The child will also have either child tax credits and child benefit or the PWC is working and earning a reasonable wage/salary or has a partner that earns too much.

What concerns many NRP's is that the PWC seems to always have more money than the NRP so they just won't pay more and will find ways to avoid paying more such as quitting a reasonably paid job so they have more money on JSA (jobseekers)..or by declaring themselves self employed...and doing a little cash work on the side.

Every situation is different...and I know kids cost a lot more than just the bare minimum on benefits...but they will get by on virtually nothing. You'll always have co-operative NRP's and non-co-perative NRP's.

This is ridiculous. We don't go through life being envious of everyone around us who we believe has more than we do. We accept that life is different - different circumstances, different jobs, inheritence, parents who give an allowance, people making short term sacrifices for education in the belief that longer term they'll earn more....that's all about luck and the choices we make.

I don't give a damn that my ex has more money than me - he works hard and always has done. He chose a career that is financially very lucrative (for no work whatsoever!). He's lucky, I think, that what he is good at pays so well. I made different choices - one of which was to work in a field which was financially very un-lucrative (if there is such a word) and another was to decide that caring for my children was important and almost giving up work altogether. What I do give a damn about is that he supports his children to a reasonable standard - not to the standard we lived as a couple, I am realistic about that - but he at least needs to support his children within the best of his abilities. By not supporting his children he's effectively saying that he doesn't give a damn whether the children are fed or not, or are warm, or are involved in activites which they enjoy and which encourage their development. That's neglect - by the back door, granted, but still neglect.

By the same token, I don't expect my ex to look at my life and say 'she has more than me'. I have a mum who is OK for money and she is willing to help me. That's my good fortune. That doesn't excuse my ex from his responsibilities. He has no reason to be jealous of that or use that as a 'well, she has money in her pocket so why should I pay' excuse.

Equally, he's my ex. He has no idea what I earn. He has no idea of what my outgoings are. So by suggesting that an NRP doesn't want to pay 'cos it appears the PWC always has more money you're really making a stab in the dark at something the average NRP could have no real knowledge of. It's just an assumption.

The only way to manage a financial relationship with the ex post-separation is to pay the CSA amount using their calculators or to maintain a good quality relationship with them so that a private agreement can be reached. Anything else is superfluous and serves to try and detract from the financial obligations of both parents towards their children.

wayne0

but, do you not feel that BOTH parents should be liable to supporting their children.

the reason many fathers cant see their kids is because single parents do not have to work. should they be forced to work like everybody else. perhaps they would accept the father having the child more. etc. - after all working costs money for childcare etc...

the csa goal was to give the children the same level of support before seperation. - but that would often mean both parents work... but the PWC often (not always) take it as they can give up work and rely on benefits... and now the CSA on top of those benefits... - usually the csa is more than the benefit payments would be.

clearingout

wayne0 wrote: »

but, do you not feel that BOTH parents should be liable to supporting their children.

the reason many fathers cant see their kids is because single parents do not have to work. should they be forced to work like everybody else. perhaps they would accept the father having the child more. etc. - after all working costs money for childcare etc...

the csa goal was to give the children the same level of support before seperation. - but that would often mean both parents work... but the PWC often (not always) take it as they can give up work and rely on benefits... and now the CSA on top of those benefits... - usually the csa is more than the benefit payments would be.

bollox. Single parents do have to work. Not if they have a child under 5 and of course that is open to abuse if you're clever, but there is no legislation in place that says single parents don't have to work.

And no, working doesn't encourage more 'shared care' necessarily. Sure as hell doesn't in my case as my ex is unreliable and I have a job where my reliability is key. Childcare, however, is very reliable. There's no contest. One of us needs to support our children, don't you think?!

wayne0

clearingout wrote: »

bollox. Single parents do have to work. Not if they have a child under 5 and of course that is open to abuse if you're clever, but there is no legislation in place that says single parents don't have to work.

And no, working doesn't encourage more 'shared care' necessarily. Sure as hell doesn't in my case as my ex is unreliable and I have a job where my reliability is key. Childcare, however, is very reliable. There's no contest. One of us needs to support our children, don't you think?!

sorry, my appologies - but even when on JSA they only need to get 16 hours, and can then get FULL WTC/CTC at the same rate as A COUPLE.

but the "abuse" element was the part i mean... (and like i said, I understand that NOT ALL PWC choose not to work - but lots do choose not to work, and lots choose to work the min they have to)

lots of single parents are financially better off than a couple working full time hours since they get full WTC as a couple rate ETC.

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

bollox.

Oh my, did you just swear...? That is out of character...:D

clearingout

wayne0 wrote: »

sorry, my appologies - but even when on JSA they only need to get 16 hours, and can then get FULL WTC/CTC at the same rate as A COUPLE.

but the "abuse" element was the part i mean... (and like i said, I understand that NOT ALL PWC choose not to work - but lots do choose not to work, and lots choose to work the min they have to)

lots of single parents are financially better off than a couple working full time hours since they get full WTC as a couple rate ETC.

again, you make assumptions that all/most/many PWC earn next to nothing and are therefore entitled to 'all the benefits'. It is perfectly possible to work part-time, earn well and not be eligible for any support whatsoever. More still work full-time and are eligible for little or no support.

Whilst the 16 hour rule is true, a couple only has to work 24 hours between them (although I think one of them has to be at least 16 hours?). Less than double the single parent rate?

Your issue shouldn't be with the choices that some PWC make - 16 hours work is perfectly 'legal'. If you don't like the system which permits 16 hours a week then you need to take advantage of the fact you live in a democracy and start a campaign, involve your MP, vote for the party that claims they will stop this.

Your lack of understanding of the wider issues never ceases to amaze me.