Dilemma; Maintenance Or Savings

clearingout

kevin137 wrote: »

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

no, I'd have spelt it right if I'd sworn :D:D:D:D:D

and trust me Kevin, I swear in real life!

labyrinth84

Clearingout is right, couples can also take advantage of the minimum work rule and many do.
What clearingout and shoe*diva have taught me when answering my rants about PWC/unemployed/single people is to never assume you know everyones circumstances...one day we may find ourselves redundant or such and depend on financial help too.

I'm sure when I was a single mother, anyone who saw me shopping on my day off (a monday!) assumed I was spending their tax contributions unless they knew me personally. As I never walk about in my scruffy clothes, they may have assumed their tax contributions paid for me to dress smartly. Or that I was rinsing my ex for CM payments to fund my shopping trip!

Now I'm with my partner, and the majority of his work is done in the evening people may assume as he doesn't set off for work in the morning we are working the minimum so we qualify for maximum benefits..but we don't, and don't intend ever doing!

I'm well against the abusers of the system but I'm putting my faith in now believing they are a minority.

It's the government who upsets the tax payers and allows the system to be abused, not each and every person receiving help.

God, my attitude is changing at an alarming rate...I'm scaring myself!

SingleSue

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.

With my marriage went by the wayside, so did my childcare.

We have disabled children, children which no childcare facility would take on, even when social services tried to get something for just 2 hours a fortnight for respite, let alone enough to cover the hours I had been doing prior to our split. We split our hours so that I could work, he covered daytime hours for working, I did the evening/night shift.

This also left me free to take the boys to any therapy or medical appointments, meetings at school and because youngest didn't go full time until he was nearly 11 and middle son was without a school the year we split, to look after children at home (which I had to do because of no availability of childcare)

Giving up my job was not something I wanted to do but there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. I couldn't leave the children at home on their own, I couldn't get childcare for them and there was no other person who could take over the childcare...I was devastated, my career, my lifeline, my relief from the caring had gone down the tubes.

My ex husband sees the children for 2 hours a year, his choice, not mine. He has complete freedom to see the boys, I have placed no restrictions on his access but he has made the decision that having all 3 boys at the same time would be too much work.

I may not work in the official paid sense but I certainly do not sit on my bottom doing absolutely nothing. My hours are long, my relaxation time short or none at all. I rarely go out socially as the same problems exist with childcare, they may be older but they are not safe to be left home alone.

I would love to be back at work, to have the freedom to work, to even go to the pub once a year with friends but I don't.

We have a private agreement, yes we (as in me and the boys) could possibly receive more via the CSA but I would rather we have the more settled and amicable relationship we have now than the constant battles we see others having caused by the CSA.

shoe*diva79

labyrinth84 wrote: »

Clearingout is right, couples can also take advantage of the minimum work rule and many do.
What clearingout and shoe*diva have taught me when answering my rants about PWC/unemployed/single people is to never assume you know everyones circumstances...one day we may find ourselves redundant or such and depend on financial help too.

I'm sure when I was a single mother, anyone who saw me shopping on my day off (a monday!) assumed I was spending their tax contributions unless they knew me personally. As I never walk about in my scruffy clothes, they may have assumed their tax contributions paid for me to dress smartly. Or that I was rinsing my ex for CM payments to fund my shopping trip!

Now I'm with my partner, and the majority of his work is done in the evening people may assume as he doesn't set off for work in the morning we are working the minimum so we qualify for maximum benefits..but we don't, and don't intend ever doing!

I'm well against the abusers of the system but I'm putting my faith in now believing they are a minority.

It's the government who upsets the tax payers and allows the system to be abused, not each and every person receiving help.

God, my attitude is changing at an alarming rate...I'm scaring myself!

You have just made my night wth this post. Thank you.

Mrs.W_2

SingleSue wrote: »

With my marriage went by the wayside, so did my childcare.

We have disabled children, children which no childcare facility would take on, even when social services tried to get something for just 2 hours a fortnight for respite, let alone enough to cover the hours I had been doing prior to our split. We split our hours so that I could work, he covered daytime hours for working, I did the evening/night shift.

This also left me free to take the boys to any therapy or medical appointments, meetings at school and because youngest didn't go full time until he was nearly 11 and middle son was without a school the year we split, to look after children at home (which I had to do because of no availability of childcare)

Giving up my job was not something I wanted to do but there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. I couldn't leave the children at home on their own, I couldn't get childcare for them and there was no other person who could take over the childcare...I was devastated, my career, my lifeline, my relief from the caring had gone down the tubes.

My ex husband sees the children for 2 hours a year, his choice, not mine. He has complete freedom to see the boys, I have placed no restrictions on his access but he has made the decision that having all 3 boys at the same time would be too much work.

I may not work in the official paid sense but I certainly do not sit on my bottom doing absolutely nothing. My hours are long, my relaxation time short or none at all. I rarely go out socially as the same problems exist with childcare, they may be older but they are not safe to be left home alone.

I would love to be back at work, to have the freedom to work, to even go to the pub once a year with friends but I don't.

We have a private agreement, yes we (as in me and the boys) could possibly receive more via the CSA but I would rather we have the more settled and amicable relationship we have now than the constant battles we see others having caused by the CSA.

I'm completely floored by your dignity, Sue.

I dearly hope that in the coming year you might be able to gain respite care!

rozmister

If she wasn't paying for everything your child needs (rent, bills, clothes, shoes, toys, school trips, food, treats, etc) she might have enough money to afford to pay off her debts - as it is she's funding your child single handedly and struggling.

I don't understand why men insist they don't want the money 'spent on going out' or 'not on the children'. Most people don't pay a large amount of child maintenance unless they're on a high wage (and I'm not saying it doesn't feel large when it comes out of your pay packet) and kids cost money. £200 out of your wages won't cover everything a kid needs for the month so your ex will be chipping in too. Why should she fund all those living expenses for YOUR child. If you aren't prepared to pay for the day to day costs of having a child you shouldn't have had one.

And finally why is acceptable for Mums to have to go without but not for fathers? Why shouldn't the MOTHER OF YOUR CHILD have the occasional night out or a new pair of shoes once in a while? As long as it's not all the time and your child isn't going without why begrudge her those things? How would you feel if somebody told you they'd decided that you couldn't have nights out or new clothes or shoes ever?

I know there are plenty of men this doesn't apply to who work hard to fund their kids and go without so they can afford maintenance/trips for access and I respect them. But all the men trying to shirk their responsibility make me sick to my stomach.

DUTR

rozmister wrote: »

If she wasn't paying for everything your child needs (rent, bills, clothes, shoes, toys, school trips, food, treats, etc) she might have enough money to afford to pay off her debts - as it is she's funding your child single handedly and struggling.

I don't understand why men insist they don't want the money 'spent on going out' or 'not on the children'. Most people don't pay a large amount of child maintenance unless they're on a high wage (and I'm not saying it doesn't feel large when it comes out of your pay packet) and kids cost money. £200 out of your wages won't cover everything a kid needs for the month so your ex will be chipping in too. Why should she fund all those living expenses for YOUR child. If you aren't prepared to pay for the day to day costs of having a child you shouldn't have had one.

And finally why is acceptable for Mums to have to go without but not for fathers? Why shouldn't the MOTHER OF YOUR CHILD have the occasional night out or a new pair of shoes once in a while? As long as it's not all the time and your child isn't going without why begrudge her those things? How would you feel if somebody told you they'd decided that you couldn't have nights out or new clothes or shoes ever?

I know there are plenty of men this doesn't apply to who work hard to fund their kids and go without so they can afford maintenance/trips for access and I respect them. But all the men trying to shirk their responsibility make me sick to my stomach.

How ironic eh? It is YOUR child when something is wanted £££s, but other than that it is MY child any other time.
There is no rent or energy bills for the children, those would have to be paid anyway.
The responsibilty is shared and when a relationship breaks down, EVERYBODY has to allow for changes.
In todays modern age of equal opportunity, it is not just down to the bloke to provide the finances, whilst it is not the case in practice, I suspect that is down to force of the situation more than willing

wayne0

clearingout wrote: »

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.

in a couple it is 24 hours for one parent... but this would result in a reduced assesment (not sure exactly how reduced?)
30 hours for a couple for the full assesment. - one of which needs to be one parent working 24 hours or more. the second parent can work whatever to top it up to 30.

As my wife cant work (immigration) I am "technically" classed as a single parent and can therefore work 16 hours if i choose to.

I did state in my post that NOT ALL PWC choose to follow this way. whilst i can understand WHY they would. - it goes back to wanting to provide for yourselves.

Labyrinth. I know exactly what you mean, I actually been asked by somebody in my daughters playgroup "still not found any work?" and i was like "sorry?" "oh your here again... its hard without a job isnt it" "i dont know - I work full time, love..." My job being late afternoon/night work. my car was pretty much always on the drive. (i used motorcycle for work until a few months back because fuel being alot cheaper)

Assumptions are something EVERYBODY makes. And Im not having a dig when I make comments... I am just making a comment!

Shoe*Diva... I am not saying everybody who needs help with finances is bad... Hell, I claim CTC etc... If you CAN claim it and need to then fine... but honestly...

If fit and able to work... first thing anybody should do, is work. What help they get should then be based on this. - cost of a kid should be cut 50/50 between both parents.

- obviously cost isnt just money but time/effort too!

but then. you cant always include childcare costs for working in EVERYBODYS cost of a child... usually child care costs are either covered by TC or by HB or W/E etc...

is it fair for childcare costs to be say £100 - WTC contributes £80 of these to you and then still expect NRP to pay £50 of childcare costs?

same with other expenses... and other benefits CTC / CB ETC

whilst not everybody claims them... if a child costs say £100 to live a week. and you get £80 of benefits for that child... should the NRP really be expected to contribute £50 of the cost of the child... ? AND the PWC STILL KEEP THE FULL BENEFIT?
*obviously, they are entitled to keep the full benefit LEGALLY now...*

Obviously diferent circs = standard of living etc ... but really... dont you think that EVERYBODY (NRP / PWC ETC) should get together and be an adult and do a FAIR working out of costs.
obviously, this would need reviewing regularly... etc...

(this is what I had with my ex to start with... and it worked out that our son was actually costing less than the benefits recieved to live - hence arrangement of buying clothes and cash paid etc).

and EVERYBODY is entitled to their view.

rozmister

DUTR wrote: »

How ironic eh? It is YOUR child when something is wanted £££s, but other than that it is MY child any other time.
There is no rent or energy bills for the children, those would have to be paid anyway.
The responsibilty is shared and when a relationship breaks down, EVERYBODY has to allow for changes.
In todays modern age of equal opportunity, it is not just down to the bloke to provide the finances, whilst it is not the case in practice, I suspect that is down to force of the situation more than willing

How funny that you pick up on semantics rather than trying to take in what I'm saying and understand the point. If you want to make it easier to grasp go back through and everytime I said YOUR put BOTH OF YOU'S child. The point still stands - it's a two man job and that means both people chipping in not one person paying for the lion's share and the other one griping about the small luxuries that person has.

There may not be bills in the child's name but there's are bills, and rent, that are created by having children. If you are single you'd have a one bed flat/room in a house share - if you have 2 children you need a 2 or 3 bedroom property (depending on the children's gender and age) which costs more. If you have children you need a light on in their bedroom while they're in there, in the hallway while they sleep, in all the other rooms they might desire to use during the day that you personally aren't using. Again that child needs to be bathed - that's extra money spent on gas to heat the water. Sure these amounts aren't much but it's still more money to be spent. Living as a single person is cheaper than have two children living with you - that's a cold hard fact. You might not want to acknowledge it but it's true. And that's before you factor in school trips, food, shoes, clothes, school uniform, after school activities, days out, birthdays, christmas, sweets or a comic on a saturday, icecream on a sunny day, etc.

And for the record it's NEVER my child. I don't have any children yet because so far I've chosen not to. I grew up in a household with a father who didn't contribute and didn't turn up for access and after that as well as seeing the way so many 'mature adults' behave when it comes to splitting access and sharing money to cover their children's needs I'm really not sure I want to have kids. I'd HATE for any child of mine to have to grow up in that situation, it's absolutely horrible. When people bicker and argue over money and begrudge their partner every penny they forget that what actually matters is the child in the middle of it all. And when I say people and adults I don't mean fathers I mean mothers AND fathers. It took two to tango and now they both need to get on for at least 18 years - that means both sides making an effort and contributing a decent amount towards living expenses.

DUTR

rozmister wrote: »

How funny that you pick up on semantics rather than trying to take in what I'm saying and understand the point.

When I reply to a post it is for all to read , and not aimed at anyone in particular on a personal level.
I stand by, my earlier comment that SOME do refer to MY child until they want extra, if you have never noticed that in any threads then perhaps you have not read many threads, I'm semi certain though the post I reffered to which you commented on the reply does state MY CHILD.