Change of circumstances

DAREDEVIL78

to answer the car/drink/smoke question . . . I can drive but sold my car as to cut down on running expenses (I cycle to work etc) and I don't drink or smoke .

as for appreciating advice, I can appreciate impartial / unbiased advice but find responses such as shoediva's reply regards having further children totally despicable !

her response to myself going onto have further children as she stated as being '' maybe a mistake '' is disgusting as a response , is that necessary , who the hell is she to decide if someone is financially struggling that she thinks to comment that they shouldn't have more kids.

is that impartial advice ? . . . . i'd say it is too personal, especially not knowing the full story of circumstance .

if I ever respond to members posts I keep it impartial and informative ! surely that's what any posting member requires , not long term members posting ''holier than thou'' comments.

with respect though kevin137 I am not aiming anger at you or anyone for that matter , anger is the wrong word , i just feel judged therefore not given the benefit of doubt , as a respectful member of mse it is obviously is displeasing to be treat that way.

for example , shoediva stated in an earlier post about me trying to avoid my obligations to my child to my ex but have you seen a statement/post from myself asking how i can getaway with paying csa maintenance ? . . . i cant see a post of mine stating this , so what use is that response from her . . . . i can only assume she has converted my post into what she THINKS it is saying ?

kevin137

DAREDEVIL78 wrote: »

to answer the car/drink/smoke question . . . I can drive but sold my car as to cut down on running expenses (I cycle to work etc) and I don't drink or smoke .

is that impartial advice ? . . . . i'd say it is too personal, especially not knowing the full story of circumstance .

with respect though kevin137 I am not aiming anger at you or anyone for that matter , anger is the wrong word , i just feel judged therefore not given the benefit of doubt , as a respectful member of mse it is obviously is displeasing to be treat that way.

If you did sell the car to cut down fair enough, most people won't...!!!

Impartial and personal are not really something you normally get when using a forum that has 2 such different sides to the story... If you look at the difference between PWC and NRP there are very few with a middle ground, and you pay too much and they don't get enough... And people that DON'T work well, i have no time for them... And for PWC that just sit on there !!!!!! out of choice don't get my sympathy, there is NO reason not to work, i mean disabled people work and live a full life so why can't a mother...??? It is normal, and they cannot expect to live on an ex, but some do...!!!

CSA raises a lot of emotions, and sometimes you will feel that you are treated with disrespect, i am sure that it is not meant that way...!

FBaby

so after starting a new relationship (in time) with someone else who I became married to and had further children with, are YOU honestly suggesting I shouldn't have had further children whether I could or couldn't financially afford it , life is like this in a real world

Life is not like this in the real world I live in. In my real world, insuring your children are getting enough takes priority over broodiness. In my real world, you insure you are financially stable before you decide to have children. In my real world, if you want to have children but can't afford it, you look at increasing your income first.

My ex took the same attitude. He and his partner had 4 children between them before deciding to have another one. Neither worked at the time and neither supported the children they already had. They WANTED another baby so ignored everything else. They are seriously struggling financially and so I haven't received a penny for years in maintenance. Thankfully, I can offer a good lifestyle for my children without maintenance, but it doesn't make it right. What annoys me most is that they don't even have enough to pay for anything for them when they are there. I would have hope not paying maintenance could at least mean a bit more income to spend on them during their visits. They are now starting to get very bored when they get there and I wouldn't be surprised when they find it in themselves to tell their dad that they don't want to go any longer. Of course, if/when that happens, I will be blame for it.

Couples everyday have to battle with their desire to have more children because they cannot afford having another one. Most of my girlfriends would have had more if it wasn't for the finances, but what is the point of having children if you can't provide properly for all of them?

shoe*diva79

FBaby wrote: »

Life is not like this in the real world I live in. In my real world, insuring your children are getting enough takes priority over broodiness. In my real world, you insure you are financially stable before you decide to have children. In my real world, if you want to have children but can't afford it, you look at increasing your income first.

My ex took the same attitude. He and his partner had 4 children between them before deciding to have another one. Neither worked at the time and neither supported the children they already had. They WANTED another baby so ignored everything else. They are seriously struggling financially and so I haven't received a penny for years in maintenance. Thankfully, I can offer a good lifestyle for my children without maintenance, but it doesn't make it right. What annoys me most is that they don't even have enough to pay for anything for them when they are there. I would have hope not paying maintenance could at least mean a bit more income to spend on them during their visits. They are now starting to get very bored when they get there and I wouldn't be surprised when they find it in themselves to tell their dad that they don't want to go any longer. Of course, if/when that happens, I will be blame for it.

Couples everyday have to battle with their desire to have more children because they cannot afford having another one. Most of my girlfriends would have had more if it wasn't for the finances, but what is the point of having children if you can't provide properly for all of them?

Excellent post FBaby.

I would LOVE more children, but cannot afford it at the detriment of the 2 I already have.

shoe*diva79

DAREDEVIL78 wrote: »

to answer the car/drink/smoke question . . . I can drive but sold my car as to cut down on running expenses (I cycle to work etc) and I don't drink or smoke .

as for appreciating advice, I can appreciate impartial / unbiased advice but find responses such as shoediva's reply regards having further children totally despicable !

her response to myself going onto have further children as she stated as being '' maybe a mistake '' is disgusting as a response , is that necessary , who the hell is she to decide if someone is financially struggling that she thinks to comment that they shouldn't have more kids.

is that impartial advice ? . . . . i'd say it is too personal, especially not knowing the full story of circumstance .

if I ever respond to members posts I keep it impartial and informative ! surely that's what any posting member requires , not long term members posting ''holier than thou'' comments.

with respect though kevin137 I am not aiming anger at you or anyone for that matter , anger is the wrong word , i just feel judged therefore not given the benefit of doubt , as a respectful member of mse it is obviously is displeasing to be treat that way.

for example , shoediva stated in an earlier post about me trying to avoid my obligations to my child to my ex but have you seen a statement/post from myself asking how i can getaway with paying csa maintenance ? . . . i cant see a post of mine stating this , so what use is that response from her . . . . i can only assume she has converted my post into what she THINKS it is saying ?

Im juding you because looking at your past posts it appears you are (to me) trying to figure out the way in which the least can be paid for your first child. You have asked constantly about tax credits, if your wife was to be the sole earner and you were a stay at home father, paying just £5 flat rate...but nothing about you working full time and provinding for ALL your children.

Can you hand on heart, honestly say that you think £5 is a reasonable about of maintenance and that if your wife becomes the sole earner and you stay at home thus giving a nil assessment, that it is fair on your first child?

Post number 6 on this theread I asked you if you thought it was fair that your first child misses out on the first 15% of your income due to the reduction for the child you have with your current wife. I explianed about it being 'swings and roundabouts' when it comes to tax credits and reductions. But you havent mentioned that...

A the end if the day your just going to have to 'suck it up' and hopefully pay a reasonable sum to your ex partner to financially help cover the day to day living costs of your child. If you try and wriggle out of your responsibilities, your child will more then likely grow up knowing that daddy didnt contribute like he morally should have.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Excellent post FBaby.

I would LOVE more children, but cannot afford it at the detriment of the 2 I already have.

I can't believe that there are people in the world who *don't* consider their financial position when family planning to be honest.

shoe*diva79

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

I can't believe that there are people in the world who *don't* consider their financial position when family planning to be honest.

Its because they think everyone else will pick up the tab and dont care that the children could suffer as a result of poverty.

kevin137

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

I can't believe that there are people in the world who *don't* consider their financial position when family planning to be honest.

Of course there are people like that, and i will get flamed for speaking my mind probably... Most of them have 1 or possibly both claiming benefit with a view to finding ways of not paying for what is due, and think it is a right not a privilege to have children and financial aid available...

Which is why we have a country in the sate it is now, of course i know there are other reasons as well... But you know what i mean...!!!

This is a prime example...

http://www.downvids.net/get-a-job-ya-fat-slag--413389.html

shoe*diva79

She really is in the minority tho Kevin.

With all the changes to the current benefit system it wont be beneficial to live off the state. Already single parents whose children are 5 or above have been moved to JSA and must seek work.

clearingout

that's a particularly unpleasant video clip and a clear 'set up' of someone who was never going to have the metal...speed to be able to argue her case sensibly. Journalism at it's worst in my opinion, people shouldn't be exploited just because they're daft enough to put themselves in that position (Jeremy Kyle is the biggest culprit of that kind of 'entertainment').

I agree shoediva - the changes are going to hit those who don't want to work very hard. I am afraid we are in the 'calm before the storm' period...it'll be workhouses next.