selling my bussines and csa

FBaby

How do you take into account childcare costs and whether the pwc is receiving tax credits or not towards it? Take for instance:
pwc1: remarried and works full-time. New hubby earns over £60K so not entitled to CB nor tax credits. Childcare costs for two children is £700 a month. NRP expected to pay £350 + other costs, about £550 a month.
pwc2: single, works full-time, 70% of childcare cost paid by tax credits. nrp only has to pay £200 a month.

Doesn't seem fair for an nrp who only earns £1,000 a month, and is it fair he should pay more because the pwc family income is much higher?

Alpine

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Well a fixed amount will never work will it?

I never said it would, certainly not for everybody, but the current system doesn't seem to work either. If it costs £300 a month to raise a child this month, taking inflation into account, it will cost the same next month and the month after that and so on. It doesn't cost more or less if the NRPs income changes.


If NRPs knew that they always had to provide that amount, regardless of their income, they might strive harder to provide knowing that any extra they earn, they benefit from and if they so wish, they can give little extras to the children knowing they are the direct beneficiary.


It might also stop NRPs having more children with new families they know full well they cannot afford to care for. Harsh that maybe, but life isn't fair and we all need to take responsibility for the choices we've made in the past.


If a PWC starts a relationship that provides a large upswing in their standard of living, that doesn't change the fact that the NRP has a child they are responsible for and it still costs the same amount to raise that child. At least with a fixed amount, the NRP won't feel animosity towards the PWC unlike the current system whereby the NRP gets a pay rise and has to give a substantial portion of that rise to the already better off PWC.

kevin137

Alpine wrote: »

I never said it would, certainly not for everybody, but the current system doesn't seem to work either. If it costs £300 a month to raise a child this month, taking inflation into account, it will cost the same next month and the month after that and so on. It doesn't cost more or less if the NRPs income changes.


If NRPs knew that they always had to provide that amount, regardless of their income, they might strive harder to provide knowing that any extra they earn, they benefit from and if they so wish, they can give little extras to the children knowing they are the direct beneficiary.


It might also stop NRPs having more children with new families they know full well they cannot afford to care for. Harsh that maybe, but life isn't fair and we all need to take responsibility for the choices we've made in the past.


If a PWC starts a relationship that provides a large upswing in their standard of living, that doesn't change the fact that the NRP has a child they are responsible for and it still costs the same amount to raise that child. At least with a fixed amount, the NRP won't feel animosity towards the PWC unlike the current system whereby the NRP gets a pay rise and has to give a substantial portion of that rise to the already better off PWC.

And by the same thinking, if it is fixed and the parents come from say liverpool where housing is considerably cheaper than london, but decide to move to london and as a result the cost of the child rises, is the NRP supposed to pay for the extra costs...???

It just doesn't work, % is far more realisitic as to the circumstances of the father, it is just not always fair and not right that it is not allowable as a deduction that reduces your income meaning you cannot support yourself... Like they can take x amount and leave you not eligible to have a basic standard of living and not able to claim housing, but the PWC can claim housing even though they are receiving an extra un-declarable income...

shoe*diva79

Alpine wrote: »

I never said it would, certainly not for everybody, but the current system doesn't seem to work either. If it costs £300 a month to raise a child this month, taking inflation into account, it will cost the same next month and the month after that and so on. It doesn't cost more or less if the NRPs income changes.


If NRPs knew that they always had to provide that amount, regardless of their income, they might strive harder to provide knowing that any extra they earn, they benefit from and if they so wish, they can give little extras to the children knowing they are the direct beneficiary.


It might also stop NRPs having more children with new families they know full well they cannot afford to care for. Harsh that maybe, but life isn't fair and we all need to take responsibility for the choices we've made in the past.


If a PWC starts a relationship that provides a large upswing in their standard of living, that doesn't change the fact that the NRP has a child they are responsible for and it still costs the same amount to raise that child. At least with a fixed amount, the NRP won't feel animosity towards the PWC unlike the current system whereby the NRP gets a pay rise and has to give a substantial portion of that rise to the already better off PWC.

They dont really have to give a substantial portion of their payrise to the PWC. if they have 1 child then they give 15% currently. Less any deductions fore overnight stays etc etc etc. so NRP get a £100 net per month salary increase, £15 to the PWC and NRP keeps £85.

May have to agree to disagree, but I do not think that is substantial.

DUTR

Alpine wrote: »

I never said it would, certainly not for everybody, but the current system doesn't seem to work either. If it costs £300 a month to raise a child this month, taking inflation into account, it will cost the same next month and the month after that and so on. It doesn't cost more or less if the NRPs income changes.


If NRPs knew that they always had to provide that amount, regardless of their income, they might strive harder to provide knowing that any extra they earn, they benefit from and if they so wish, they can give little extras to the children knowing they are the direct beneficiary.

For me, I stopped doing any overtime (I was already paying extra as my assesment was based on an inflated amount) , but it back fired for the PWC, as before then my contribution was 30-50% :eek:
I recently got asked if I would like to contribute towards a PC, but hey my fixed 15% is paid regularly.

It might also stop NRPs having more children with new families they know full well they cannot afford to care for. Harsh that maybe, but life isn't fair and we all need to take responsibility for the choices we've made in the past.

Everybody has a right to have a family, the NRP does not belong to the previous failed set up (not necessarily this thread but it's 'funny' how when some NRPs have a new partner, the contact and access suddenly become difficult) .

If a PWC starts a relationship that provides a large upswing in their standard of living, that doesn't change the fact that the NRP has a child they are responsible for and it still costs the same amount to raise that child. At least with a fixed amount, the NRP won't feel animosity towards the PWC unlike the current system whereby the NRP gets a pay rise and has to give a substantial portion of that rise to the already better off PWC.

True it doesn't negate the NRP responsibilty to contribute, it's a wonder how the dedicated PWC finds time to form a new relationship?

Alpine

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

They dont really have to give a substantial portion of their payrise to the PWC. if they have 1 child then they give 15% currently. Less any deductions fore overnight stays etc etc etc. so NRP get a £100 net per month salary increase, £15 to the PWC and NRP keeps £85.

May have to agree to disagree, but I do not think that is substantial.

I always look at it from an after tax perspective. That pay rise will have Income Tax and NI removed first. Then up to 25% of what's left is taken by the CSA. Depending on the size of the pay rise, or overtime payments, it can reach a point where it is simply not worth the effort to work harder.

shoe*diva79

25% in your case because you have at least 3 children. So a net take home of £100 per month would be £25 to your children, £75 to you. Please note that net is after tax and Ni and any other deductions has been made.

I cant see your logic where its just not worth the bother. You would forgo a extra £75 in your pocket just so you didn't have to give the PWC £25.

I find that most odd.

DUTR

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

25% in your case because you have at least 3 children. So a net take home of £100 per month would be £25 to your children, £75 to you. Please note that net is after tax and Ni and any other deductions has been made.

I cant see your logic where its just not worth the bother. You would forgo a extra £75 in your pocket just so you didn't have to give the PWC £25.

I find that most odd.

That's not where the 'issue' is ,
eg say a NRP grossed £10ph net is about £6.86ph then after CSA £5.14, so it depends if someone wants to do OT at perhaps 50% stoppages or keep their time for rest and play.
And it could be less again if the OT takes them into the higher tax band.

shoe*diva79

DUTR wrote: »

That's not where the 'issue' is ,
eg say a NRP grossed £10ph net is about £6.86ph then after CSA £5.14, so it depends if someone wants to do OT at perhaps 50% stoppages or keep their time for rest and play.
And it could be less again if the OT takes them into the higher tax band.

On your figures, 10 hours overtime would be approx £51.40 in the NRP pocket after tax, NI, CSA... If that was 10 hours a month then I would much rather have £50 in my pocket then not. Over a year thats in excess of £600 extra in the NRP pocket. Thats a holiday!

Im sorry, but I really cant see why someone would think its hassle to do overtime thinking they are going to lose all their money. But then it seems most NRP think that most PWC spend the NRP hard earned wages on fags, booze and the such.

kevin137

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Im sorry, but I really cant see why someone would think its hassle to do overtime thinking they are going to lose all their money. But then it seems most NRP think that most PWC spend the NRP hard earned wages on fags, booze and the such.

Some do though, it is just a fact of life... I know it is not all... But you see story after story about single mums living the high life out drinking at weekends smoking, wearing the latest fashion...

In the real world it most definitely happens but not by everybody...!!!