selling my bussines and csa

shoe*diva79

Not all single mums are on full benefit. Even working single parents get tax credits unless in a very well paid job. And for all you know Kevin, a lifestyle might be funded by a credit card and the parent be in huge debt, living beyond their means.

As usual its turning into A single mum bashing thread.

DUTR

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Not all single mums are on full benefit. Even working single parents get tax credits unless in a very well paid job. And for all you know Kevin, a lifestyle might be funded by a credit card and the parent be in huge debt, living beyond their means.

As usual its turning into A single mum bashing thread.

I'm not sure I agree, especially after reading JJJ1980 post, their last line as ' But their circumstances aren't mine so I don't feel it would be right to judge their decisions.'
The impression I get is that because YOU would go that extra to materialistically enchance the child(rens) lives, not everybody would, it doesn't make them bad and you good. Likewise it seems due to your beliefs on the matter that you are NRP bashing.

My child's Mum does not smoke or go clubbing, I know some materialistic things in life she would like to participate in, I'm sure I could make those happen, but I contribute my 15% already, I do feel sorry for her in that she and others in her situation are in a sort of trap which whilst difficult, is not impossible to get out of, and will take time (which is what I am trying to get her to realise).
As curing the symptoms is not curing the 'illness', also things in the news introduced by the goverment you folk voted in, are now coming back to bite , things like the bedroom tax and contribution to council tax, however more so, as well as thinking about today, some have to think about tomorrow, if someone is getting by largely on benefits, there will come a time when CS and benefits reduce or stop in the meantime everything is increasing in price (except wages or at a lesser rate) , on the news just this week there was talk of a cap on benefits to £500pw or £350pw for a single person, how many people who do go to work actually earn that amount? Hence you may see why there is some resentment to propping up somebody else's lifestyle, after all no child has or will pass due to lack of CS contributions

kevin137

@shoe*diva79

Go to a nightclub on a Friday or Saturday night and see how many single mums, living on benefit between the age of 18-30 there are out clubbing, in designer clothes smoking and drinking, then tell me that benefit pays for it all...

I have a lot of friends who are night club managers, and used to do some event photography in some of these clubs when needed, and it is clear to see there are more than you think...!

I am not judging, i am just saying that in the real world it is not just what YOU say, that there are an awful lot who do clearly have enough on benefit and CS from the CSA and NRP that can and DO live like that, and as a result i think perception is that younger people certainly can and do live like that...!!!

And yet there are many people who complain they don't get enough money. So please explain how that is possible...

And credit while available, is not always available to people like that...! And credit cards only last so long when living that lifestyle that is for sure, and with no income other than benefit or part time work, how is it possible... Surely you can see what i am saying, and it is not that ALL single mothers, just that it happens...

I was, or should i say, my son was one of the lucky ones, his mother was not like that. She put our child 1st in that way. But that is not to say she was a great mother either, as i had to jump through hoops to get access because she was bitter and wanted me to "pay" over the odds and support her how she thought she should be supported...! Had i not had to battle so hard for access through the legal system maybe i would of been more supportive to her financially. But i was already being raped by the CSA under CSA1 back then, and she was seeing no benefit from it. But still thought i should give HER more money in cash and always did everything she could to stop me seeing my son until i did...!

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

She put our child 1st in that way. But that is not to say she was a great mother either, as i had to jump through hoops to get access because she was bitter and wanted me to "pay" over the odds and support her how she thought she should be supported...! Had i not had to battle so hard for access through the legal system maybe i would of been more supportive to her financially. But i was already being raped by the CSA under CSA1 back then, and she was seeing no benefit from it. But still thought i should give HER more money in cash and always did everything she could to stop me seeing my son until i did...!

She sounds just like oh's ex was, and would still be, only luckily the kids are now adults and make their own minds up.

What really gets me though, is that some PWC's expect to have the same lifestyle after a split as they did before. Unless the NRP is earning a hell of a lot, it's not possible, no NRP can shell out the same amount as he did before. Everyone just has to realise that their lifestyles have to change.

I reckon my sister had the right idea, her ex never gave her any money, but he paid for all the clothes, shoes, uniforms, clubs, pocket money, trips etc and she provided the food, utilities and house, and anything extra she wanted to give her. That way the child benefited and the ex didn't feel he was subsidising my sisters' lifestyle.

She never had to worry that she couldn't afford a school trip or any "extras" for the child. There was never any animosity between them, maybe that would be a possible solution to the NRP's who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are subsidising an ex's lifestyle?

DUTR

Marisco wrote: »

She sounds just like oh's ex was, and would still be, only luckily the kids are now adults and make their own minds up.

What really gets me though, is that some PWC's expect to have the same lifestyle after a split as they did before. Unless the NRP is earning a hell of a lot, it's not possible, no NRP can shell out the same amount as he did before. Everyone just has to realise that their lifestyles have to change.

I reckon my sister had the right idea, her ex never gave her any money, but he paid for all the clothes, shoes, uniforms, clubs, pocket money, trips etc and she provided the food, utilities and house, and anything extra she wanted to give her. That way the child benefited and the ex didn't feel he was subsidising my sisters' lifestyle.

She never had to worry that she couldn't afford a school trip or any "extras" for the child. There was never any animosity between them, maybe that would be a possible solution to the NRP's who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are subsidising an ex's lifestyle?

This is a reason I am glad for a CS case to be open, I would have resented giving the Mum money in her hand (as whatever was given would not be enough) . I'm quids in from the deal :cool:

Marisco

DUTR wrote: »

This is a reason I am glad for a CS case to be open, I would have resented giving the Mum money in her hand (as whatever was given would not be enough) . I'm quids in from the deal :cool:

Not sure I understand what you mean here. I don't mean the ex paid for my sisters clothes and things, but all the stuff for the child. Wouldn't you prefer to buy the child stuff direct, then you know that the child is definitely benefiting from the CM?

Of course if you have an awkward PWC who'd want money on top, then it wouldn't work, and in that case I can see how a fixed sum on CSA would be better. Mind, that doesn't always work either, oh was paying a fortune on CSA1, but the ex was still not satisfied and made life hell for oh and the kids! :mad:

clearingout

kevin137 wrote: »

I'm not for 1 second saying that you shouldn't move on, but i do know that you could not move on and smoke have contract phones wear expensive fashion, run a car etc on benefit...!!!

So please explain to me, how the hell a single mum on benefit can afford to smoke 20 a day and do all the other stuff they do on benefit or is benefit that good...???

Oh hold on, the NRP for the children pays for it all... CS...??? Not always...!!!

All i am saying is live in the real world, not everyone goes without so there kids can have, not all single mothers think of there children 1st, and not all single mothers use the money to benefit the kids...!!!

So do please explain to me, how all that is possible... Or does the CSA fund it for them really...???

You know i will speak my mind, and i DO know that it is not for the NRP to say how the money is spent... But the real world is not the standards you go by... There are 1'000s out there who do not live like that and put themselves and there fun 1st... And it is better for some mothers on benefit because they have 3 or 4 children by different fathers, so they don't get capped the same way... They draw 15% of each father.... More money for going out isn't...

THIS HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD...!!!

well, I ran a car on Income Support, although I couldn't have afforded a clubbing 'lifestyle' with alcohol and cigarettes and designer labels.

People on benefits long term don't have access to credit as a general rule, so 'lifestyle' isnt' being funded that way. However, what most people have access to is the catalogue and Brighthouse 'lifestyle' which gives an appearance of a good standard of living at a fraction of the cost.

I have tried to find stats but can't either way. I do not believe that the number of 'single mums' on benefits with multiple children by multiple fathers all of whom are in jobs and pay up 15% of their income without question are particularly plentiful in society as a whole. And I don't believe that where these women exist, they are necessarily 'living the high life'. Indeed with three primary aged children I struggle to get out once in a blue moon let alone every weekend clubbing. But if I had childcare that I could both afford and rely on, I would be out a lot more than I am and I would make no apologies for it. Why on earth should I?!

DUTR

Marisco wrote: »

Not sure I understand what you mean here. I don't mean the ex paid for my sisters clothes and things, but all the stuff for the child. Wouldn't you prefer to buy the child stuff direct, then you know that the child is definitely benefiting from the CM?

Of course if you have an awkward PWC who'd want money on top, then it wouldn't work, and in that case I can see how a fixed sum on CSA would be better. Mind, that doesn't always work either, oh was paying a fortune on CSA1, but the ex was still not satisfied and made life hell for oh and the kids! :mad:

That's what I meant, I paid for clothes, school uniforms , school activities n stuff, plus 3 or 4 times 60-80 miles round trips, but every now and then the question would pop up "don't you wanna give me some £££s towards DD?" :eek:

Hence what I mean is what some do is never enough, once the brown envelope arrived and a little hoo ha, I contribute every week, the amount is a lot less than what I was forking out, and not forgetting about nearly 1000 miles /month less mileage on the car and the fuel that goes with it, that alone was more than the CS contribution of 15%.

What it probably meant for the PWC after is that yes, they are getting 15% and that's it, they have to find the rest.

Since the begining of the year the PWC and I have become 'friends' again but I have made it clear that I am very wary of the contact, and anytime I have been asked for some contribution, I remind of what leaves my bank account every week towards the contribution.
And that they are not just DD when they want something

Yesterday I was informed that a call was recieved from the school to inform DD has been doing well recently (but of course that is no thanks to my input setting up the PC with the relevant software etc , so that the course work can be completed in a timely manner)

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

well, I ran a car on Income Support, although I couldn't have afforded a clubbing 'lifestyle' with alcohol and cigarettes and designer labels.

People on benefits long term don't have access to credit as a general rule, so 'lifestyle' isnt' being funded that way. However, what most people have access to is the catalogue and Brighthouse 'lifestyle' which gives an appearance of a good standard of living at a fraction of the cost.

I have tried to find stats but can't either way. I do not believe that the number of 'single mums' on benefits with multiple children by multiple fathers all of whom are in jobs and pay up 15% of their income without question are particularly plentiful in society as a whole. And I don't believe that where these women exist, they are necessarily 'living the high life'. Indeed with three primary aged children I struggle to get out once in a blue moon let alone every weekend clubbing. But if I had childcare that I could both afford and rely on, I would be out a lot more than I am and I would make no apologies for it. Why on earth should I?!

I struggled to run a car in London an whilst working...! I don;t understand how people can do it...! I changed from a convertible BMW to a smart car so i could keep a car. And that was with no loan but my fully comp insurance with 9 years no claims still cost me £800 a year to insure as i did not have a garage. Maybe that is why there are 30% unisinsured cars in major cities...

As for stats on single mothers with multiple children, i know of at least 6 i can think of without trying to hard that all live on benefits with multiple children all with different fathers that all DO go out at least once a week, and have no problem doing so.

I think people are disillusioned to think that people like that do not exist and that it does not go on, as for living the catalogue life with buying stuff from them, designer stuff is even more expensive through them, so i don't see that as a reason or how how they do it...

I think you need to look more at society with a wider view of how people choose to live there lives and understand that not everyone does the right thing and puts children 1st...!

I'm sure everyone on here knows someone that would fit the bill for being like this... There are a lot of them...!!!

notanewuser

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

£16.41 a hour if your salary was £32011 and you work 37.5 hours a week. Thats the minimum for high tax bracket.

Sorry, that's wrong. Higher rate tax kicks in at £32k plus the personal allowance (£9500 ish this year). So £41.5k, which at 37.5 hours a week is £21.28 per hour.