Bettering myself is better for my ex!

nicky3

Max 'contribution' is £300 per week for one child...too high in my opinion.

little_miss_muppet_face

Plongeur wrote: »

Well put FBaby. While my income may seem excessive to many, I've worked long and hard to get where I am, and do a hard and dangerous job that very few people in the world would do for 10 times that amount.

I'm uses to the 'have nots' expecting the 'haves' to support them. Unfortunately it seems to be the way this country has gone in so many aspects of life.

Would you have managed to get where you are today if you had been at home with your child, having to do school runs / doctors / etc. Its none of your business what your ex spends the maintenance on.. as long as your child gets all they need and dont go without due to the mother spending it all..if she was, then i could see your point but i dont see any evidence thats whats happening..
We hear of men moaning about paying ex's child maintenance..and fair play to you for paying towards the child, but at the end of the day you had the child, now you have to support it. the more you earn the more you pay.. thats life.. Is it fair, i think so.

Plongeur

little_miss_muppet_face wrote: »

Would you have managed to get where you are today if you had been at home with your child, having to do school runs / doctors / etc. Its none of your business what your ex spends the maintenance on.. as long as your child gets all they need and dont go without due to the mother spending it all..if she was, then i could see your point but i dont see any evidence thats whats happening..
We hear of men moaning about paying ex's child maintenance.. you had the child, now you have to support it. the more you earn the more you pay.. thats life.. Is it fair, i think so.

Are you a 'have not' by any chance?

Yes, I'd still be in the same position I am now.

It's "none of my business" what 15% of my money is spent on? I think we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

kevin137

Plongeur wrote: »

It's "none of my business" what 15% of my money is spent on? I think we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

Well it isn't really, but i feel your pain, but as i said before, and as is being said to you now...

You made your bed, and all that, but it works the other way too... When the money dries up, and YOU can still provide, then what does that leave the ex...???

You can be bitter or you can move on and know that you will always be able to provide. If the ex does not better herself then she will struggle and lose out, that is also a fact of life that some PWC seem to miss the point of, not all but some...

It will be like becoming unemployed for her, all over again, and the lack of money that will happen may well be a shock to the system, and as most children are actually intelligent, then yours may just realise that it was YOU that provided financially all the way through... That is not to say they won't still love MUM but if there has ever been any bad mouthing of DAD then it soon shines through...

little_miss_muppet_face

Plongeur wrote: »

Are you a 'have not' by any chance?

Yes, I'd still be in the same position I am now.

It's "none of my business" what 15% of my money is spent on? I think we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

Whats a 'have not'?
It absolutely has nothing to do with you what your ex spends your money on. Why would you think it would?
Ive just had this same conversation with my ex - i put his maintenance up as he now earns alot more than he did 15 years ago, we dont go through CSA, never have,
I earn either the same as him, probably more, but thats none of his business. he pays me because i bring up his child. i support my child regardless if he pays me or not. end of.

DUTR

kevin137 wrote: »

Well it isn't really, but i feel your pain, but as i said before, and as is being said to you now...

You made your bed, and all that, but it works the other way too... When the money dries up, and YOU can still provide, then what does that leave the ex...???

You can be bitter or you can move on and know that you will always be able to provide. If the ex does not better herself then she will struggle and lose out, that is also a fact of life that some PWC seem to miss the point of, not all but some...

It will be like becoming unemployed for her, all over again, and the lack of money that will happen may well be a shock to the system, and as most children are actually intelligent, then yours may just realise that it was YOU that provided financially all the way through... That is not to say they won't still love MUM but if there has ever been any bad mouthing of DAD then it soon shines through...

There used to be a forum and after a time, there were posts from many PWCs worried about coming to the end of reciept of CS and what they would do afterwards, as they did not position themselves or have a plan of action for when the youngest no longer qualifies. For the NRPs that do contribute, it will be like having a pay rise or doing overtime without having to do the hours, some PWCs like you say maybe quite shocked, I'm sure the majority though are sensible about it all.

DUTR

little_miss_muppet_face wrote: »

Whats a 'have not'?
It absolutely has nothing to do with you what your ex spends your money on. Why would you think it would?
Ive just had this same conversation with my ex - i put his maintenance up as he now earns alot more than he did 15 years ago, we dont go through CSA, never have,
I earn either the same as him, probably more, but thats none of his business. he pays me because i bring up his child. i support my child regardless if he pays me or not. end of.

That's you though, you cannot deny that every PWC is as sensible or level headed as you.

lazer

If the child is meant to get the benefit of both parents incomes - how come if the PWC earns £100k and the NRP earns about £12k and has the child 2 nights a week, that the PWC doesn't have to give the NRP money to ensure that the child has the benefit of their income for the 2 days the child is with the NRP?

I understand the fact that a child should benefit when one parents wages increase, however instead of subsidising the ex's household with anything more than around £100 a week, there should be an option whereby the additioanl Child maintenance is paid into a trust fund with can be used to pay for things that benefit the child (with the agreement of both parents!).

Paying £300 into an ex's household especially if there are other children involved will probably not benefit just your child, but will probably go into a household pot and be used for the benefit of the ex, the child and the ex's other children.

kevin137

lazer wrote: »

If the child is meant to get the benefit of both parents incomes - how come if the PWC earns £100k and the NRP earns about £12k and has the child 2 nights a week, that the PWC doesn't have to give the NRP money to ensure that the child has the benefit of their income for the 2 days the child is with the NRP?

That is a very good point...

How is that not the case...???

If Child Support os meant as an equaling of income, then surely in the rare case where the PWC earns substantially more is it not the case that the NRP who could well have overnight access is left to pay for care with a parent substantially better off...???

I understand the need for society to say that BOTH parent should support the child/ren, but this does raise a whole different issue that portrays one parent as being less able, in an already unbalanced society in regards to children, this is an interesting thought...

krashovrload

++

The system has always be baised against the NRP and even though things have improved. It has never been a level playing field.

It was never helped by politicians throwing phrases around like 'dead beat fathers'.

They used to look at NRP partner income but ignore PWC partner income - so how was that fair?

Back in the days of CSA1 - the calculations were such that I was expected to be grateful to be working 40hrs a week for £15 above the single person benefit rate, lose 33% of my income and know that my ex-partner was only ever going to get £10 above Income Support regardless of what I paid to the CSA. And that was supposed to help lift families out of poverty..??

I'm not saying that the system ever worked as it should've for the PWCs and I've seen many a post that supported that but as an NRP I can only comment on my experiences.

++