Bettering myself is better for my ex!

clearingout

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?

a reduction is made to the child maintenance to take into account the time a child spends with the NRP?

FBaby

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?

Another one to think that is a very good point indeed. In a way, that is what I do as I don't ask any maintenance from my ex because I do earn much more than he does. I also pay for all their travel to go and see him, so by not asking for any maintenance, he should have more to spend on them when they are with him....except that this doesn't happen. They never do anything, just stay home and never go out. He always tell them he has no money to do anything with them. What would he do if I went through the csa???

I have no doubt at all that if my kids said they wanted to live with him tomorrow and I therefore would have to pay maintenance at quite a decent level (nothing close to what I am assuming OP is paying though), that this money would be seen as income to put into the pot to support the entire family, rather than putting it aside for them specifically. Like OP, I have worked hard to be where I am (in my case, as a pwc who had full care of the children, so it is possible), and the prospect of having money taken away from me each month that would go to support people I don't care about in addition to my own kids would really get to me. Thankfully, this is not likely to happen.

guruchelles

What I find interesting about this thread is how many people are talking about the concept of spending the money on the child, ie. the money should be spent on the child, and not be for the benefit of the PWC.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Of course, there are some things that will need to be bought just for the child - shoes, school trips etc. but other things will inevitably fall into the category of improving the lifestyle of the whole PWC household. The accommodation, for instance: if the NRP wants his (or her) children to live in a nice house then the PWC is going to benefit from that too.

What if the children would benefit from a nifty laptop or a comfortable sofa? Should the PWC refrain from using that computer or sitting down? Should subsequent children to the household be denied access to things that were bought with maintenance money?

It's naive, in my opinion, to suppose that maintenance money is, or should, be ringfenced for items that are purely for the child(ren). In the majority of cases I would hazard a guess that maintenance goes into the pot and is used to improve the lifestyle and well being of the household therefore both directly and indirectly benefiting the children's lives.

Of course, the OP's case is, I'm sure, very unusual in that the maintenance handed over is quite significant. The OP's PWC has been criticised for not working and claiming benefits. I'm not going to comment on the morality of claiming benefits, but maybe she considers that the best thing she can do for her child is to stay at home and be there to provide full time care. I think many parents would take this choice if they were able to.

neverdespairgirl

Alpine wrote: »

So that's about £400 a month to support the child. What do you think the PWC would be spending the remaining £850 a month on? I doubt very much it is all spent on the child, or saved away for driving lessons, a car or university support when they are older.

How do you know? It could easily be spent on (for example) private education or tuition, violin lessons, ski-ing trips, etc

neverdespairgirl

nicky3 wrote: »

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

Why is it too high?

SingleSue

Plongeur wrote: »

1. I will be paying about £15-18,000 a year. You can argue amongst yourselves if that it too much money to support 1 child for a year, but many families live on that amount.

2. My ex lives about 20 miles up the road from me. I know her exact circumstances. Currently unemployed, with a second child, and going through a divorce.

3. The current CSA cap is based net earnings up to £2000 per week.

4. Clearingout. Again you're reading what you want to read, not what I've posted. I'm more than happy to provide anything and everything for my son, however I'm not happy to pay for my ex to have a subsidised lifestyle at my expense.

:eek:

Blooming Nora that is a large amount, I receive £1820 per YEAR for 3 children!

It's a private agreement though and pretty much the best deal I could get, if I went via the CSA, the job would be chucked and it would be down to a fiver a week.

kevin137

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Why is it too high?

Because that is actually more than most "average families" earn...!!!

And the point about it not benefitting the child is all well and good, but when you pay that sort of money to a parent that has no intention of working or contributing in the same way then it makes the system flawed...!!!

The benefit system is there for people who are supposed to need the money because they have no other means of supporting themselves... If the OP's partner is one of those people and we don't know for sure 100% if she is, then it is seriously wrong that the OP has to pay such a high percentage of his income to the Tax Man to support his ex wife to be lazy, and then again through CS which is extremely high and probably 8 times the national average for CS...!!!

Does that not annoy other hard working tax paying citizens of the UK, or is it ok to sponge and take someone else's money to subsidise there lifestyle...???

If it is all true and that is what this woman is really like, then i hope the OP has a big smile on his face when the CS eventually ends and she can then stand on her own 2 feet without his money...

neverdespairgirl

kevin137 wrote: »

Because that is actually more than most "average families" earn...!!!

And the point about it not benefitting the child is all well and good, but when you pay that sort of money to a parent that has no intention of working or contributing in the same way then it makes the system flawed...!!!

I agree that someone receiving that amount of child support shouldn't also get benefits such as income support.

But I don't see why, in itself, the cap is too high.

Take a very high-earning double-income family, for example. Parents both on (say) £80k a year net.

They have a child, and employ a nanny (£28k a year) and send the child to a private school (£6k a year between them).

So without housing, feeding or clothing the child, the parents have agreed to spend £33k a year just on those things.

Family splits up. NRP would pay 15% of his or her income - £12k a year, very near the cap. But a lot less than half what the parents had previously decided to spend between them on that child.

krashovrload

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Family splits up. NRP would pay 15% of his or her income - £12k a year, very near the cap. But a lot less than half what the parents had previously decided to spend between them on that child.

++

Hmmm - I'd have to say that once the family has split up then previous arrangements are void...

Now if you want to use the CSA, private arrangement or both then that's between the parents but things are going be different to what went before...

++

Marisco

I can't understand why people think the lifestyle is not going to change when people split up! It would be totally unrealistic for PWC's to expect the same lifestyle as before the split. Maybe this is half the problem, not accepting that things will be different, and trying to get the NRP to subsidise the same lifestyle, although a NRP needs to live as well!