nil assessment for years

jacklink

had to remove due to personal issues take care, i wish you well

thankyou x

kevin137

How long has your "hubby" been out of work...???

I ask, because, there is absolutely NO excuse for not working, there is always a job available, that he could do, or is it another reason that means he cannot work, ie lazy, can't be bothered...

I'm not having a go or trying to start an argument, but i worked on the buses, and at times a 2nd and even 3rd job to support myself and pay my CSA dues...

And while on the buses, we had all sorts come and work for us, including ex bank mangers, accountants, advertising executives... And why did they work on the buses, because they had self respect and would rathe rwork than sit on benefits there whole life...

And my views on benefit are simple so you know... They should be capped at full benefit for 12 months, then reduced to half benefit for 12 months, then cut completely...

So let me ask a question, if your hubby was not eligible for benefit... Would he work, or would he starve while living on the streets...???

I think it would be the 1st, so i'll ask again, why hasn't he worked for so long...???

DUTR

Kev, perhaps his wife is earning enough to keep them both?
Many women get good money nowadays some individual circumstances it maybe financially better for the man to stay at home.

Marisco

Yes it's no different from being a SAHM. If their personal circumstances are such, that it's more financially viable for the woman to go to work, and the man stay at home, then it makes sense to work it that way. Whether it's morally right is a different matter, but I'm sure if it's a case of managing by doing it this way, or getting into debt every month, most would opt for a SAHF system.

shoe*diva79

Many men opt to be a stay at home parent these days if the wife if earning a salary which is adequate for him tondo so. However, I would hope men dont do this just to get a nil assessment for supporting their children from previous relationships.

EclipsedMind

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

However, I would hope men dont do this just to get a nil assessment for supporting their children from previous relationships.

I would think unless you have high childcare costs or are at the lower end of the economic spectrum then working and paying CSA would be better than being a SAHD. However for low paid work I can see that CSA could reduce that making an NRP "feel" they work for little benefit.

Before someone jumps in saying they should help support their child (which I agree with) it should be noted the OP said she paid from her salary despite SAHD having a nil assessment so its a non point in this case only.

@OP its great that you have supported a child other than your own despite the nil balance and helped your husband meet his obligations

EM

kevin137

I am looking at the other side of it, and we dont know all the facts, like how much the NRP is receiving in benefit, but lets be honest, we would ALL choose to stay at home if we could, the difference is, you should only stay at home if you can afford to do it, and not because the benefit system supports you...!!!

And there is NO reason that you should be a STAHD more than the child going to school... Especially if you have a responsibility to previous children...

So while it may be nice that the OP is paying £40 a month, that does not negate the choice they made as a couple to deprive the previous child/ren of financial support by there choice...!!!

I call it selfish...!!!

EclipsedMind

@kevin
OP said hubby got no benefits as she earns too much and thus he is a kept man.
Whilst OP implies it has been many years its not immediately clear how many and a follow up question from a poster has not been answered but I agree it would be odd not to work once children are school age but she is choosing to support him and that is their business.

Not sure where the £40 figure came from as didn't see in this thread but OP appears to be prolific poster so could be from somewhere else.

As for depriving the child - it is possible the NRP could only have earning potential that would yield a £40pw payment (40 hours at min wage I suspect) which they are already making so I can't see how the child is being deprived.

If they stop paying the 40 pounds then I would be more than happy to agree with your assessment of the couple.

EM

kevin137

Minimum wage would in fact be considerably more...

£180 income rewards the PWC with a contribution of £33 a week...

So for someone that earns enough to have her husband a kept man, who is unemployed and has been potentially for years and years, £10 a week, is an insult...!!!

Personally, i would hope the PWC has applied for a variation of lifestyle not compatible with means..! As he clearly has means even though he might not be technically earning it...

And i know speculation is not always a good thing, but how would you feel if the NRPP was in fact the owner of a business and that is why he had no income and was unemployed but was working for it...???

I know we don;t know the whole story, but i don't know anyone that would be willing let alone able to keep there husband in that manner indefinitely... Unless something dodgy was going on...

What i am saying is for a female to stay at home for the 1st 4 or 5 years actually makes sense, but for a man to do it for a long time, doesn't... And it reeks of avoidance in my mind...

I also believe that you should not have that choice when choosing a new family... You have a legal obligation which you have already undertaken, by choosing something different to suit your needs while missing the needs of previous children is not something that should be allowed...

Marisco

kevin137 wrote: »

Minimum wage would in fact be considerably more...

£180 income rewards the PWC with a contribution of £33 a week...

So for someone that earns enough to have her husband a kept man, who is unemployed and has been potentially for years and years, £10 a week, is an insult...!!!

Personally, i would hope the PWC has applied for a variation of lifestyle not compatible with means..! As he clearly has means even though he might not be technically earning it...

And i know speculation is not always a good thing, but how would you feel if the NRPP was in fact the owner of a business and that is why he had no income and was unemployed but was working for it...???

I know we don;t know the whole story, but i don't know anyone that would be willing let alone able to keep there husband in that manner indefinitely... Unless something dodgy was going on...

What i am saying is for a female to stay at home for the 1st 4 or 5 years actually makes sense, but for a man to do it for a long time, doesn't... And it reeks of avoidance in my mind...

I also believe that you should not have that choice when choosing a new family... You have a legal obligation which you have already undertaken, by choosing something different to suit your needs while missing the needs of previous children is not something that should be allowed...

When my kids were younger I was a SAHM, my ex's wage was enough for me to do this. If it was the other way around, i.e I earned enough to keep us, what is the difference? I can't see how asking for a variation would do any good, all the NRPP has to say is that it's her money that is keeping them, and if needs be show them the paperwork to prove it!

If the NRPP has a well paying job and the NRP would just receive the NMW, childcare being what it is, it makes more sense for the NRP to not work and look after the kids, than pay out vast sums every month for childcare.

kevin137

That is the point though, this is a very simple case of avoidance...

The government by there very own benefit system allows for you to be stay at home, and i completely agree that this should be a possibility for you to be able to choose this until the child starts school...

Once the child reaches school age though, it's all bets are off in the eyes of the law regarding benefit, that is what i believe anyway, so you would then HAVE to search for work... Or risk losing benefits...

So please xplain to me, how it is legally right that you can choose this course of action because you have a partner that can significantly earn more money than most of us dream to support someone who chooses to sit at home...

For that choice to SUPPORT, then the legal obligation should pass to the NRPP to legally support the children of the previous relationship...

You should not be able to pick and choose which part of the support you abide by but miss others...

I respect that the OP is (allegedly) paying £10 a week, but that is hardly the point...

If she chooses to support to the point where he has the ability not to work, then she should be forced to pay the equivalent of what he would be earning in line with that choice...

Also, like i previously stated, we don't know what the job is, wether it is self employed owning a business etc, but the long and short of it is, i do not for one 2nd believe that the choices are anything other than avoidance, and this payment made by her, while making her appear to be sympathetic and paying, could also be a way of keeping the CSA from looking harder... Who knows...

But the fact remains that there choice DOES affect how the child/ren from the previous relationship are funded...