My relationship is over.

DUTR

Guest101 wrote: »

No my children are not off to private education, my views on it are that it does not provide the best practical start in life for children.

Wanting the best for children should be the priority of every parent. And if me and my partner split uo, i would be non-resident, and would provide everything i have said.

Let's hope that just doesn't happen, as somebody on £200net is going to find the £30 harder to find with additional constant costs that are essential for them to even keep a job, than somebody on £1000net paying £150. I don't see where what every parents priority is documented but I trust you and your partner get all your clothes from a jumble sale etc so that your child(ren) can wear designer labels etc.

Guest101

DUTR wrote: »

Let's hope that just doesn't happen, as somebody on £200net is going to find the £30 harder to find with additional constant costs that are essential for them to even keep a job, than somebody on £1000net paying £150. I don't see where what every parents priority is documented but I trust you and your partner get all your clothes from a jumble sale etc so that your child(ren) can wear designer labels etc.

No, im rich but thanks for your concern.

But just fyi, i dont agree that designer labels are the 'best' either.

DUTR

Guest101 wrote: »

No, im rich but thanks for your concern.

But just fyi, i dont agree that designer labels are the 'best' either.

We are all rich, but as you mentioned in an earlier post, you are not in the situation, so you have little idea of how the finances may work in such a situation. As for best, well you may have to define that as readers milage may vary.
As already pointed out, some will struggle to make the CS contributions and some will find it little problem, it's the things that money cannot buy sometimes that are most important, and you only have to look at other boards to see how that affects people.
But as mentioned earlier, your comment that the NRPs can just magic more than what the goverment suggests is not one of your better thoughts

Guest101

DUTR wrote: »

We are all rich, but as you mentioned in an earlier post, you are not in the situation, so you have little idea of how the finances may work in such a situation. As for best, well you may have to define that as readers milage may vary.
As already pointed out, some will struggle to make the CS contributions and some will find it little problem, it's the things that money cannot buy sometimes that are most important, and you only have to look at other boards to see how that affects people.
But as mentioned earlier, your comment that the NRPs can just magic more than what the goverment suggests is not one of your better thoughts

Well perhaps I should sya they should endevour to provide more. But point taken.

I agree completely that the most important things are what money cant buy.

marisco_2

DUTR wrote: »

I trust your children are off to private education in future.

DUTR wrote: »

I don't see where what every parents priority is documented but I trust you and your partner get all your clothes from a jumble sale etc so that your child(ren) can wear designer labels etc.

What strange examples to give of a parent wanting the best for their children and nothing less being acceptable. I can think of far more relevant things being of a priority for a child. Sorry but Guest101 is making relevant comments on this thread, whilst you just appear to be out for an argument, picking him up on every little thing.

DUTR

marisco wrote: »

What strange examples to give of a parent wanting the best for their children and nothing less being acceptable. I can think of far more relevant things being of a priority for a child. Sorry but Guest101 is making relevant comments on this thread, whilst you just appear to be out for an argument, picking him up on every little thing.

If you look back it all started on the guise of the NRP can contribute more than the standard %, eg contribute the % then extra for things like uniforms school clubs xmas birthdays etc, of course all these things cost money and it wasn't me that added the line "if you want the best for your children" so it was taken in the way it was meant that adding extra money enables the best things for the children, we already know some things no money can buy.
After all it is easy for somebody who is not having to cough up the funds to say yes throw in some more.
As you know from my other posts on another board, paying the CSA saved me a lot of money than what I was already paying out.

In post #14 you included " The NRP is not reponsible for the PWC,"

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

DUTR wrote: »

If you look back it all started on the guise of the NRP can contribute more than the standard %, eg contribute the % then extra for things like uniforms school clubs xmas birthdays etc, of course all these things cost money and it wasn't me that added the line "if you want the best for your children" so it was taken in the way it was meant that adding extra money enables the best things for the children, we already know some things no money can buy.
After all it is easy for somebody who is not having to cough up the funds to say yes throw in some more.
As you know from my other posts on another board, paying the CSA saved me a lot of money than what I was already paying out.

In post #14 you included " The NRP is not reponsible for the PWC,"

But they are equally responsible for the child's welfare and development. Failing to provide extra when it is within their reach financially, whilst the PWC has to provide everything else, is a poor state of affairs and a very good way to get the measure of the man/woman concerned.

DUTR

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

But they are equally responsible for the child's welfare and development. Failing to provide extra when it is within their reach financially, whilst the PWC has to provide everything else, is a poor state of affairs and a very good way to get the measure of the man/woman concerned.

I couldn't fully disagree, and of course every situation is different, along with attitudes, in my case stabling a horse is not what the CSA was intended for, so then to complain about not making the gas bills or other indcidental expenses doesn't wash in my scenario, I don't believe raising children with a view that somebody else will always come and pick up the pieces is wise either. The only person to depend on in adult life is oneself.

marisco_2

DUTR wrote: »

If you look back it all started on the guise of the NRP can contribute more than the standard %, eg contribute the % then extra for things like uniforms school clubs xmas birthdays etc, of course all these things cost money and it wasn't me that added the line "if you want the best for your children" so it was taken in the way it was meant that adding extra money enables the best things for the children, we already know some things no money can buy.
After all it is easy for somebody who is not having to cough up the funds to say yes throw in some more.
As you know from my other posts on another board, paying the CSA saved me a lot of money than what I was already paying out.

In post #14 you included " The NRP is not reponsible for the PWC,"

I agree with you that just by adding extra financial support, this does not enable an NRP to provide all of the best things for their children. Spending quality time with them and reinforcing to them that you love and value them and are interested in their lives is just as, if not more, important.

Absolutely the NRP is not responsible for the PWC. If I were an NRP though I would take the initiative, communicate with the PWC and come to an agreement that we were both happy with about a decent level of support for the children, and what extras we would each provide. That is all part of being a responsible parent and behaving with integrity.

Gavin83

Guest101 wrote: »

Of course they come into it, rent alone is usual more thn the absent prents pays.

Why should the NRP pay the rent for the PWC, which seems to be what you are suggesting? Paying someones rent could take up a large part of your take home salary depending on your earnings. Rent shouldn't really come into it, if the PWC didn't have the child they'd still need to find the money for rent.

I agree with you in the sense that a NRP should pay what they can pay (while still remaining comfortable) but there are limits. Your salary example, if 15% was £225 that's quite a lot of money. I don't have children but I don't see how a child can cost that per month, excluding the costs you would have without the child anyway. I do however think CSA payments should be banded based on the childs age. For example, children under school age as a 20-25% minimum, primary school age 15% and senior school age 12%. This would basically reflect the PWC's ability to work themselves.

Regardless of all this, the NRP needs to have enough left after CSA payments to support themselves and potentially in the future another family. Therefore some common sense needs to be applied as to how much can be paid.