CSA ....an (absent) and bitter Dads point of view

Philtimo

clearingout wrote: »

The fact is, you don't see why you should support your children financially, do you?

You are so wrong.

I don't mind paying my share of a reasonable amount.

Price to bring up a child aged 3 - divided by two.

Half paid by me, half paid by ex.

Simple.

A decreed by the court.

I have said this same thing a few times already.

pink_princess

Philtimo wrote: »

You are so wrong.

I don't mind paying my share of a reasonable amount.

Price to bring up a child aged 3 - divided by two.

Half paid by me, half paid by ex.

Simple.

A decreed by the court.

I have said this same thing a few times already.

How much do you currently pay for a child of what age?

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow

You sounds lovely! Are you single?

FBaby

Its amazing how some nrps resent paying anything over 20% of their salary. As a full time working pwc I've certainly paid 50% off my income if no more on my two children and yet never once resented it. I take it for granted that most of my income will go on them isn't that what parents do?

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

Its amazing how some nrps resent paying anything over 20% of their salary. As a full time working pwc I've certainly paid 50% off my income if no more on my two children and yet never once resented it. I take it for granted that most of my income will go on them isn't that what parents do?

If they are together, yes. But the problem is the NRP has to live as well, so if the NRP has to pay 50% of his wages to the PWC, it means he only has 50% income and she has 100%, i.e his, hers and probably benefits as well. Does anyone really think 50% is a fair figure????

krashovrload

Marisco wrote: »

If they are together, yes. But the problem is the NRP has to live as well, so if the NRP has to pay 50% of his wages to the PWC, it means he only has 50% income and she has 100%, i.e his, hers and probably benefits as well. Does anyone really think 50% is a fair figure????

++

NRP has to live as well..? Heaven forbid that you should've considered trying to move on and build a new life after the CSA1 system got hold off you... :cool:

++

Gigglepig

I think Fbaby makes a very good point that many parents spend a huge proportion of their salary on the kids, especially in the early years due to childcare costs.

Marisco, i think it is possible that in some circumstances 50% could be a fair figure if that reflects half the childcare bill and half the other maintenance costs (even if you subtracted child benefit). This is harsh, but but childcare bills can be very high especially if there are multiple children. Two children in full time nursery could easily cost £350 + a week, a lot more in expensive areas. Both parents benefit from being able to work during childcare hours, so it seems fair to split the bill equally?

Sadly, after a divorce one will probably need to accept a big drop in living standard for a good while? (And accept that due to budgetary constraints, it might not be financially viable to take on additional financial commitments such as for example starting another family.)

krashovrload

Gigglepig wrote: »

(And accept that one might not afford to for example start another family.)

++

Controversial.??

Alright - I only picked up that one sentence so it could be argued I've taken it out of context but (as has been argued before) who are we to say who can/cannot have children.??

++

Gigglepig

Krashovrload - sorry that was not my intent. I was just pointing out that there might be budgetary constraints. Should probably have phrased it better. Will edit.

ETA - is this better?

And accept that due to budgetary constraints, it might not be financially viable to take on additional financial commitments such as for example starting another family.

Obviously it is entirely up to everyone how they manage their life and finances. But as with any other major life changes/expenses, people generally find it sensible to consider the financial implications before making life changing decisions?

krashovrload

Gigglepig wrote: »

We aren't. I was just pointing out that there might be budgetary constraints. Should probably have phrased it better. Will edit.

++

I understand what you're saying of course :cool: It's a slow day this end - I do apologise..

++