Child Maintenance

peachyprice

supersaver2 wrote: »

You say 'no' but what part of my point was wrong?

They no longer have a joint income, they are not married/together. What's the point of divorce it you're still considered a financially joint partnership and cannot move on with your life?

Another solution would Dad being the main carer, it would appear he can afford the 3 children, but can't imagine that being a popular option on these boards! Mum would then receive next to nothing in benefits, perhaps a little extra in the way of working tax credit.

And mum would have to pay child maintenance on her £10k salary.

supersaver2

peachyprice wrote: »

They no longer have a joint income, they are not married/together. What's the point of divorce it you're still considered a financially joint partnership and cannot move on with your life?



And mum would have to pay child maintenance on her £10k salary.

Joint income shouldn't matter, they have joint children together and should be able to come up with a solution to manage raising their children on 80k without needing an additional 15k from the tax payer.

As for the mum paying child maintenance on £10k, so what, plenty do!

peachyprice

supersaver2 wrote: »

Joint income shouldn't matter,

but you're saying it does!!

janninew

supersaver2 wrote: »

I'm finding it slightly baffling that parents that earn 80k between them are entitled to 15k in benefits towards the upbringing of their children!!

This thought did cross my mind! No wonder some are tempted to 'split up' to maximise their benefit entitled if you could net an extra £15k per year!!

I do think CM should be counted towards benefits, why couldn't it work on a similar system to tax credit so you let them know how much you've been given at the end of the year and they adjust your payments?

janninew

peachyprice wrote: »

but you're saying it does!!

I think it is pretty obvious what they are trying to say! I read it that whether you call it joint income, separate income whatever. Between them these children's parents earn £80k and should be able to sort out their finances to raise their children without an additional £15k handout from us good ole taxpayers!

peachyprice

janninew wrote: »

I think it is pretty obvious what they are trying to say! I read it that whether you call it joint income, separate income whatever. Between them these children's parents earn £80k and should be able to sort out their finances to raise their children without an additional £15k handout from us good ole taxpayers!

So mum should stay at home sitting on her backside for the next 18 years being supported by her ex?

If childcare in this country hadn't been allowed to spiral out of control there wouldn't be a need to subsidise working single parents.

You seem to be forgetting that mum and dad are both 'good ole tax payers too'. In fact the amount of tax dad pays pretty much covers the whole of the benefits mum is entitled to claim.

clearingout

peachyprice wrote: »

No, one parent earns £10k and is entitled to benefits, the other earns £70k, and pays £9600 in child maintenance.

You cannot leave a divorced woman financially dependent on her ex husband.

Exactly. This thread makes for terrifying reading. :money:

peachyprice

clearingout wrote: »

Exactly. This thread makes for terrifying reading. :money:

Doesn't it just.

I wonder where these people want to draw the line. Are they expecting mothers or fathers who have abusive exes to go cap in hand asking for money and a slap in the face, or would the be 'allowed' to claim benefits. Maybe there would be a sliding scale based on reasons for divorce.

It's all very doable in the utopian world of amicable divorces and reasonable behaviour, but in the real world many parents would rather die than be financially tied to their ex for the forseeable future..

maman

peachyprice wrote: »

So mum should stay at home sitting on her backside for the next 18 years being supported by her ex?

If childcare in this country hadn't been allowed to spiral out of control there wouldn't be a need to subsidise working single parents.

You seem to be forgetting that mum and dad are both 'good ole tax payers too'. In fact the amount of tax dad pays pretty much covers the whole of the benefits mum is entitled to claim.

And to go totally OT, it would be great if employers weren't allowed to pay wages that are too low to live on then expect 'good ol' taxpayers' to subsidise their profits!!:D


It's hard to believe that OP works full time for £10 000.

Amara

maman wrote: »

And to go totally OT, it would be great if employers weren't allowed to pay wages that are too low to live on then expect 'good ol' taxpayers' to subsidise their profits!!:D


It's hard to believe that OP works full time for £10 000.

If she works 30h per week (it counts as full time) on £6.50/h, it's £10140/year.