Nearly 40 with no pension or mortgage

justme111

They are divorcing and separating finances so their interests do not coincide ; it is every man and woman for themselves territory. it's not as if he was pretending all is fine in their family and instead of buying children school lunches would be spending money on mistresses. ( If there is no agreement of course)
Mind , if the chap has ltd company he must have plenty of scope to adjust his financial position ..

atush

You are so naive.

I know of several divorces where marital assets were used ( to the children's detriment ) to pay a mistresse's income tax. To pay her moving expenses to the former marital home. To pay for a boat for the husbands parents. And many others.

Interests never coincide when one party wants to come out on top of another esp when hiding facts. But when the test includes his children it is disgusting.

atush

I am strangely comforted that this father has neither the assets or the will to short change his children.

crv1963

OP has not suggested an eagerness to hide assets or not provide for his children. Possibly suggesting he can is legitimate, he has not commented on his divorce either.

Not all fathers shirk or want to shirk their responsibilities. Although some do. The Courts take a dim view of deliberately acquired debt and can if inclined to disregard it when making orders.

justme111

atush wrote: »

You are so naive.

I know of several divorces where marital assets were used ( to the children's detriment ) to pay a mistresse's income tax. To pay her moving expenses to the former marital home. To pay for a boat for the husbands parents. And many others.

Interests never coincide when one party wants to come out on top of another esp when hiding facts. But when the test includes his children it is disgusting.

I am not sure how several divorces you know where money was used to pay someone's income tax supports your surprising opinion about my state of mind.

bigmaz

Yous can rest assured, I am not interested in doing over my ex nor my kids, if anything, it’s the other way round, but that’s a different story... it’s not always the man that’s the problem... being a LTD company, I could technically pay a fraction of what I give her for child maintanence, but I pay the top whack.

atush

crv1963 wrote: »

OP has not suggested an eagerness to hide assets or not provide for his children. Possibly suggesting he can is legitimate, he has not commented on his divorce either.

Not all fathers shirk or want to shirk their responsibilities. Although some do. The Courts take a dim view of deliberately acquired debt and can if inclined to disregard it when making orders.

If you re read I am not speaking to the OP

"They are divorcing and separating finances so their interests do not coincide ; it is every man and woman for themselves territory. "

atush

justme111 wrote: »

I am not sure how several divorces you know where money was used to pay someone's income tax supports your surprising opinion about my state of mind.

Your state of mind was similar to the those above. Byt the evidence of your comments.

Perhaps you have skin in the the game, i dont.

atush

bigmaz wrote: »

Yous can rest assured, I am not interested in doing over my ex nor my kids, if anything, it’s the other way round, but that’s a different story... it’s not always the man that’s the problem... being a LTD company, I could technically pay a fraction of what I give her for child maintanence, but I pay the top whack.

no one was inferring you were a skinflint, just some of your advisers here
Being a LTD company, ask your accountant to set up things to your liking, w/o hiding assets etc.

Every tax dollar you save is another in your pocket. there is a difference between saing tax and keeping money fro your dependents which it seems others were suggesting re everyman for himself.

If a ship sinks with me and my kids on it, i'll save them before anyone else. Incl me if need be.

DevilsAdvocate1

I've noticed that it can be cheaper to have a mortgage rather than rent. I guess this is because a landlord has to pay the mortgage and make a profit. Obviously there is the problem of a deposit, but I wouldn't discount buying somewhere to live.