Non-resident parents should pay more
I would like to state, realistically, how much it costs on average to bring up a child because I think a lot of non-resident parents just haven't got a clue.
With regard to the all too common scenario of divorced or separated families, I am sick, tired and fed up of second families thinking that it’s okay for money to be taken away from the first family to feed and clothe their offspring! For example, if someone has two children from a previous relationship, then they SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY MORE until they can afford to pay for them without robbing the children in that first family!
Statistically, a child costs around £180,000 from the day they’re born until the day they can stand on their own two feet. Raising a family is a great expense and therefore the decision should not be undertaken lightly. Now if we are being fair (and I invite you to disagree), both parents should contribute around £90,000 over the child's lifetime. However, there is no way on this earth that many non-resident parents pay anything close to that. They moan and whine about having to pay a few hundred (less in many cases) a month.
Where on earth is the PWC (parent with care) supposed to find childcare costs from?
As far as pre-school children are concerned, half of nursery fees should also be paid in order for both parents to go out to work. Where on earth is the PWC (parent with care) supposed to find childcare costs from, unless each parent actually looks after the child 50/50?
As for all those women out there who moan about their partners paying their ex-wife too much maintenance - get real! My partner who lives with me (I’m a PWC by the way) pays for his kids in both time AND money, whereas most non-resident parents only have to look after children every other weekend (if that!). I would like to know how exactly these ex-wives "spend the money in the pub" when they are only getting a miserly couple of hundred pounds a month to feed and clothe the children?
In my opinion, 15% is NOT enough in most cases, and the fact that the percentage comes down if the non-resident parent goes on to have more children in a different relationship, is actually ludicrous. This is quite literally robbing Peter to pay Paul and means that the children from the first relationship are effectively paying for the children of the second one.
Comments from visitors
From the other side of the fence the answer is this. The csa algorithm has got nothing to do with how much a child costs nor looks at how much the PWC earns. 15 per cent is actually huge for some people. This is why most or a lot of NRP try and evade as much as they can because the system is so unfair. A child costs what a child costs to raise and is not a function of how much someone earns. I'd happily look after my little girl fulltime without any csa money in reverse and I'm an NRP not thru choice. The only diference in real cost because my weekend cancels out hers and I have one school pick up (Fri) and one drop off (Mon)is 8 school mornings and evenings as school holidays are split. so as she woudl have had to do 5 school mornings if we split it, really as an NRP I shoudl fund her extra 3 mornings and evenings.... is that really 15 percent of salary? Luckily I am self employed and I odnt quite have to go thru this nonesense.
-3
Click to rate 
Report
You're the type of person who really annoys me. I think it's despicable of you to say that nrps "rob" the first children of their money. That's okay for YOU to say; what about the PWC "robbing" the SECOND children of their child tax credits? I suppose that is acceptable is it?
Women like you are determined not to let your ex-partners have a new life (with their children included in it before you go accusing them of "neglecting their first children". You come across as jealous and bitter and there is no need for it at all. What nrps do with their lives after YOU is none of your business! They DO pay enough, and they do a damn good job the vast majority of them. They need money to live on as well so get off your high horse and stop being so god damn miserable.
My partner WAS paying far too much maintenance. I come to this conclusion as him and his ex-wife have joint custody but she didn't want to declare this because she would lose money. How do you justify that one? Do not call all women who's partners pay child maintenance; some of them have every right to moan when the jealous ex lies and cheats the system to stop the nrp living their own life. The PWC demonstrates a sense of power over their ex husband when they use the CSA and it's sickening.
Visit csahell.com, then your biggoted opinions might change a little...
Women like you are determined not to let your ex-partners have a new life (with their children included in it before you go accusing them of "neglecting their first children". You come across as jealous and bitter and there is no need for it at all. What nrps do with their lives after YOU is none of your business! They DO pay enough, and they do a damn good job the vast majority of them. They need money to live on as well so get off your high horse and stop being so god damn miserable.
My partner WAS paying far too much maintenance. I come to this conclusion as him and his ex-wife have joint custody but she didn't want to declare this because she would lose money. How do you justify that one? Do not call all women who's partners pay child maintenance; some of them have every right to moan when the jealous ex lies and cheats the system to stop the nrp living their own life. The PWC demonstrates a sense of power over their ex husband when they use the CSA and it's sickening.
Visit csahell.com, then your biggoted opinions might change a little...
+2
Click to rate Report
Too right they should pay more. I get a measly £1000 for me and my 9 kids! Thats nothing! ...theyre dads fled the country so they wouldnt have to cough up
-2
Click to rate Report
Respect the government - 27-Apr-11 18:10
It is not for an ex partner to state that if her ex marries again he shouldn`t have anymore if he can`t afford them talk about selfish!!! The figure of £180000 for bringing up a child is ridiculous.If you count 18 as being able to stand on their own two feet, that`s £10,000/year. Some people only earn just a bit more than that..so how can it cost that much?
+1
Click to rate Report
"a child costs around £180,000"
What absolute pish! I must assume you don't understand simple maths if you think that is the case.
This works out to be just under £30 a day for gods sake. While it would be easy to spend that if you had it, that's obviously not the same thing.
What absolute pish! I must assume you don't understand simple maths if you think that is the case.
This works out to be just under £30 a day for gods sake. While it would be easy to spend that if you had it, that's obviously not the same thing.
-2
Click to rate Report
Id also like to add that you are lucky to recieve a couple of hundred from the nrp as there are mums who recieve nothing and still manage to raise theyre children without complaining
-1
Click to rate Report
Annoyed-mummy-to-one - 16-Apr-11 09:41
Im actualy embarased to be a woman right now.posts like this are the reason us single mums are frowned upon.lets talk about the costs of raising a child and while were at it il just point out that child tax credit,child benefit and upto 80% goverment discount on childcare costs ontop of what any nrp gives a pwc is enough to feed,clothe and take care of a child in a loving home.the scorned female who posted this gripe needs to get a grip of her finances if shes struggling...do u work?smoke or drink? I have friends like this who frustrate me just as bad,moan about hardship,not being able to buy theyre kids new shoes whilst smoking 20 a day! People dont realise how lucky they are
-2
Click to rate Report
Annoyed-mummy-to-one - 16-Apr-11 09:33
Hardly a free ride, she is caring for your child. Do you know how much child care costs?
You have the priceless gift of knowing your child is safe and loved, not being "cared for" by total strangers.
You have the priceless gift of knowing your child is safe and loved, not being "cared for" by total strangers.
-2
Click to rate Report
Rubbish. I pay 65 a week for a 1 year old that only needs about 25. That won't go up much soon either despite clothes and play school. Mum is getting a free ride to sit at home with my daughter.
-3
Click to rate Report
I have recently divorced my ex husband due to violence in the relationship. He now is getting the ctc AND the cb. Social services want me to move out as this means more room in the home for the children and they also believe my ex is a better parent as he 'does everything' and that I am incompetent due to my having bipolar/ depression. I would like to point out that I am more than capable of looking after my children as I was the one who looked after them the greater percentage when they were both tiny. My ex has only started to pull his weight in the last year. Having depression does NOT make me a bad person or a bad mother. I have also been informed that my ex husband wants full custody of the children, and I also believe that his parents wish to 'oust me from the childrens lives completely'
-6
Click to rate Report
My ex works 16hrs a week earns around £200 a week. She then gets £200 a week tax credits. I pay 30% of my wage for CSA giving her a total of £600 a week £2400 a month!! I work 30hrs a week and I am left with £1000 a month to support myself, wife and child - where is the justice in this? (Oh my ex divorced me because her sexual preference changed - not that anyone notices that her female 'lodger' is actaully her partner)
-4
Click to rate Report
Split the child care 50-50. No CSA and no maintenance therefore no hassle.
Most dads don't want to be NRP.
Most dads don't want to be NRP.
-1
Click to rate Report
The idea of child maintenance is that you support yourself and he supports the children, 50% costs each. You would still be paying rent/mortgage with/without kids, your bills are marginally higher - same goes for food. Yes, there are costs but say the resident parent and non-resident parent both work and earn the same, both also provide a home for the children they share and the children see each parent 50% of the time, why is it then fair for the mother to get child benefit, tax credits etc whilst the father pays child maintenance? Very often an ex wife will have walked away from the marriage with a bigger chunk of the marital assets - because it is assumed she will earn less or care for the children more.
Often this doesn't actually happen.
I think 15% is fair enough for one child where there is shared care. After all, fathers have a right to start again too.
Often this doesn't actually happen.
I think 15% is fair enough for one child where there is shared care. After all, fathers have a right to start again too.
+2
Click to rate Report
Liverbird. Not in my case. My ex was playing away from home and got caught out. Didums! I got rid of her, but she kidnapped two children and dumped one on me because she couldn't cope. I have paid £30,000 in maintence to date. I could of quite easily have coped raising 3 children without benefits. As it is, I raised one on my own, whilst working and that child is now an adult with an excellent education and a well paid job. What thanks do I get for being a decent, responsible father and member of society...............I am criminalised and treated like scum, by incompetent pen-pushing oafs, who only care about their monthly pay packet, and bonuses, all for the sake of tax collection. Tax that I have all ready paid once through my income and I am being asked to pay a second time through maintenance.Why?
May as well bail every other bug-er out as well!
CSA is a failing joke, that has no place in our society. What happens between parents and children is between parenats and children. It has nothing do with these people!
May as well bail every other bug-er out as well!
CSA is a failing joke, that has no place in our society. What happens between parents and children is between parenats and children. It has nothing do with these people!
+4
Click to rate Report
Rippedoffdad - 23-Feb-11 10:16
Why should I have to pay £127 a week to my ex. I work permanent night shift to be able to pay my morgage. My take home is £364 a week. My ex gets all her benefits and the money off me plus rent and council tax payed so she is realistaly getting over £300 a week for staying at home.
+5
Click to rate Report
Non resident parents should pay more?.......Parents with care should claim less!
-2
Click to rate Report
Rippedoffdad - 21-Feb-11 13:15
Here is a link to a more realistic figure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4003263.stm
I am sorry but if a child is having £10000 a year spent on them they are very privaliged.
I would love to know how much the poster earns to think that £10000 a year is feasable.
From the link you can see the figure is around £3000 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4003263.stm
I am sorry but if a child is having £10000 a year spent on them they are very privaliged.
I would love to know how much the poster earns to think that £10000 a year is feasable.
From the link you can see the figure is around £3000 a year.
+1
Click to rate Report
On a technical point, Pat, you are wrong. In the case of a 50/50 split in the time the child/ren with either parent, on is classified at PWC and the other is classified as NRP.Child Benefit will only pay to the PWC. Being in receipt of CB is a gateway to Child Maintenance. Whereas the maintenance that the NRP has to pay the PWC in such circumstances is not large, the fact remains that is very unfair on the parent who is not given the staus of PWC. The PWC gets support from the State and the other parent, the NRP gets no support at all.
-7
Click to rate Report
Rippedoffdad - I do not claim benefits - I am not entitled to. I am a higher rate tax payer soon to lose child benefit that I use ONLY for my children. I too have worked and paid into the system
Not all men are the same but lots are deadbeat waste of times who care more about themselves than their kids.
I am not bitter but if he wont see his own kids he can dam well pay for them. I am the one who does everything whilst he does nothing. He can solve the problem of paying for his kids - take responsibility for them and see them - as simple as that.
Some men are USELESS fathers and it is the mothers who do it all. Like it or not some men deserve all the stick they get
Not all men are the same but lots are deadbeat waste of times who care more about themselves than their kids.
I am not bitter but if he wont see his own kids he can dam well pay for them. I am the one who does everything whilst he does nothing. He can solve the problem of paying for his kids - take responsibility for them and see them - as simple as that.
Some men are USELESS fathers and it is the mothers who do it all. Like it or not some men deserve all the stick they get
0
Click to rate Report
'Useless'! This coming from bitter women who prevent the fathers seeing their children for the sake of money. How sad!....and then there is the tax credit system! In which other country do citizens get cash for nothing? Thats why immigration is so high, because people come to Treasure Island!
As a hard worker who paid into the system at a high rate for 35 years, it would be nice if I got something for nothing...but it will never happen!
I am responsible father. I have paid maintenance for my non resident children. I have raised a child on my own since the child was aged 11....and worked as well!
What I do object to is being treated as a 'deadbeatdad', being 'criminalised' and being categorised by some women who seem to think it is their 'god given right' to plunder their way through the benefit system, whilst those who pay in to the system are continually topping up the pot and hardly ever get anything back from the benefit system in their lifetime!
That is called discrimination!
As a hard worker who paid into the system at a high rate for 35 years, it would be nice if I got something for nothing...but it will never happen!
I am responsible father. I have paid maintenance for my non resident children. I have raised a child on my own since the child was aged 11....and worked as well!
What I do object to is being treated as a 'deadbeatdad', being 'criminalised' and being categorised by some women who seem to think it is their 'god given right' to plunder their way through the benefit system, whilst those who pay in to the system are continually topping up the pot and hardly ever get anything back from the benefit system in their lifetime!
That is called discrimination!
-2
Click to rate Report
