fathers give more money to other's children than those they are biologically responsible for

ScroobiusPip The actions of the parents don't come into it.

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. We live in an age of near universal sex education, with free condoms, free coil implants, free contraceptive pills, free morning after pills, free abortions etc, etc, etc (all paid for by the Great British Taxpayer). There is simply no excuse for 'accidentally' bringing an unplanned child into this world with an unsuitable partner. The fact that there are no sanctions against either parent to stop this from happening again and again and again, and that, amongst some elements of society, being a single mum is an acceptable career choice, means that there are many people across the country having children, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer will provide everything for them. The current benefits system perpetuates this problem and I would like to see a system introduced which stamps out this behaviour. This is why I believe a distinction should be made in the system between families which make an effort to stay together but ultimately break apart and the deliberate 'babies-for-benefits' breeding machines.

We seem happy at Mumsnet to castigate the rich who don't contribute enough of their money into the taxation system and yet, at the opposite end of the scale, we have a blind spot about people who take money out of the system without any hope, intention or inclination of paying their own way - we are seeing people writing huge blind cheques for others to pick up and I don't think that is right.

Firstly let me start off by saying that there is no magic formula which everyone will agree is fair. I've long realised that when it comes to matters of the family, fair is incredibly relative.

So the CSA started with a overly complicated formula which as a result was so complex noone understood it at all and it ended up being unfair to just about everyone.

So now we have this much simpler formula which takes into account how many kids he has, how many he's supporting and the number of nights. As a rough tool personally I think it's probably as good as it's gonna get.

There's little point in saying "Oh well he should support his own kids before others" which is fine in principle but what about all those families who go on to have other children in stable relationships? Should those kids suffer? If he lives with other kids then it's a fact he has responsibilities to them as well.

And personally I find it quite rich that it's always father's who get a bad press here. In my experience it's far more likely to get maintenance out of a non-resident dad than it is for a non-resident mum. I know a few dad's who are resident parents (myself included) and I'm the only one who gets any sort of maintenance. Even then I spend more than I get sending the kids to visit her.

But back to the original point. Fair is relative. There is no solution here which will please everyone.

Fair enough, but the system should also distinguish between parents that were in a stable relationship...and those...where the bloke pisses off mid-pregnancy

Why?? It's not the child's fault that the parents are not together. Why on earth should the child suffer, based on the actions of the parent. Child support is exactly that, money to bring up the child. The actions of the parents don't come into it.

I do agree that fathers should primarily be paying for their biological and adopted children. Any other children living with them are the responsibility of their own parents or, if a parent is missing, the state. Is it really true that the system works otherwise?

Like you said MRPANTS - if you don't have the money, stop breeding. Men take your sperm seriously, women cannot take maintenance from a man who hasn't irresponsibly unleased his sperm.

Fair enough, but the system should also distinguish between parents that were in a stable relationship and for whatever reason the relationship subsequently broke up, and those relationships where the bloke pisses off mid-pregnancy leaving a woman on her own to raise the child.

I'm sorry if I upset people with the use of the word 'broken'. Perhaps I should have considered what I was trying to say more carefully - if I have offended anyone, I am genuinely sorry.

The point I was trying to make was that there is a cost to the taxpayer for parents (usually fathers) who don't make a contribution to the financial upkeep of their own progeny. Does anyone know what that is? I quoted my tax situation because it is clear that around 50% of my income is taken in tax - by the time I've paid my mortgage and bills, plus paid for the necessities of myself and my wife it is clear that my child receives a small fraction of my overall salary (not that my daughter goes without, but surely you can see the point I'm trying to make).

As for the original point that fathers are contributing more to the upkeep of other men?s children than they are to their own - that is utter madness. Surely, an equitable system would see all fathers paying for their own children (and if they can't afford any more they should stop breeding). If this isn't the case then it is a badly designed system and anyone caught in this mess has my sympathies.

Once again, apologies for the use of the word broken. I can assure you all that I'm not David Cameron!

My ex is expected by law to contribute more towards his wife's kids than his own, and then they get the benefit of the remainder of his income too (not that he has any currently ). They already get CM from their own father and are only related to XP via his relationship with their mother. Personally I think the reduction should only apply to the NRP's biological or formally adopted children.

I grew up in a "broken" family. Then I went to university at even greater cost to the taxpayer. Now I pay more tax than you by the sounds of things.

Surely investing in children so they can fulfil their potential is a good thing for society in the long term?

I agree that there should be far more attention paid to the collection of child maintenance than is currently given attention. I work full time, have three children and have barely received a penny in maintenance over the last seven years or so. During that time, my XP has fathered two additional children in two additional relationships, so the impractical amount that CMEC 'allows' for maintenance towards my children would dwindle with each subsequent child. Not that we receive anything anyway, as he isnt working. I have (quite enough!) children and no intention of further extending my family, i certainly couldnt afford the time or money (plus my ovaries are getting on a bit) & i didnt meet anyone else i would have considered having children with.

My job is relatively low paid for the amount of children in my house. I'm lucky in that i have a family friendly employer for the best part, but there have been difficult times. I have sent the children to school in the past with their shoes gaff taped up, i have watered down milk to make it go further, we are clothed by charity shops, we've never had a family holiday. My children are bright, Polite, doing exceptionally well at school and without wishing to appear boastful, an absolute credit to me.

As part of my job, i meet single parents every day who are ground down by the barest minimum support from the non resident parent. They are dedicated, single minded, protective and proud of their children. Sometimes they receive minimal state support to do a very difficult job, being two parents at once. What do you want to take away from these 'broken' families so you can keep a bit more tax? What penalisation do you suggest for non paying non resident parents, or those who intentionally leave work to avoid paying support for their child? Or those who with clever accounting, drive a new 'self-employed' company car every year, while paying the bare minmum of child support, if at all?

Broken? I don't think so. Unlike your brain cell.

Does that make any sense?
My family isn't broken either thanks!

*mrpants not OP

Are you David Cameron?

What happens if the ex partner of the non resident parent's new partner pays maintenance towards their children? Would that be taken into consideration?

Slow hand clap for the BIG earner mrpants. My family isn't broken.

'broken families' ??

Am I in a timewarp or something?

I would take your question more seriously mrPants. If you didnt refer to my family as 'broken'. The fact that their father and I do not live together does not mean our family is not as good as a family with two parents under the same roof who hate each other.

I misunderstood the title of this thread and didn't realise it was referring specifically to fathers that no longer live with their kids. I was assuming it was referring to the welfare state.

As a mental exercise, I'm a 40% Income Tax payer who pays 11% NI on my earnings, 20% VAT on my spendings, Council Tax of approx. £1500 per annum as well as fuel duty, road fund licences and every other tax under the sun. I would like to know how much of my earnings are going to pay for broken families across the land - does anyone have any figures?

If you check out the CSA Child Maintenance Calculator you'll see the question already 'Please tell us the number of other children living in the non-resident parent's household' . The more children the NRP lives with, the lower the amount they pay in maintenance. Perhaps a flat 20% works in the resident parent's favour?