in thinking £15,000pa is a perfectly adequate salary for a single person to live on?

[undersofacushions]

Have name-changed to prevent RL 'outing'

Ex-h lives with his parents, working full-time and earning £15,000pa, he moved back in with them when me and DD (almost 2) left 18m ago. He pays no rent or bill contributions, and drives one of their cars that they tax and insure - he just pays petrol. His mum does all the housework, cooking and laundry, he contributes nothing for this.

Me and DD lived near him for a year - me working p/t, 300+ miles away from all of my family. A few months ago I gave up my job and moved to be closer to my parents as both myself and them were suffering ill health.

Ex-h used the calculator on the CSA webpage, and pays what it recommends (£150 per month), the rest he keeps for himself, and regularly boasts about buying 'Waitrose Duchy steak' and other treats for himself. Me and DD make do on IS for now until I find another job.

I asked ex-h (nicely!) whether he would consider upping his contribution for DD as he has plenty of money and no outgoings. I just want to give DD a good quality of life, and he claims to 'love her and miss her' but has only visited us once (for the record, we have no car and I cant drive).

His response was no, he has no spare money, and his salary is so low that he has no choice to live with his parents as his salary is 'not enough to live on', I mentioned to him that is is greater than what I live on per month, and also larger than both my p/t salary and several other jobs salaries that I have lived on at various times.

I did a few calculations, and after tax, NI and maintenance he has £700 left per month for himself. I come up almost £100 short every month.

AIBU in thinking that £15,000 is a perfectly adequate salary, and maybe ex-h is being tighter than a ducks arse?

For the record, I dont want his money, I just want to give DD the quality of life that she deserves, as at the moment if feels like she is being brought up on the breadline while her 'loving and devoted' father lives in luxury.

notbothered to be honest i would do the same thing! if somone would go on and on about what i eat i wouldnt give them any money just because!!

SO you'd petulantly refuse to support your children because you felt hassled by the person taking main responsibility for them?!?!?!?!

pig he does support his child, but she wants more thats what this post is all about...me? i would work, save, find money elswhere rather than moan for h on internet.

Libra I guess the supposition is that as a woman in the 21st century you're not actually refused the right to eduction or to participate in the workplace, just the same as a man. And except in extreme cases of abuse, presumably the decision for you not to work is a joint one, rather than forced on you. There are plenty of women who are actually good earners and don't choose to give up work. The concept of 'alimony' to me is an alien concept. I thought the 1950s were behind us

notbothered - absolutely no offence meant by this I'm just curious:

If you were in my shoes - aka no job, not massively employable (I'm experienced as I've worked for quite a long time but I'm not qualified for anything in particular), no childcare available for your child (that you could afford at least), no savings because they were all drained off before relationship ended, living in the cheapest rent property and area, only heating part of your home to try and keep bills down, luckily no debts as I have no credit card!

I'm just curious, as you seem to have it so sorted in your mind that I think I might have something to learn from you! The main one being, should I find a job and be their preferred candidate - what on earth am I going to do with my daughter as I have no childcare for her? I've kinda gotta wait for that jigsaw piece before I move forward.

undersofacushion what many people on here probbely want is for you to work for pretty much nothing and pay your own child care, as at least you will have a job and better prospects of progression. most here wont realise that actually working in a shop dousnt have much preogression, yes you could become manager but in these times they are holding on to thier jobs believe me!

however if you asked them to do the same, they would have a fit and magic up a million reasons why they shouldnt

"presumably the decision for you not to work is a joint one, rather than forced on you. There are plenty of women who are actually good earners and don't choose to give up work. The concept of 'alimony' to me is an alien concept. I thought the 1950s were behind us"

Yes it's a JOINT decision in many cases for one of the partners to give up work so they can look after the JOINT children. Why should they then be penalised for that JOINT decision if the marriage breaks down? If my DH had said, actually I would prefer you to stay at work then that would be a different argument.

The women who chose (or can't because of money issues) to keep on working have to delegate the job of childcare to someone else, now I am not the type of person who says why have children if you are going to get someone else to look after them but it should be a perfectly valid decision to stay at home and look after the children and not have to worry about your future if your marriage breaks down.
It's nothing to do with the 1950s, in my case deciding (us not me) for me to stay at home and look after our children meant we didn't have to employ a full-time live-in nanny (the only way we could both work at our respective careers) but it also meant that I am not building up savings or a pension and because of that if my marriage breaks down I fully expect my DH to help support me.

Libra - my point is that as a woman, you do have a choice as to how important you choose your job/income potential to be, same as a man. If you have made decisions which have resulted in a decision that your job doesn't earn enough money to stay at work, then yes, that is still your decision. Same as it was presumably your DH's decision to get a job which earned more. It is perfectly possible to have a situation where a man gives up his lower earning job and the higher earning female partner goes to work

Actually my earning power was the same as my dh and we could have afforded a live in nanny ( not sure where we would have put her tho) but we both together decided it would be better if I stayed home. If we had jointly decided that he was to stay at home and look after the dc and I was to work and then we decided to divorce I would expect to support him so he could continue to look after the children.
do u not make decisions jointly in your relationship?

"support him so he could continue to look after the children" - so for example if he chose to not to work for the next 18 years, you'd happily pay towards his beer money

I don't think you should work at all until your DD is older and at school. I had to work full-time as a single mum of 1 DD when she was 3 months old, believe me it's no picnic in the park and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Hopefully you will get help with childcare costs when your DD goes to full-time school and by then this government or the next may have actually understood the concept that to get people motivated to go back to work, then financially it should actually make people better off.