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.

Nancy - he's on 15k - CSA contributions are no longer deducted from IS..........so actually with that income there's no way he can help stop the OP having to be supported by the tax payer

www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/MIS-2010-findings.pdf

Another link to a Joseph Rowntree Foundation study of minimum income required.

"A single person in the UK needs to earn at least £14,400 a year before tax in 2010, to afford a basic but acceptable standard of living." Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Sounds like he has about £600 change.

YABU.

The figures on my link are for someone paying all their own rent/bills etc.

Sorry OP I didn't read carefully enough .

Sounds like he should have pocketfuls of cash left if he doesn't have any of these payments to make.

i think my co-workers have an acceptable stadard of living.

it breaks down like this -

£1000 after tax ni pension
rent £400
council tax £75
bills £100
transport £100

so £325 left - about £10 a day for foodetc. doable. even better if you live off £5a day udweek leaving you with a £25 fun budget for the weekend.

if you are a single person sharing in a himo you can make it much more liveable than this.

I don't believe that anyone could live on £15,000 per annum without either handouts from the tax payer or living with family. Rent alone would be £9k in most areas, which would leave £500 per month for food, bills, transport, etc.

If he was living in his own flat he'd have no spare cash. He chooses to live with his parents which is probably not ideal in lots of ways. I think the op should be focussing more on getting a job tbh.

Actually, it would be £350 per month for everything if he was renting. Knocking off £150 child maintenance,he'd have £200 per month to live on.

are you talking about central London? because 9k = a shedload of rent for a single person to be paying.

baroque sorry I don't understand your post.

I am simply making the point that regardless of what his actual salary is, since he has no significant outgoings he has plenty of disposable income.

If you have plenty of disposable income then morally you should be using it to support your children. I don't care if "legally" you don't have to, it is just wrong to expect either the state to do so on your behalf, and/or for your children to struggle whilst you live well.

Minimum UK rent is calulated to be £77.25 p.w. by The aforementioned 'JRF'.

And of course the state should step in where people cannot afford to live but I do think is questionable that the state allow NRP's to shirk their responsibilities and happily pick up the bill.

The reason that the mother cannot work is that she has a child to look after. A child that is the financial and moral responsibility of not just her but the father. I don't understand how we have a situation where mother is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't because presumabaly any salary is going to be decimated by childcare whilst darling daddy gets to pocket £700 per month.

I think one of the reasons I find it strange that he considers £15k to not be enough to live on is because I've lived quite happily on less on a few occasions several years ago.

I earned £16k working in London but lived out of the city and paid £3k railfare annually. I rented a one bed flat, paid all my bills, and put food on the table, sure I didn't have enough cash left to live extravagently but I lived within my means.

In a previous job I earned £11k, ok I lived in a houseshare but I wasn't desperately short of cash!

I'm hoping to get a job asap, I don't want to be a burdon on the tax payer, I'm used to working and I feel frankly quite bad about claiming IS (I feel like its money I haven't earned, I'm used to working to earn money). My first hurdle is finding a nursery that I can access (I have no car) that has places in DD's age group, the three near me are full with waiting lists, so I'm looking further afield, out on bus routes etc.

I know its non of my business what ex-h has, and, well, he is welcome to it if it makes him happy! He winds me up by boasting to me of his luxurious lifestyle whenever we encounter each other (how else do you think I'd find out? I'm not going through his bin like a crazed stalker!), and states openly to me that he is happy to live at his parents as he has 'more money for himself' that way. I shouldn't let him wind me up!

"And of course the state should step in where people cannot afford to live but I do think is questionable that the state allow NRP's to shirk their responsibilities and happily pick up the bill."

The state isn't picking up the bill though. If the NRP was to pay the PWC £2000 maintenance a month then the state would still be paying the PWC exactly what they are paying now

I know loads of people who live out on 15k! Most people I have met. Loads of young people cope on less than that and still get a place and go out partying every night.

My brother makes less than that a month has his own flat down south, car and goes out drinking 4 nights a week.

'On a salary of £15,000 there is no way you could afford anywhere to live except at your parents'

Bollocks.

Dh,I and children lived on £13k.We rented.

Thingumy did you not get any tax credits?

I bought my own place on 12k in 2003 down South. 15k is not a rubbish wage it is more than the current minimum wage by quite a bit.

We received Working tax credits.

Still not a huge income for 2 adults and 2 children .

The op is talking about one man living at home on 15k with no sodding bills or outgoings other than his 'treats'.

What I observe on other threads though is that when parents are divorced, it is generally seen as outrageous for an nrp to comment on how a pwc lives/spends money. Yet here we are dissecting exactly that for an nrp

allnew But the state is picking up the bill (the fact that it would continue to do so regardless of the maintenance payments is a red herring) I do understand that is the way the system is now i.e. that maintenance doesn't effect tax credits etc but my argument is that perhaps it should.

Presumably if the OP was receiving more money from her ex (a more realisitc contribution to childcare for example) she could afford to go out to work thus everyones position would improve.

fiofio he is shirking his moral responsibilities. Doing the leagl bare minimum when you could do so much more is unacceptable.