AIBU?
Child maintenance vs cost of raising a child
Pizzaandwine1 · 10/10/2018 15:04
Is it just me or does anyone else think that child maintenance should be calculated as half of the cost of raising a child?
I don’t understand how 12% of a wage is considered the correct figure given the difference in wages.
Eg scenario 1 NRP pays £100 a month as not on a huge ways - this doesn’t cover half the cost of a child
Scenario 2 NRP pays £800 as a higher earner but no where near the same is contributed by the RP in the upbringing
Obviously this would vary slightly based on how much the NRP has them I just don’t see how a child costs more or less based on parents income - surely a child costs X regardless?
Bbbbbbbb2017 · 10/10/2018 15:06
In an ideal world yes but nrps also need to be able to live so it cant really work that way
MrsStrowman · 10/10/2018 15:07
Is it not based on affordability, so if a parent earns 100k they will spend more on a child than someone who earns 20k, the child shouldn't have a lesser lifestyle because high earning parent moved out. Equally to charge the lower earning NRP the same as the high earner would make it financially impossible for them to support themselves.
Bbbbbbbb2017 · 10/10/2018 15:07
I receive 220 a month for two children. I spend possibly 8 times that to enable them to live.
Pizzaandwine1 · 10/10/2018 15:18
It just seems to me that it often leaves with 2 extreme ends of the spectrum - some RPs who don’t get a fraction of what’s required vs some NRP who end up paying significantly more than the RP because they earn good money
To a degree I understand the lifestyle thing but if the NRP has the child they will naturally still have the good lifestyle.
ArnoldBee · 10/10/2018 15:22
It's based upon the idea that parents spend 30% Of their joint income on 1 child etc etc. This is based on social studies that have been done.
MacosieAsunter · 10/10/2018 15:22
The argument would be that the (RP) adult would have to provide a roof and pay bills for themselves, the added cost of a child isn't 100% of that, so no the NR shouldn't be subsidising the RPs home. They should ideally make a 50% contribution to the extra cost of their own child. But we all know the state picks up the tab in the form of tax credits.
AnneLovesGilbert · 10/10/2018 15:23
I don't know where the % came from as an idea but the problem with "half" is that parents don't always agree on priorities, even when they're together, so what if the RP insists on private education, designer clothing and 5 after school activities a week, while the NRP earns minimum wage?
zzzzz · 10/10/2018 15:25
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
PinkHeart5914 · 10/10/2018 15:26
Thing is the non resident parent also needs to be able to afford a roof to live under and bills so and if someone is in a minimum wage job for example you can’t get blood out of a stone and all that
It’s not that the child costs more/less to raise, it’s just you can’t have what someone doesn’t earn
OhComeOnRon · 10/10/2018 15:28
I agree that the current system is flawed, but in lots of ways.
My DH pays more for the upbringing of his first child than the NRP (his ex) does, but because it is based on his wages it doesn't matter.
Pizzaandwine1 · 10/10/2018 15:30
Pinkheart totally understand/agree. But surely if a couple split when child is a baby and 10 years later the NRP is earning £100k or gets a good pay rise as they’ve worked hard at their career in that time that doesn’t automatically mean the child costs more or the RP should receive more if they’ve done little to improve their lifestyle themselves?
I do think it’s particularly difficult when a NRP is a low earner but then it would be subsidised with tax credits etc.
arethereanyleftatall · 10/10/2018 15:31
Well, of course parents spend more on their children if they earn more.
Pizzaandwine1 · 10/10/2018 15:34
Ohcomeonron - I think this happens a lot but I disagree that because one earns more they should contribute more - if one parent (resident or non resident doesn’t really make a difference) has worked hard to earn good money they shouldn’t be forced to subsidise the other parent.
Even a more comprehensive affordability assessment would make it fairer surely? I bet a lot of low earning NRPs still have ‘luxuries’ - I’m not saying they shouldn’t have any at all but finding a balance surely?
IHaveBrilloHair · 10/10/2018 15:34
Well this year, if we base the rate on what he has paid and I match it, it costs £8 per week.
Yeah, her train fare to school is £18.10.
arethereanyleftatall · 10/10/2018 15:34
But all parents, whether rp or nrp, should want to give their child the best upbringing they can. So, if they now earn more than when they were born, they'd want to spend that on their child wouldn't they?
Pizzaandwine1 · 10/10/2018 15:35
Arethereanyleftatall agreed but if the NRP has the child a couple of nights a week they are still benefiting from having a high earning parent due to the nice house they’ll be in, holidays taken on etc?
HolesinTheSoles · 10/10/2018 15:36
Pizzaandwine1
Regardless of when the parents split surely a high earning parent would contribute more to their child - because they can afford to offer more opportunities to their child (music/sport lessons, a house in a better area near good schools, tutor if a child is struggling). Surely that's what all parents do - if their salary increases over the years they don't tend to keep all the extra money for themselves?
MrsTerryPratchett · 10/10/2018 15:36
This debate might be relevant if NRPs actually paid what they are supposed to. But so many don't. Let's fix that first.
Pizzaandwine1 · 10/10/2018 15:37
Holesinthesoles a NRP can do that though, without having to give it to the RP who then ultimately decides where the money would be spent, if on extra for the DC at all?
PoesyCherish · 10/10/2018 15:37
I get what you're saying OP and I agree with you but then how else do you do it?
When DP and his ex split up he was paying way over the odds of child maintenance, was also paying his ex's bills on top and I would say he was covering about 80 or 90% of the costs for his ex and DD as well as trying to put a roof over his own head.
I also think NRP shouldn't have to pay for the house of the RP if that makes sense - as in specifically the rent or mortgage rather than the other bills. Both parents still have to provide suitable accommodation for their child unless of course the NRP doesn't have any overnight contact.
Yes the child should benefit from the NRPs lifestyle but then where do you draw the line? I quite agree the ex shouldn't necessarily be given the same lifestyle when they've done nothing to earn it but I really don't see a fair way of working this out for everyone.
HolesinTheSoles · 10/10/2018 15:38
they are still benefiting from having a high earning parent due to the nice house they’ll be in
But they're only in the nice house a minority of the time, won't be able to access a better school because of it, won't have the benefit of music/sports lessons. If the NRP is a responsible parent they would probably be willing to provide all of this anyway but CMS exists for the parents who wouldn't voluntarily contribute for their children.
BigChocFrenzy · 10/10/2018 15:39
It has to be a compromise, because only the wealthy can support 2 households to the same standard as the previous one
However, I wish the UK would pursue deadbeat NRPs in the same way as the USA
It can't be that expensive for the taxpayer, as the US is a country well-known for being reluctant to use taxpayers' money (on non-military spends)
In fact, it might pay for itself with the reduced need for benefits, as more RPs could afford childcare and go out to work.
corythatwas · 10/10/2018 15:40
How could you even imagine being a high-earning parent and not wanting your child (your own child!) to benefit from all the advantages- sport, music etc- that your money could give them? How do you think it would feel to be the child who sees that the advantage they are getting out of this is to visit a few days a week just to see how much more you are spending on yourself than on them, how much nicer the house they are visiting is than the one they usually live in?
Otoh poorer families are never going to be able to find the money it supposedly costs to raise a child: I remember when ours were little dh and I didn't earn that kind of money between the two of us. So naturally, our children were poorer. But they knew that made them our first priority when there was money to be spent.
crisscrosscranky · 10/10/2018 15:41
Hmm, I get where OP is coming at. My husband and I both earn between 40-50k, our mortgage is the same as it would be to rent a two bed flat. Childcare is approx £900 a month (we're not entitled to tax credits obviously). Joint income is around £5k a month after pension contributions.
If we separated the family outgoings would stay about the same but the household income would now be £3400 a month but still no entitlement to tax credits. The NRP pays about £400 a month which doesn't even cover half the childcare costs to allow RP to go to work. NRPs should be made to pay maintenance plus 50% of childcare cost IMO.
HolesinTheSoles · 10/10/2018 15:41
In terms of providing a house for the RP the NRP would have to provide that in some cases or alternatively provide childcare which would enable to RP to work.
I do know one case where a busy lawyer left his SAHM wife and young kids for another woman. The wife said OK you can have custody of the kids. Dropped them off at his so she could resume her career (she had also been a lawyer before kids but the long hours were impossible with a young family). He actually begged her to let him back after a few months which she declined. They ended up with a 50-50 arrangement and he still thinks he's been incredibly hard done by.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.