To want the HMRC child maintenance calculator to apply to the whole salary?

[Bobsmyaunty]

From my understanding, the calculator only applies itself to the first £130k of earnings, and anything above is not included.

I am in the process of divorce and agreeing future child maintenance and spousal maintenance. I'm working (part time) so the spousal maintenance isn't particularly high and am tasked with working towards becoming self-sufficient over time, which is fine, I would like to be anyway. I was high earner before having kids and whilst (10 years later) I am now starting at the (very bloody) bottom and am a very low earner, I can take that knock in the teeth because I am confident I can turn this around.

HOWEVER, on principle, it seems bonkers that Ex-DH only pays child-maintenance on the first bit of his salary. And, I am posing this question universally. Who came up with this incredibly biased system? You could have people earning £500k (which is NOT my Ex-DH btw), and rolling it in, only sharing a small proportion to the main carer.

Whilst we are not destitute, I have to watch the bottom line very carefully, whilst Ex-DH does big ticket items like Harry Potter world or Legoland etc. I'm not sure even sure it's great for the kids to have a discrepancy like this - it will definitely put them off taking time out of their careers (and maybe that's a big fat plus to this situation!)

My question is: AIBU to ask for the HMRC child maintenance calculator to be applied to his whole salary?

I dont think it should necessarily be applied to the whole salary. For example you could have a footballer earning millions and would only need a tiny fraction of that salary to for the kids to be extremely comfortable, private school etc

However I think 130k is a low cut off, as demonstrated by your different standards of living.

I think that the sacrifices you made in earning power and pension etc is not at all reflected in these settlements and how it affects the childrens standard of living going forward.

I also think you will get flamed on here with a load of 'count yourself lucky, I get £40 a month' type statements which I've seen before on a thread from a woman who had a baby with a very high earner (£500k+) who was paying the legal minimum.

Fundamentally I think parents who are happy with their child having the 'legal bare minimum' when living with their other parent, when they easily have the funds to give their children a better standard of living without it negatively impacting on their own life, are completely shit people

I think the point is that on higher salaries, income is more likely to be diverse and complex - for example, share options, properties, etc. So the principle is that on higher incomes, the court should have jurisdiction, as otherwise the basic CMS is likely to miss other forms of income. There are also likely to be commitments such as school fees, which should be considered seperately, as well as spousal support, which is not considered in any CMS calculation. So a court would have the ability to award more, dependent on the situation - so you aren't just stuck with the CMS on £130k, court could easily award more.

(There was a case in Dec 19 where the court suggested that the CMS should actually be used as a starting point for incomes up until around £650k, so i think anecdotally that comes up more now though)

If the salary is over 156k a year, you can go court for additional contributions, lump sum payments, etc.

I would focus on becoming fully independent from your ex regarding spousal payments and perhaps just appreciate the fact that he can and will cover ‘bigger’ items like school overseas trips or whatever.

I don't know. My ex earns over £150k and I find child maintenance quite generous. It more than covers DDs costs so I also save for her. It's supposed to just be for bringing up the kids not contribute to spousal support. Obviously wouldn't cut the mustard if you also had to pay private school fees or something but I think over a grand a month is fine considering I'd have to house myself anyway.

I think it's fine he's doing big ticket items with them, he can't be expected to fund your hols/day trips forever.

I can understand it must be hard to adjust to though, especially if it means you have to give your kids a different lifestyle.

« you could have a footballer earning millions and would only need a tiny fraction of that salary to for the kids to be extremely comfortable, private school etc »
Exactly this!

Also, if you receive enough to be able to maintain a good standard of living, not that different from the one the DC have with your ex then that is fair, you can’t ask your ex to make sure you can afford every single treat he pays for, same holidays etc.

Thanks for everyone's responses - really interesting.

@DrinkFeckArseBrick - I did think I might get flamed, and do already count myself lucky, although it is also a murky area as I would be a higher earner for sure, had I not taken time out with the kids (which wasn't even a conscious decision just something that 'happened' due to being on a contract, and then having PND etc etc and on it goes). But I would whole heartedly agree that this discussion is in the realms of privilege.

I think it's the principle I'm interested in too - as in, why? Why cap it at that amount? It's suspicious. Especially if the co-parenting arrangement is such that it makes it difficult for the primary carer to work full-time. It seems very biased towards the high earner.

My Ex-DH also owns his own business so in many ways gets to 'set' his salary and can invest and put lots of money in his pension before he declares the net amount as his salary.

The footballer example makes no sense. Hence why it’s different in America. Children should be entitled to the same standard of living as their parent.

If you were married, don't you divide assets etc?

How much maintenance do you get from a £130K salary?

@LilacPoppy - I do agree.

Already we have situations where I have to pick low-budget options, and the kids wang on about how 'when they're with Daddy there are three rooms in the hotel room' and - the worst - how they have 'jump the queue' ticket, which they won't have with me.

And this is not about me (I actually really liked us all sharing a room in the hotel - it was fun), but surely, for a child's psyche, it creates some difficulty. Even just in their perception of each parent, or how each parent cares for each other, or in their own identity? I don't know, it just seems like it would have an impact, having to swing from one standard of living to another.

Sounds like you need to teach your kids the value of money and how lucky they are

@Topgub - I do!

But they're only little, so they're bound to get excited about those exciting extras.

I'd be mortified of my kids dared moan about stuff like that

Regardless if how little.

I agree with your op though.

It should be whole salary.

Another reason women shouldn't be giving up their careers/independence

If he earns higher than 130,000, won't you be taking him to court for all his assets to be checked over and shared, including his pensions? It's not like you're just going to stick some numbers into an online calculator and shrug your shoulders at the outcome.
I also don't think that parents will ever have comparable parenting. They will have different time available, different styles, make different financial choices. However, that doesn't mean that the children's upbringing won't be equally as good with both parents. Just different.

Would your ex be open to a discussion over more maintenance? A relative sorted out a private arrangement with her high earning ex to pay based on his whole income

I think it's the principle I'm interested in too - as in, why?
Because after a certain point, it's not child maintenance any longer but indeed spousal maintenance. There is so much you can spend on the kids each month.

Once you separate, children accept that things are not going to be exactly the same at mum and dad and that can be on either side.

Ultimately, unless your ex threaten you if you did stop work it is a decision you've made because it suited you. If you were on 6iyr way to be a very high earner, it should take long to get back there.

According to you, if a dad was left with huge debts and after maintenance couldn't even offer his kids to go on any holiday whilst they went abroad three times with their mum, it would be acceptable to pay half his maintenance so he could use the rest to take his kids away too. Would that be reasonable?

So based off 2 kids child maintenance would be around 1700 a month that is my whole months salary to look after 3 ppl no child needs such a high amount then its also only meant to cover 50% so include your 1700 thats 3400 for 2 kids a month

Can't you apply to the court for a top up or even a lump sum payment in cases where the NRP is earning more than the maximum amount?

Tbh, the whole system is a bit crazy because it bears no relationship to what is necessary to 'maintain' a child. Instead, it's a pure income calculation (and a relatively low percentage of NRP income at that). I can't get too exercised about high earners having to pay a fairly low proportion of their income, even if much more than is reasonably required to feed and clothe a child to a basic standard, when at the other end you have RPs receiving £40 per month or less as the NRP's contribution to their children. The system is broken anyway, so it may as well at least be consistent.

Splitting up creates a division OP. Nothing to do with how much £££ you get in maintenance.
The RP usually gets the raw end of the deal, and too many NRP pay as little as they can get away with.
But each parent can choose to spend on different things. Each parent might also remarry - things will become even more confusing.

You can never keep the life they had

No, no child 'needs' such a high amount, but nowhere else does the maintenance amount take account of the child's needs so why do so here? According to the child maintenance calculator, some children only 'need' £5 per week.

I think you are at risk of trying to ‘keep up’ with your ex and creating unnecessary stress for yourself, chasing his standard of living. The reality is that he is the higher earner and will (most likely) always be able to provide the children with different things/ standards and opportunities.

At what point do you stop and accept that what you provide for them is good enough? Just a thought.

I would think that as they are the one working (presumably high stress/long hours for that kind of salary), they wouldn’t want to pay % of their earnings to an ex partner. I would think that % of £130k maintenance would be a reasonable sum, plus I would also assume the marriage would have been asset rich and the resident parent come out with a larger % of the marriage asset pool.
I appreciate I am adding in a lot of assumptions, but surely not capping it incentivises the high earner to give up their job?
I would also assume stops ex partners making a career out of being married to a high earner?

I just don’t know. When you leave a marriage I do think you shouldn’t have the responsibility of the other adult in that marriage, they should stand on their own two feet so perhaps capping £130k is enough to financially support your children without having an adult dependent on you too.

Best of luck to you in becoming self sufficient x

Agreed op. Also see bonuses which don't come in to the calculation.

@ChocolateHippo if anything the minimum payment amount needs increased from the £7 per week to at least £50 and tough shit if they are on benefits children need food and clothes my own dad was a waste of space that never paid for his kids but capping it is the right move other wise the op would not have instentive to go back to work and stand on her own to feet I also think paying your ex dh dw is crap just because they took time of work when income was high enough for a nanny ect