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

[Shriek]

Please can someone refute this claim that I have recently come across..??

That the govt will deduct 20% of a father's income for supporting the children of a new girlfriend/wife, with which they have no relation, before considering the amount that should go to continuing to support their own existing children!!!

I am trying to understand the rationale here.. can someone refute this, or shed light on how this might make sense?

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?

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?

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.

'broken families' ??

Am I in a timewarp or something?

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

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?

Are you David Cameron?

*mrpants not OP

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

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

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?

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?

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'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!

thanks for the many and very varied responses/reactions to my OP! its made very interesting reading.

Thank you MRPANTS for the assertion that it is 'utter madness' for men to be paying for for other men's children than their own, although 'there is a cost to the taxpayer (usually fathers)' begs the question in my mind: What better use of taxpayers money than raising a BETTER generation of children, which would waive a lot of other draws on taxpayers money, as bourne out by the testimony of Graciescotland!

Yougoonie - absolutely! once I'd worked out the question, I realised yes absolutely. This situation means that the ex partner (non-resident father) is paying for children that are not only completely unrelated to him, but their non-resident father is paying for them too!!!!... the mother left behind struggling alone gets the raw deal in this situation. Although, it would seems to MRPANTS mind that his daughter only gets such a small proportion of his actual salary, in reality she is living in a higher standard of everything, food, leisure, housing, just far more comfortable surroundings generally, without having to wear the gaffer taped shoes, etc. soo sad that sooo much of this is going on.

Amazing you SNAPESPEARE, awe inspiring you and many others turning out beautiful and talented children from such adverse circumstances.

I think it is 15% for the first child and an additional 5 for another, but I don't know the ceiling figure, which there must be.

Its time this system changed. The CSA still seem to let down the children and lone parents of these circumstances criminally. If the biological father is already paying then that should be absolutely sufficient, shouldn't it?

Also, does anyone wonder what message this conveys to the biological children of the country, that their own father's money is more important to unrelated children than it is to them!!!!! The biological link should be first and foremost, and this system not be used as a way for unrelated fathers to make up the deficit for the lack of responsibility on the part of the related father.

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. Take control of yourselves and stop it happening!

Its making me cross that the law is screwing the priorities in this way.. I still wait to hear that this mightn't be the intention of the law? and perhaps wouldn't apply if the bio father is paying maintenance already (but even if was the case surely it then allows the bio father to opt out more easily knowing that another man might have to pay for his kids if he doesn't).

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.

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?

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.

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.

Actually my view is far simpler - I don't believe in making innocent children pay for the 'sins' of their parents.

Good luck in your attempts to identify the baby 'breeding machines', whoever they are.

Incidentally, as a higher rate taxpayer I would happily pay more tax if it would lift more children out of poverty and give more young parents the chance to get an education and a career so that they too have the same privilege that I have of being self-sufficient.

I'm sorry to be so cut-and-dried about this but if the parent or parents aren't in a position to provide for the needs of the child then it's a self-inflicted form of poverty. As I pointed out, with so many types of contraceptive available, there is no need to have an unplanned child. The fact that there is an artificial entity, the welfare state, prepared to underwrite the cost of raising a child is, to use a lovely capitalist expression, distorting the market. If you can correct that distortion, then you take care of the second point quite easily.

Your final point is your opinion, but I'd like to point out that you are perfectly within your rights to make additional donations to HMRC if you see fit. I, being state comprehensive educated in a shit school in a shit part of town, had the same opportunities as many of these people - the fact that I listened at school, when they didn't, is no excuse to expect me to pay for them throughout their lives.

Mrpants - your username is wrong. It should be MrJudgyPants.

Maybe we should chuck all these unplanned children in the workhouse, like the victorians did? That was a pretty free market economy after all.

Just as long as you don't mind the skills shortage in the next generation when we are short of doctors, nurses and scientists.

Getting back to the OP, and nice guys comments, I still don't see why NRPs are paying for children who live with them, before their own children? Surely those children will, in most cases, have a NRP of their own to contribute to their upbringing. Nice guy, if your summary of the CSA formula is correct then it seems pretty biased against children brought up by solo parents.

If the non resident parent has a 'relevant other child' living with them that they or their partner receive chb for, their income pool is reduced by 15%.

for the sake of the argument, XP had an affair and left. At the time that we had our three children, we were both working in relatively low paid, but stable employment. He then left OW when their DC was 9 months old for OW2' lost his job, had a variety of mental health issues and was unemployed for 7 years until OW2 conceived a late unplanned baby.

For the sake of the argument, if XP had been working earning, say £2000pcm, for his first subsequent child, his salary would have a 15% ringfence, so £300 for subsequent child leaving £1700 in the pot. My children would have been entitled to 25% of that pot, so £375, £125 per child. Both parents were working and contributing to household finance. I maintained a house on my own with three children

Moving on, he left OW for OW2 and had another (unplanned) child. The fictious pot of £2000 would still have a £300 ringfence for 'relevant other child' 2, but the 25% remaining in the child maintenace calculation would now stretch to my DCs and 'relevant other child2' (i do apologise for the terminology, it isnt mine) so £375 split 4 ways = just under £90 per child.

When couples have children they hopefully discuss the finances. When relationships end, for whatever reason, the discussion regarding finances for subsequent babies with new DWs doesnt really reach the parent with care. These are not our choices. We suck it up. The child maintenance system does need serious overhaul. Not just for collection (is it around 25% of parents with care that receive nothing? Is it higher?)

With regard to unplanned children, all of mine were planned, not that i can actually see, even as a tax payer that that is any of your business. Without foresight, i could not see that the man i loved would leave me and create a Jeremy Kyle-esque nightmare in his wake. I am lucky that I have always managed to work, but I could feasibly lose my job tomorrow, we all could, even higher rate taxpayers. I could have an accident or develop a tumor or any number of circumstance that would determine that i would have to claim state benefits.

Which of my children do you think i should give to a nice middle class married working couple