Do people not want to work?
Discussion
Christmassss said:
On the basis that;
A) They pay
B) They earn enough to make the minimum amount the CMA ask for actually worthwhile.
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help. But that's what the CMA state, so when asked if he wants to contribute to swimming lessons, music lessons etc, the answer is that he 'pays what is advised'.
So he thinks his children are worth £34.61 each a week. Delightful.
But that is in addition to the money you contribute for the kids. or do you not feel, you should contribute?A) They pay
B) They earn enough to make the minimum amount the CMA ask for actually worthwhile.
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help. But that's what the CMA state, so when asked if he wants to contribute to swimming lessons, music lessons etc, the answer is that he 'pays what is advised'.
So he thinks his children are worth £34.61 each a week. Delightful.
The other thing is how much does he earn, what other outgoings does he have?
Despite what is said about the cost of raising a child I don't think our daughter cost us £34:61 extra a week.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Just to balance this out, my mother is owner & director of a domiciliary care company, and whilst she's not a millionaire, she's not struggling either. The councils have been squeezing margins in the last few years, but their contracts still offer the most consistent earnings. The real pain in the arse clients are the people that want 1hr a week to help with the cleaning or something. Care plans and H&S assessments still need to be carried out, then due to the low monthly hours billed it takes months to recoup that initial assessment cost.Drumroll said:
Christmassss said:
On the basis that;
A) They pay
B) They earn enough to make the minimum amount the CMA ask for actually worthwhile.
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help. But that's what the CMA state, so when asked if he wants to contribute to swimming lessons, music lessons etc, the answer is that he 'pays what is advised'.
So he thinks his children are worth £34.61 each a week. Delightful.
But that is in addition to the money you contribute for the kids. or do you not feel, you should contribute?A) They pay
B) They earn enough to make the minimum amount the CMA ask for actually worthwhile.
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help. But that's what the CMA state, so when asked if he wants to contribute to swimming lessons, music lessons etc, the answer is that he 'pays what is advised'.
So he thinks his children are worth £34.61 each a week. Delightful.
The other thing is how much does he earn, what other outgoings does he have?
Despite what is said about the cost of raising a child I don't think our daughter cost us £34:61 extra a week.
With food, nursery, clothes, milk, nappies, wet wipes, school uniform, extra curricular activities (swimming, dance class etc) plus other stuff I have missed, easily well over 34 pounds a week each. In fact, that’s probably just their activities.
He earns enough to contribute much more, but when asked if he would like to contribute to activities, school trips etc, the response to my partner is ‘get your boyfriend to pay for it’.
So I do.
We earn similar amounts, I might earn slightly more but not by much. I spend my money on his kids, providing them a home in an expensive area so they can go to the better schools, buy their clothes, etc etc. He spends his money on a 2 week holiday to Spain - without the girls - despite being offered unlimited time with them over the summer holidays. (1 example out of hundreds)
Can’t remember my point....! Lol!
In relation to the not feeling I should contribute...because of how much I earn, I have no choice. (Not that I mind - it’s only money after all!), but by being with my partner, the government basically say...’perfect, you can pick up the bill now’ and cut off all support for my partner, even though she can only work part time because of school hours.
It’s a one size fits all approach and in relation to CMA, benefits etc, there should be a much more bespoke approach so the kids don’t ever have to miss out.
Cool story bro etc etc
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the system is right and I come from the fortunate position of never having to go through all this.
But for me if you take on a new partner you take on what comes with it. My concern is the tone of your posts is that you are resentful of him. That may lead to you being resentful of the kids. And that is not good.
But for me if you take on a new partner you take on what comes with it. My concern is the tone of your posts is that you are resentful of him. That may lead to you being resentful of the kids. And that is not good.
Drumroll said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the system is right and I come from the fortunate position of never having to go through all this.
But for me if you take on a new partner you take on what comes with it. My concern is the tone of your posts is that you are resentful of him. That may lead to you being resentful of the kids. And that is not good.
It’s impossible to pick up a tone from a written post, what I wrote last night was written with a smile and an element of humour. But for me if you take on a new partner you take on what comes with it. My concern is the tone of your posts is that you are resentful of him. That may lead to you being resentful of the kids. And that is not good.
If you feel that i resent him, then you are probably right. But not for the reasons you think. The level of effort he puts in is having a noticeable affect on the girls. He calls the 'parental responsibility' card all the time, without actually putting any effort in. Yes, it starts with the money - stating that i should pay if the girls need extra stuff. But it also goes onto:
- Schools - Didnt bother visiting any
- doesnt turn up to parents evenings despite being invited
- I offered him 3 extra weeks of time when he was off work, he accepted, but then cancelled 2 of the weeks at the last minute
- I pay for a dance class every week, he tells the girls that he 'forgets' so doesn't take them
- Forgot what day one of the girls birthday was this year
- on his weekend, palms them off to his parents so he can go fishing
Whats it got to do with me you ask, well, I have a 7 year old son who lives with his mum, I put 100% effort in with him, and the girls see this. Literally the other day, they asked 'why doesn't their dad love them as much as i love my son'.
But when they decide to not bother with him, like he doesn't bother with them, it'll be someone else's fault as always!
Anyway, massively off topic. Happy to discuss via PM or another thread if you and the others fancy it!
Edited by Christmassss on Friday 28th September 08:47
Edited by Christmassss on Friday 28th September 08:58
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I have both sides of the story in that respect. Although it is interesting that men like to assume that they or other men are the victim and the ‘wounded’ person. He also likes the play the victim.
What he tends to miss out from his side of the story, and in my experience most men miss out from their stories, is the non molestation order against him.
I used to keep well out of the way, until one day at handover, not knowing I was in the house, he launched into a tirade of abuse because he didn’t like the shoes one of the girls was wearing which then resulted in her being grabbed round the neck. Let’s just say it didn’t end well for him.
He was also caught engaging in parental alienation along with some other issues which has resulted in a 3rd party having to inform social services about him.
However, much like most men, he is the victim and everything that happens to him isn’t his fault.
Getting back to where this thread started, I've been looking at the title in my "My Stuff" list, sitting next to another thread entitled "Retirement, why bother?"
With a few exceptions, it strikes me that the answer to the question, if people are being honest, is "no, of course I don't want to work. I just have to do it to pay the bills until I can retire".
Whether someone is willing to just sponge off society for their entire lives is a very different question in my mind.
With a few exceptions, it strikes me that the answer to the question, if people are being honest, is "no, of course I don't want to work. I just have to do it to pay the bills until I can retire".
Whether someone is willing to just sponge off society for their entire lives is a very different question in my mind.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The thing with Non Mol's, is that if the reason cant be proved and the impact of restrictions being put on contact not out weighing the impact on the children (terribly worded sentence, hopefully you know what i mean!) then courts will just throw it out.Looks like it has all worked out for your friend. I am not siding with men or women, I do find it fascinating how tribalism takes hold in these cases though. Men stick with men and women stick with women.
In the case of your friend his ex and her new BF, the truth will come out in the end. Always does.
My partners ex had a new GF and he used to feed her all sorts of rubbish (she plays hockey with my sister - not that he knew this
) But eventually his true persona came out and she ended up getting a beating too. After being through the court process with my partner, a friend of mine and various other people as a Mackenzie friend, I have heard all sorts. IMO its another area that needs an overhaul as the one size fits all approach doesn't work.
Kermit power said:
Getting back to where this thread started, I've been looking at the title in my "My Stuff" list, sitting next to another thread entitled "Retirement, why bother?"
With a few exceptions, it strikes me that the answer to the question, if people are being honest, is "no, of course I don't want to work. I just have to do it to pay the bills until I can retire".
Whether someone is willing to just sponge off society for their entire lives is a very different question in my mind.
In relation to the sponging - i think someone else touched on it earlier in the thread - once the kids turn 18, the 'spongers' lose most of their useful benefits and have to live on 70 a week. I know people do it, but i honestly cant get my head around the mentality that £70 is liveable long term!With a few exceptions, it strikes me that the answer to the question, if people are being honest, is "no, of course I don't want to work. I just have to do it to pay the bills until I can retire".
Whether someone is willing to just sponge off society for their entire lives is a very different question in my mind.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff