Child Maintenance threshold?

[gts]

Is there a minimum threshold that can be taken from the company account per month/year as a director which would mean that we wouldn't be required to pay Child Maintenance/the Child Maintenance Service?

[northernladuk]

Don't quite understand your post but does this help?

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...intenance.html

Loads of other threads that might help here as well..

child maintenance site:forums.contractoruk.com - Bing

[Lance]

Why would you want to deprive your offspring of a decent standard of living?

the Moral issue put to one side.... I think the only way to avoid paying child maintenance is to be dead or not earning (or the mother hates you so much that she'll avoid even that level of contact).

[gts]

Why would you want to deprive your offspring of a decent standard of living?

What a predictable and stupid response. How and why would paying less child maintenance deprive children of anything?

I don't even want to get into this, I wasn't asking Mumsnet or Buzzfeed this question, I was asking people who were possibly in a similar position (i.e. with a Ltd co.) who knew what the minimum threshold was. Save your judgement/moral-screeching for someone who gives a crap.

[BR14]

What a predictable and stupid response. How and why would paying less child maintenance deprive children of anything?

I don't even want to get into this, I wasn't asking Mumsnet or Buzzfeed this question, I was asking people who were possibly in a similar position (i.e. with a Ltd co.) who knew what the minimum threshold was. Save your judgement/moral-screeching for someone who gives a crap.

Well I Was going to give some advice, but after that outburst of vitriol, i'll pass, ta

[Lance]

What a predictable and stupid response. How and why would paying less child maintenance deprive children of anything?

I don't even want to get into this, I wasn't asking Mumsnet or Buzzfeed this question, I was asking people who were possibly in a similar position (i.e. with a Ltd co.) who knew what the minimum threshold was. Save your judgement/moral-screeching for someone who gives a crap.

If my response was predicted then you should have got over it before I said it.

If you’re not paying for your child who is?

If you don’t want to get into this then why ask?

This isn’t Mumsnet but why should a reasonable answer be limited to just them?

I told you the threshold in my response but you failed to get past the first question.

I’m not judging. I’m not screeching. I asked a question. You are screeching. I’ve judged you now but this isn’t general so I’ll not tell you what I think.

There is no threshold you utter bell end. When your children hate you as much as their mother does, remember this exchange.

[gts]

If my response was predicted then you should have got over it before I said it.

If you’re not paying for your child who is?

If you don’t want to get into this then why ask?

This isn’t Mumsnet but why should a reasonable answer be limited to just them?

I told you the threshold in my response but you failed to get past the first question.

I’m not judging. I’m not screeching. I asked a question. You are screeching. I’ve judged you now but this isn’t general so I’ll not tell you what I think.

There is no threshold you utter bell end. When your children hate you as much as their mother does, remember this exchange.

Why would I care about answering any of that? None of that is relevant to my original question you soy-guzzling imbecile.

Also you are wrong (unsurprisingly).

After the initial reply I got I looked further into this. For the benefit of any man in a similar position to mine the info as of 2018 is available here

https://assets.publishing.service.go...aintenance.pdf

The reference to Mumsnet was sarcasm, don't worry I didn't expect you to get that either, I wouldn't expect any worthwhile advice from them though I didn't know I also shouldn't expect it from here either.

Also not expecting a civil response to this but I'm really trying to understand why my original post triggered such an emotional response from you. I was honestly quite content with the answer northernladuk gave as that helped me find the actual facts. None of what you said was remotely related.

Well I Was going to give some advice, but after that outburst of vitriol, i'll pass, ta

Oh I'm sure it would have really been worthwhile advice, what a terrible loss. Also you seriously are pathetic to take offence at a comment meant for a completely different person, unless "Lance" is your alias, and commenting in threads using different IDs is your thing.

[Lance]

Wow!!!

If

Why would you want to deprive your offspring of a decent standard of living?

can be read as

I'm really trying to understand why my original post triggered such an emotional response from you.

it says more about the reader's emotions than the question I asked.
It was a rhetorical question anyway.

As for your original question, and my answer. I standby what I said in that there is no threshold. It's complicated and the CMS have the right to take you to a tribunal if they think you are pulling a fast one. For a start if they pick a number that's wrong it has to be more than 25% out for you to challenge it so this is very fuzzy and certainly has no set threshold.
They also have this, in the document you linked....

‘diversion’ of income – this is when the paying parent may be able to control the amount of income they receive by diverting it to another person or other purpose, which means it is not being included in the income we use to work out child maintenance.

Which is precisely what you asked about in your initial post. The CMS document suggests that leaving the money in the company isn't going to help you not pay any maintenance. Here's a more appropriate link Child Maintenance Service and Ltd Company Directors - The Voice of the Child - Family Law Research

[gts]

Wow!!!

If
can be read as


it says more about the reader's emotions than the question I asked.
It was a rhetorical question anyway.

As for your original question, and my answer. I standby what I said in that there is no threshold. It's complicated and the CMS have the right to take you to a tribunal if they think you are pulling a fast one. For a start if they pick a number that's wrong it has to be more than 25% out for you to challenge it so this is very fuzzy and certainly has no set threshold.
They also have this, in the document you linked.... Which is precisely what you asked about in your initial post. The CMS document suggests that leaving the money in the company isn't going to help you not pay any maintenance. Here's a more appropriate link Child Maintenance Service and Ltd Company Directors - The Voice of the Child - Family Law Research

I think if a straightforward financial question leads to a response about depriving children then just admit that you have brought emotions into this instead of backpedalling like you did there.

I didn't want to get into this as it is clearly a hugely ******* contentious issue as can be seen from this thread. I will say this much. Your response has the underlying implication that the ex partner (in any given situation similar to mine) will spend every/any penny on the children. That's utter bulltulip and my suspicion is that you know this and yet you are trying to convince people otherwise because you have a stance on it which you are not being clear about (I'd respect you more if you had been open about where you're coming from yet you are just being evasive and overly critical). So are you a feminist or is it something else?

Regarding the thresholds, I may have used the wrong terms in my original post but my intention should have been obvious, yes I do want to avoid paying more than I need to to an ex partner who I know has absolutely tulip money management skills, I am quite capable of spending my money on my child directly which is what I already do. Whether or not you agree with my logic is not my concern and browbeating someone on the internet is just embarrassing.

Anyway the page to look at regarding rates/thresholds is 15 on the document. I am not talking about doing anything illegal here which is another thing you seem to want to implicate me of here, so stop doing this. Just admit you were behaving emotionally about an issue where you are not an involved party and next time either stay quiet or answer the question. Its not that difficult.

[BR14]

Why would I care about answering any of that? None of that is relevant to my original question you soy-guzzling imbecile.

Also you are wrong (unsurprisingly).

After the initial reply I got I looked further into this. For the benefit of any man in a similar position to mine the info as of 2018 is available here

https://assets.publishing.service.go...aintenance.pdf

The reference to Mumsnet was sarcasm, don't worry I didn't expect you to get that either, I wouldn't expect any worthwhile advice from them though I didn't know I also shouldn't expect it from here either.

Also not expecting a civil response to this but I'm really trying to understand why my original post triggered such an emotional response from you. I was honestly quite content with the answer northernladuk gave as that helped me find the actual facts. None of what you said was remotely related.



Oh I'm sure it would have really been worthwhile advice, what a terrible loss. Also you seriously are pathetic to take offence at a comment meant for a completely different person, unless "Lance" is your alias, and commenting in threads using different IDs is your thing.

OK, i'll put it another way.

Feck off you arrogant twat !