Reply to: LTD company and CSA

[russell]

You’ve got in spot on there.

Let’s not forget what started all of this off ... his insinuations that just because a man is divorced then he's obviously to blame for the breakup. Now he’s doing it again, with his “Or, I didn't **** my marriage up and am now trying to get out of paying what I should pay”.

He’s denied this before and he’ll deny it again. But it’s obvious that he did just assume this from his terminology (“leaving your wife”), the character trait he has continuously demonstrated and his attitude towards divorced men i.e. seeing the worse in them with these sweeping assumptions, without knowing the individual circumstance or indeed any individual’s idea of what constitutes a “reasonable” level of child maintenance.

WHS, It's far worse for kids to be around two people who dislike each other, argue all the time and are unhappy, than for a split. My kids get on very well with my current wife and are very happy as am I.

[Wary]

Again....its a discussion about the CSA. You have zero experience of this situation but you have jumped in and thrown about your views against people without any information or fact. Your views are damaging to the decent divorced fathers but are typical.

You’ve got in spot on there.

Let’s not forget what started all of this off ... his insinuations that just because a man is divorced then he's obviously to blame for the breakup. Now he’s doing it again, with his “Or, I didn't **** my marriage up and am now trying to get out of paying what I should pay”.

He’s denied this before and he’ll deny it again. But it’s obvious that he did just assume this from his terminology (“leaving your wife”), the character trait he has continuously demonstrated and his attitude towards divorced men i.e. seeing the worse in them with these sweeping assumptions, without knowing the individual circumstance or indeed any individual’s idea of what constitutes a “reasonable” level of child maintenance.

[BrilloPad]

Again....its a discussion about the CSA. You have zero experience of this situation but you have jumped in and thrown about your views against people without any information or fact. Your views are damaging to the decent divorced fathers but are typical.

Zoiderman = troll - do not feed.

[Underscore Pt2]

Or, I didn't **** my marriage up and am now trying to get out of paying what I should pay, so I should shut up. Land of ******* Disney, toss pot. No, I just have a very good handle, like Russell, on what is right and wrong, and what is responsible.

What a ****

Again....its a discussion about the CSA. You have zero experience of this situation but you have jumped in and thrown about your views against people without any information or fact. Your views are damaging to the decent divorced fathers but are typical.

[amcdonald]

No, apologies, but go back a bit and have a look see as to who cast the first stone, as such.

Now for the rest of the bilge, I can also see what you are trying to do; 99%? Please, stop being ridiculous. All I did, which I have been clear, and consistent with, is say, no, just saying reasonable doesn't cut the ice. The government hasn't stated, afaik, that as a contractor, you have to give 99% of your money. What they have done, is state bands in which you pay a certain percentage. I have merely stated, that I consider it wrong, that you ONLY have a duty to pay what you HAVE TO/CAN, rather than what you SHOULD. I have not shifted from that point of view. You, meanwhile, have come in stating it's not mens fault all the time time, which is irrelevant. Remember, whatever you have been asked to pay by the CSA, is, I would venture, much less than you always have, if you are a decent parent and partner.

I know someone under the old CSA system where they want more than his net income, at least now it's only about 15% of your income so you don't end up homeless

[Wary]

You see Russell, this is the kind of behaviour I think is in the SHOULD category and I applaud you for it. It's how I hope I would act in a similar position.

As for Wary, honestly, look up ifony for ****s sake. I can't believe you have accused me of twisting, altering and obfuscating my argument to be right, I have never wavered from what I believe true. I hectored after JamJam as he used the words, we want it to be reasonable, as I have always said, I dont think that's right, because it infers negotiating. My issue with this, as it infers that you wnt to change how much you have always paid. That's all, and it's right, and no matter what bollocks you have attempted to introduce, you can get it right. No matter how many times you have tried to twist what I have said, I am right, and you wrong. You are a bit of a

So to use your vernacular (yes, the original source of the abuse you accused me of you muppet), you are the weakest link, goodbye.

Zoiderman

No one doubts there are fathers who do indeed walk out on their family or who try to minimise child maintenance payments to the detriment of their kids. The issue I have with you is that you tar so many with this same sordid brush, based on wild, sweeping, all-consuming assumptions/accusations when there are in fact plausible alternatives, and without knowing the individual circumstances.

You denigrate fathers who seek to pay less to their ex, purely on that basis. Yet this doesn’t necessarily mean that they want their kids to go short so they can have more. Maybe they feel that they’re actually funding their wife’s lifestyle whereas if they had control of this excess, they could ensure that it does indeed go to their kids (c/f Russell).

You castigate fathers who say the payments should be “reasonable”, claiming that they’re “effectively asking with how little they could get away with paying.", even making comments such as “Jesus wept, some people really shouldn't be allowed kids.” This is regardless of their personal definition of “reasonable”, which could be “support them to at least the level prior to the divorce”. For that reason alone, you launched a personal attack on JamJarST even though he’d already said he was paying more that the CSA would instruct, without knowing his personal circumstance or what he meant by “reasonable”, in a way that was ludicrous and highly insulting.

I understand that as a dedicated family man, this is an emotive subject for you. But that doesn’t excuse you for being such a judgemental bastard, sitting on the moral high ground and vilifying anyone who says payments should be “reasonable” or that they should be paying less, on that basis alone. I’ll reiterate the point I made earlier that if you were divorced, I’m in no doubt that there would be a contribution-threshold above which you’d say “hey, this is not reasonable, I should be paying less”, just like anyone else, even if your tolerance threshold may be higher than most. Underscore Pt2 got it right - you’re incapable of seeing the grim reality of divorce in part because you live in a fairly idyllic world family-wise.

The reason why my last post summarised your stance was to give you a chance to reply with a simple “yes, this is correct and I stand by it”. It was an accurate summary as I specifically quoted what you’d so far said. Instead, you gave the type of response that I totally expected, which has been all so typical of your recent posts which quite frankly smack of desperation … throwing as much into the mix as you can, a high level of personal abuse and an insistence that you’ve won the argument, almost as if you think that by saying it enough, you’ll convince yourself and others that it’s true.

With respect to your latest post, you now claim that your issue is that “it infers that you wnt to change how much you have always paid.” However, your stance has always been that they’re “effectively asking with how little they could get away with paying.", So you’re clearly backtracking by toning down the inference.

You applaud Russell for his actions. However, ahead of his wife going to the CSA, supposing he’d posted simply saying that he thought his contributions were not reasonable and that he wanted to reduce them. You’d have chastised him at very least for the mere fact that he was “negotiating”, and without knowing why he thought this or what he wanted to do with this excess money. Yet by now applauding him and saying that he has a "very good handle ... on what is right and wrong, and what is responsible", you’ve acknowledged that you’d have been totally out-of-order making such criticism. I think QED is the phrase that springs to mind.

There’s not really anything more for me to say. I think you realise that your sweeping, all-consuming criticisms are baseless and you’ve been desperately trying to dig yourself out of a hole, a hole that you’ve slowly been deepening instead. By all means post an insulting reply that misses the key point or subtly backtracks what you’ve earlier said and claim victory once again … you might actually believe it this time although no one else will, I’m sure.

[Zoiderman]

The fact is you are not divorced and you seem to live in a land of Disney where you are married to an angel. Enjoy it and step away from this discussion as you dont add anything to it.

Or, I didn't **** my marriage up and am now trying to get out of paying what I should pay, so I should shut up. Land of ******* Disney, toss pot. No, I just have a very good handle, like Russell, on what is right and wrong, and what is responsible.

What a ****

[Underscore Pt2]

I argued, that its not ok to simply be reasonable in your repayments, that you need to keep the kids precisely how they used to be kept, before you left/were kicked out/threw her out.

I don't think the kids should be treated differently, so anyone thinking they should only pay what is reasonable, in my view, is escaping the fact that this shouldn't be the case. Like many here, I earn a fair few quid. My kids get to enjoy this. Suddenly stopping this, and only paying what is reasonable, isn't on; nothing has chanegd with them.

The fact is you are not divorced and you seem to live in a land of Disney where you are married to an angel. Enjoy it and step away from this discussion as you dont add anything to it.

[Zoiderman]

I was paying my ex a generous monthly payment for our daughters, but she went to CSA for some reason and I filled in the forms etc, the payment was almost halved. I put the difference in an ISA for the kids turning 18 or 20 etc.

You see Russell, this is the kind of behaviour I think is in the SHOULD category and I applaud you for it. It's how I hope I would act in a similar position.

As for Wary, honestly, look up ifony for ****s sake. I can't believe you have accused me of twisting, altering and obfuscating my argument to be right, I have never wavered from what I believe true. I hectored after JamJam as he used the words, we want it to be reasonable, as I have always said, I dont think that's right, because it infers negotiating. My issue with this, as it infers that you wnt to change how much you have always paid. That's all, and it's right, and no matter what bollocks you have attempted to introduce, you can get it right. No matter how many times you have tried to twist what I have said, I am right, and you wrong. You are a bit of a

So to use your vernacular (yes, the original source of the abuse you accused me of you muppet), you are the weakest link, goodbye.

[Scrag Meister]

I was paying my ex a generous monthly payment for our daughters, but she went to CSA for some reason and I filled in the forms etc, the payment was almost halved. I put the difference in an ISA for the kids turning 18 or 20 etc.

Nice, as least your ex can't buy stuff for herself with what goes in the ISA. Well played as long as it doesn't affect the children's standard of living until they are 18/20.

Edit : Oops Wary said basically the same thing.

[Wary]

I was paying my ex a generous monthly payment for our daughters, but she went to CSA for some reason and I filled in the forms etc, the payment was almost halved. I put the difference in an ISA for the kids turning 18 or 20 etc.

Presuming that the revised payments still ensure that the kids are well looked after, and without knowing how the ex utilised the surplus, this is a good example of how paying less to the ex could actually benefit the kids. Now the father can use this excess money to ensure that it does indeed go to them, and not into the ex's bank account for her to use at her discretion.

[eek]

I was paying my ex a generous monthly payment for our daughters, but she went to CSA for some reason and I filled in the forms etc, the payment was almost halved. I put the difference in an ISA for the kids turning 18 or 20 etc.

Greed often doesn't work out.

[russell]

I was paying my ex a generous monthly payment for our daughters, but she went to CSA for some reason and I filled in the forms etc, the payment was almost halved. I put the difference in an ISA for the kids turning 18 or 20 etc.

[BrilloPad]

Can't you two find a room? This is supposed to be accounting/legal - not general.

[Wary]

OK, we’ll do this on a question and answer basis, so we can focus on the issue at hand without you going off at a tangent.

The issue is of course your personal attack on JamJarST in post#10, and whether it had any substance. As I understand it, this was as a result of him using the word “reasonable” in terms of the level of child support that a father should pay to his ex-. Correct?

You think it is unethical that a father should use the word “reasonable” with respect to this, regardless of his subjective definition of the word (which could quite easily be “support them to at least the level prior to the divorce”). Correct?

As I understand it, you’re of this stance for two main reasons:
1) they’re “effectively asking how little they could get away with paying”
2) “as soon as you use words like reasonable, it is negotiating”
Correct?

It would be useful if you could answer each of these with a simple yes/no so as we’re totally clear on your stance, and that you’re not seen as trying to avoid the question.