+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 173
  1. #161
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked
    578
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Again I find this an odd argument. The parents of the first kids haven't had their parents go onto have more kids together, and under that premise the wages of the father would have stayed solely in their family, not gone to a whole new one where he takes those wages and spends them in a another household.
    But the payer has gone onto a new family and thats life of a broken family. Why should the payer be paying more for children that do not belong to him? His responsibility is that of his children, whether the are from the first wife, the second wife or the 15th wife. His money needs to change for that (and it would if he was still with the first wife), he shouldnt have to be paying for his 'first kids' and more on top of that if his ex decides to have more, and he shouldnt have to pay a certain amount for one lot of kids and only be able to pay another lot for another lot of kids.

    It needs to be divided equally and unfortunately that means money going down for the children that also belong to his first wife to be fair for the other children (his children), otherwise you are saying that one lot of kids is more important than another.. If first wife needs more money when she decides to start another family then that is up to her husband and her, not the ex husband.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to MrsBid For This Useful Post:

    VicPark  (14-10-2014)

  3. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,201
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsBid View Post
    But the payer has gone onto a new family and thats life of a broken family. Why should the payer be paying more for children that do not belong to him?
    A new family he has chosen. Why should the payee be paid less for the first children bc he's had more kids that don't belong to her? Your argument easily can applied to both sides. I've clearly said both set of kids are equally important, it is you advocating it's ok for the first family to miss out bc that's how a broken family is and they should share.

    Clearly we are never going to agree which is fine but I'm surprised you don't see both sides here only yours. And I should add, read my previous comment. I think the whole new baby thing needs to be scrapped on both sides. No more money to the woman for her new baby, no cuts to her pay for his new baby.
    Last edited by delirium; 14-10-2014 at 12:05.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    BlissedOut  (17-10-2014),PomPoms  (14-10-2014)

  5. #163
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    5,946
    Thanks
    1,973
    Thanked
    2,080
    Reviews
    16
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Hold up. I have just read this thread and seen it said quite a few times, that why should the ex-husband (for example) have to pay more child support, when his ex-wife chooses to have another child with her new husband, and stops working to be a SAHM (reducing her income and ability to provide the same financial commitments to her child with her ex-husband). Therefore the ex-husband is paying for her new child.

    I'd just like to point out here, that the ex-husband is NOT paying for her new child. He is paying for THEIR child. If her income drops, that is going to impact on the child that she shares with her ex-husband. I see it as only fair that his child support then goes up so that THEIR child continues to receive the financial benefits.

    It has nothing at all, whatsoever to do with him paying for her new child. At all. Call it pedantic, but it really bugs me when people make that connection. He is not being punished for her "moving on" and starting a new family, he is merely continuing to provide financial support for the child/ren that he had with his ex-wife.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lillynix For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (14-10-2014),Mokeybear  (14-10-2014),MummaCat  (14-10-2014),ourbradybunch  (14-10-2014),peanutmonkey  (14-10-2014),Ra Ra Superstar  (14-10-2014)

  7. #164
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    615
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked
    299
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsBid View Post
    But the payer has gone onto a new family and thats life of a broken family. Why should the payer be paying more for children that do not belong to him? His responsibility is that of his children, whether the are from the first wife, the second wife or the 15th wife. His money needs to change for that (and it would if he was still with the first wife), he shouldnt have to be paying for his 'first kids' and more on top of that if his ex decides to have more, and he shouldnt have to pay a certain amount for one lot of kids and only be able to pay another lot for another lot of kids.

    It needs to be divided equally and unfortunately that means money going down for the children that also belong to his first wife to be fair for the other children (his children), otherwise you are saying that one lot of kids is more important than another.. If first wife needs more money when she decides to start another family then that is up to her husband and her, not the ex husband.
    Part of me understands what your trying to say but i think you've also completely missed the point.
    The payments increase when first wife expands her family BECAUSE she is no longer bringing in an income. No income = a drop in finances for 'first children'. It doesnt increase so that first husband pays for first wife's new baby. It increases so that first children can still maintain and recieve the same level of care as they did previous. I believe if thats a problem then yes you are being selfish and putting one group of kids above the other.

    ETA: It would be the same if the roles were reversed.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to MummaCat For This Useful Post:

    Lillynix  (14-10-2014)

  9. #165
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    615
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked
    299
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillynix View Post
    Hold up. I have just read this thread and seen it said quite a few times, that why should the ex-husband (for example) have to pay more child support, when his ex-wife chooses to have another child with her new husband, and stops working to be a SAHM (reducing her income and ability to provide the same financial commitments to her child with her ex-husband). Therefore the ex-husband is paying for her new child.

    I'd just like to point out here, that the ex-husband is NOT paying for her new child. He is paying for THEIR child. If her income drops, that is going to impact on the child that she shares with her ex-husband. I see it as only fair that his child support then goes up so that THEIR child continues to receive the financial benefits.

    It has nothing at all, whatsoever to do with him paying for her new child. At all. Call it pedantic, but it really bugs me when people make that connection. He is not being punished for her "moving on" and starting a new family, he is merely continuing to provide financial support for the child/ren that he had with his ex-wife.
    Beat me to it

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to MummaCat For This Useful Post:

    Mokeybear  (14-10-2014)

  11. #166
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,581
    Thanks
    748
    Thanked
    733
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Well said Lillynix and spot on.

    Sent from my SM-G900I using The Bub Hub mobile app

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to ourbradybunch For This Useful Post:

    Lillynix  (14-10-2014)

  13. #167
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    75
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked
    66
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillynix View Post
    Hold up. I have just read this thread and seen it said quite a few times, that why should the ex-husband (for example) have to pay more child support, when his ex-wife chooses to have another child with her new husband, and stops working to be a SAHM (reducing her income and ability to provide the same financial commitments to her child with her ex-husband). Therefore the ex-husband is paying for her new child.

    I'd just like to point out here, that the ex-husband is NOT paying for her new child. He is paying for THEIR child. If her income drops, that is going to impact on the child that she shares with her ex-husband. I see it as only fair that his child support then goes up so that THEIR child continues to receive the financial benefits.

    It has nothing at all, whatsoever to do with him paying for her new child. At all. Call it pedantic, but it really bugs me when people make that connection. He is not being punished for her "moving on" and starting a new family, he is merely continuing to provide financial support for the child/ren that he had with his ex-wife.
    But only because his ex wife has abrogated her responsibility to financially support her children by giving up work.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Threekids For This Useful Post:

    MrsBid  (14-10-2014)

  15. #168
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,222
    Thanks
    894
    Thanked
    3,219
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Threekids View Post
    But only because his ex wife has abrogated her responsibility to financially support her children by giving up work.
    But how is she abrogating her financial responsibility?
    I don't know what world you guys all live in, but in the world *I* live in, a mother cannot live on $0+CS. Regardless of if it's paid employment, CL payments, or support from a new spouse, a mother will be financially providing for her child. I can 99% guarantee you that a mother is not getting CSA-approved CS that pays for 100% of the child's upbringing.
    It's a ludicrous notion.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to CMF For This Useful Post:

    Ra Ra Superstar  (14-10-2014)

  17. #169
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked
    578
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Threekids View Post
    But only because his ex wife has abrogated her responsibility to financially support her children by giving up work.
    exactly. that financial decision is that of the new household not the ex. he shouldnt have to pay more because of a decision between his ex and her husband. he should be paying the same and her new family pick up the slack.

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using The Bub Hub mobile app

  18. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    75
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked
    66
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CMF View Post
    But how is she abrogating her financial responsibility?
    I don't know what world you guys all live in, but in the world *I* live in, a mother cannot live on $0+CS. Regardless of if it's paid employment, CL payments, or support from a new spouse, a mother will be financially providing for her child. I can 99% guarantee you that a mother is not getting CSA-approved CS that pays for 100% of the child's upbringing.
    It's a ludicrous notion.
    I pay $380 a week to my ex and I have 50% care. That is more than enough money to pay for all costs for 7 nights per fortnight given there are no rental or mortgage costs.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Child Support TO BE OR NOT TO BE?
    By darianiika in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-04-2014, 06:17
  2. Please help re: child support
    By Mummabearto2 in forum Single Parents
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24-11-2013, 18:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
WaterWipes
Give your babies bottom a gift this Xmas! They are the only wipe made using just water and a drop of grapefruit seed extract and may help avoid nappy rash. Check out the great reviews on bubhub and see our website for more info and availability.
sales & new stuffsee all
Pea Pods
Buy 2 Award Winning Pea Pods Reusable One Size Nappies for only $38 (in your choice of colours) and receive a FREE roll of Bamboo Liners. Don't miss out, we don't usually have discounts on the nappies, so grab this special offer!
Special Offer! Save $12
featured supporter
Philips AVENT Australia
Pregnancy and early parenthood is an exciting and challenging time, but it’s good to know there is expert advice on hand to ensure that your baby gets the best start in life.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!