LTD company and CSA

[Zoiderman]

If one looks at your contributions to this thread, it's obvious that your accusations are aimed at the Op. For example, you say about your first post "This was in response to the statement, effectively, asking with how little they could get away with paying." Who else could possibly have been construed as asking such a question in the first 9 posts?!?

What did you say - "Nice try though" ... you took the words right out of my mouth.

Zoiderman, you are the weakest link on this thread. Goodbye!

And again, you have got it wrong Wary, it is starting to become a habit. It was directed at JamJarST, not the OP. But then again, I am starting to doubt your ability to comprehend things.

I'd look at the suggestion that it is me, who is the weakest link again if I were you, which thankfully I am not...

[Wary]

And again, you have got it wrong Wary, it is starting to become a habit. It was directed at JamJarST, not the OP. But then again, I am starting to doubt your ability to comprehend things.

I'd look at the suggestion that it is me, who is the weakest link again if I were you, which thankfully I am not...

Really?!?

You said your first post “... was in response to the statement, effectively, asking with how little they could get away with paying." Now you’re saying that your first post was aimed at JamJarST.

I don’t see where JamJarST has asked any such question. In fact he actually said that he pays “far more than the CSA would ask for” and that he’s happy to pay a reasonable amount to his ex- in support of his kids. If your accusations really were aimed at JamJarST rather than the Op, then they’re even more disingenuous than I originally credited you for.

P.S. You’re still the weakest link on this thread

[Zoiderman]

Really?!?

You said your first post “... was in response to the statement, effectively, asking with how little they could get away with paying." Now you’re saying that your first post was aimed at JamJarST.

I don’t see where JamJarST has asked any such question. In fact he actually said that he pays “far more than the CSA would ask for” and that he’s happy to pay a reasonable amount to his ex- in support of his kids. If your accusations really were aimed at JamJarST rather than the Op, then they’re even more disingenuous than I originally credited you for.

P.S. You’re still the weakest link on this thread

...and then, the observant would ahve noticed, that my first comment in the thread was 'really, reasonable?' etc, etc.

But as we've noticed, you're really not good at the comprehending stuff are you.

Go on, have a look at that weakest link jab again will you, for it isn't I.

[Wary]

...and then, the observant would ahve noticed, that my first comment in the thread was 'really, reasonable?' etc, etc.

But as we've noticed, you're really not good at the comprehending stuff are you.

Go on, have a look at that weakest link jab again will you, for it isn't I.

I’m not very good at comprehending gibberish, and that’s what you appear to be talking.

If there was any substance to your stance, you would have quoted EXACTLY (word for word) which part of JamJarST’s post that you interpreted as “effectively asking with how little he could get away with paying", and explain why you believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of what he said when taking all of his posts into account. Yet you did not.

So go on, do so now, if you’re confident that your stance is correct.

[Zoiderman]

I’m not very good at comprehending gibberish, and that’s what you appear to be talking.

If there was any substance to your stance, you would have quoted EXACTLY (word for word) which part of JamJarST’s post that you interpreted as “effectively asking with how little he could get away with paying", and explain why you believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of what he said when taking all of his posts into account. Yet you did not.

So go on, do so now, if you’re confident that your stance is correct.

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.

So, now go back and check this.

Then look at that weakest link jab.

I'm all ears

[Zoiderman]

How much? No one is arguing we shouldn't pay but it has to be reasonable.

...

Does it really? I would have thought just leaving your wife didn't mean the kids only then had to have reasonable support, I would have thought it was best to still give them the support you always have, unless, well, unless you don't actually like them?

All I know, is that I am not separated, but if I were, I would let them have as much money as to keep them in the lifestyle they'd grown accustomed to, as I'd still love them, just not the wife. You may, of course, think that's odd.

Leaving your wife/partner doesn't absolve you of your obligations to your kids; they are your kids; they will always be your kids. Don't suddenly think you only want to give them reasonable support.

Jesus wept, some people really shouldn't be allowed kids.

Something like this

[Wary]

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.

So, now go back and check this.

Then look at that weakest link jab.

I'm all ears

So your “effectively asking with how little he could get away with paying" comment was aimed at his stance that fathers should pay a “reasonable” amount towards their kids upkeep.

With two homes to finance instead of one, it may not financially be possible “to keep the kids precisely how they used to be kept”. Regardless, how do you know his definition of “reasonable” isn’t to ensure this, or at least something close to this? ... and that “unreasonable” would be to pay more than this or indeed less than this?

OK, so you may feel that to pay a “reasonable” amount doesn’t go far enough by your definition of the word. But it’s clearly not asking a question of how little he could get away with paying, is it!!! ... or even how he could go about reducing his payments. What's more, he'd already said that he’s paying more than the CSA would force him to.

[Zoiderman]

So your “effectively asking with how little he could get away with paying" comment was aimed at his stance that fathers should pay a “reasonable” amount towards their kids upkeep.

With two homes to finance instead of one, it may not financially be possible “to keep the kids precisely how they used to be kept”. Regardless, how do you know his definition of “reasonable” isn’t to ensure this, or at least something close to this? ... and that “unreasonable” would be to pay more than this or indeed less than this?

OK, so you may feel that to pay a “reasonable” amount doesn’t go far enough by your definition of the word. But it’s clearly not asking a question of how little he could get away with paying, is it!!! ... or even how he could go about reducing his payments. What's more, he'd already said that he’s paying more than the CSA would force him to.

Doesn't matter a cock. The inference, on many posts is what you could pay, rather than what you should, and thats my beef.

That you thoroughly missed it, is down to your ignorance, not mine.

As you said, but right back at ya; you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[Zoiderman]

Just a few notes here, from other posters.

This isn't about whose fault it is, which, if you can remember, was your original entry into it. My view, stable view, is that it doesn't matter **** all about who started it, who caused it, who is the blame, but that you shouldn't be worried about paying a fair amount, a reasonable amount, you should be continuing to support your kids, as you always have, regardless of what has happened. Anything else punishes the child.

And please, if someone, a contractor, is spunking out all their money each week, so they can't afford to move out, they they are feckless. I save around 50% of my salary and have a very good standard of living; I could continue this if I moved out, without affecting the standard of livign of my children.

Comply and hope to pay less? ............why not submit to their requests and hope you pay less?

Infernce - pay less

... if we get divorced via the courts (as opposed to just sorting it out ourselves), I'd be buggered. Must hurry up and get that divorce while we're still on great terms!....

Inference - pay less

Personally I play hard ball - I stopped paying my ex and fought the CSA. Eventually she caved in as she knew the CSA would not get a penny out of me. I was happy to pay her - but not the CSA.

Not too sure about this one, but none of it is good...

I don't mind paying to provide for my children, as long as i'd get regular access to them. No access == no payment.

blackmail?

Take a look at Child maintenance calculator - Child Support Agency and plug your numbers in. If you're on over £600-ish a day then (after a reasonable subtraction for tax / expenses etc) you then hit the upper threshold of £2k per week net.

If you use the calulator for one child and you hardly see them (<52 days a year) then you're on for a £1,300 whack. Thats absolute top-end in your case. See your child more - say alternate weekends and a share of school holidays - then its a £1,114 contribution.

All this is small change compared to what you'll lose in the actual financial settlement though ;-)

Inference - Pay less, pay as little as you have to.


Do you see a pattern?

[Wary]

Doesn't matter a cock. The inference, on many posts is what you could pay, rather than what you should, and thats my beef.

That you thoroughly missed it, is down to your ignorance, not mine.

As you said, but right back at ya; you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Regardless of the supposed inference of many other posts, the key point HERE is that your wild assumptions/accusations were baseless ON THIS OCCASION, because they were based solely on the fact that he said that fathers should pay a reasonable amount.

The fact that you “thoroughly missed” the key point in your last post may be down to your ignorance (not mine), but I suspect it was more down to the fact that you didn’t really have a proper answer. Regardless, your latest post didn’t specifically address my comments or attempt to counter them in any way ... so I rest my case!