LTD company and CSA

[Zoiderman]

Sorry, I think I have shown how I argued my point and it is still pertinent; as soon as you use words like reasonable, it is negotiating; I don't agree this should be done. All you have done, is stretch out a discussion proving me right all the way along.

If you accept you should pay what you paid when together, then there is no need for the words reasonable, no? You'd simply be paying what you paid. If you start to negotiate an amount of support, to an amount which you believe would be reasonable (very subjective word no?), then you are not supporting the children as you were. Does this not follow Wary?

Now, be a good sport and look at what I said to this will you.

You're really not good at this are you.

[Zoiderman]

Here, in case you have issues:

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

[Wary]

Just a few notes here, from other posters.

Infernce - pay less

Inference - pay less

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

blackmail?

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

Do you see a pattern?

I don’t think there is any question that some fathers will get away with paying as little as possible, maybe even nothing, regardless of whether this is true of any/all of the posters you quote. I will say that “pay less” doesn’t necessary imply a desire to compromise the kids welfare to one’s own benefit. Maybe they believe that they are paying beyond what is needed for the kids and this excess is actually funding their wife’s lifestyle.

However, this is not the point that we’ve been discussing, which is whether your assumptions/accusations have substance FOR THIS PARTICULAR POSTER, based on what he said.

I can see what you’re trying to do here. You realise that your assumptions/accusations are baseless on this occasion, so now you’re trying to turn it into a more general beef on which you feel that you have more substance.

[Zoiderman]

I don’t think there is any question that some fathers will get away with paying as little as possible, maybe even nothing, regardless of whether this is true of any/all of the posters you quote. I will say that “pay less” doesn’t necessary imply a desire to compromise the kids welfare to one’s own benefit. Maybe they believe that they are paying beyond what is needed for the kids and this excess is actually funding their wife’s lifestyle.

However, this is not the point that we’ve been discussing, which is whether your assumptions/accusations have substance FOR THIS PARTICULAR POSTER, based on what he said.

I can see what you’re trying to do here. You realise that your assumptions/accusations are baseless on this occasion, so now you’re trying to turn it into a more general beef on which you feel that you have more substance.

AGAIN, Here, in case you have issues:

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

[Wary]

Sorry, I think I have shown how I argued my point and it is still pertinent; as soon as you use words like reasonable, it is negotiating; I don't agree this should be done. All you have done, is stretch out a discussion proving me right all the way along.

If you accept you should pay what you paid when together, then there is no need for the words reasonable, no? You'd simply be paying what you paid. If you start to negotiate an amount of support, to an amount which you believe would be reasonable (very subjective word no?), then you are not supporting the children as you were. Does this not follow Wary?

Now, be a good sport and look at what I said to this will you.

You're really not good at this are you.

If you were to split up with your wife and the CSA ordered you to pay 99% of income to her to support the kids, I bet you'd take the stance "hang on a sec, I'm happy to ensure that my kids are well looked after to at least the same standard as before, but the amount I pay has to be REASONABLE". Or would you just pay it because to look at it as being UNREASONABLE would be unethical on the grounds that you're starting to NEGOTIATE? An extreme scenario perhaps, but often that's what it requires in order to illustrate a point.

I can see what you're doing here, which is to talk your way out of a hole using a blend of going off at a tangent, playing with semantics and resorting to a large amount of personal abuse.

[Zoiderman]

If you were to split up with your wife and the CSA ordered you to pay 99% of income to her to support the kids, I bet you'd take the stance "hang on a sec, I'm happy to ensure that my kids are well looked after to at least the same standard as before, but the amount I pay has to be REASONABLE". Or would you just pay it because to look at it as being UNREASONABLE would be unethical on the grounds that you're starting to NEGOTIATE? An extreme scenario perhaps, but often that's what it requires in order to illustrate a point.

I can see what you're doing here, which is to talk your way out of a hole using a blend of going off at a tangent, playing with semantics and resorting to a large amount of personal abuse.

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.

So, again, I have proven my point, you have merely obfuscated, changed your angle, introduced some frankly ridiculous (and nonsensicle) figures and, if I may, started with the abuse.

So, in short, saying you want to pay what is reasonable, as to just paying what you always have, is wrong. That is my point; at the start of negotiating how much you pay, as to how much you have always paid, you are not doing what I consider right.

The quote I have used, is my original quote. I genuinely would like to see you intelligently argue that, rather than argue me. I'd like you to have a bash at that.

[Zoiderman]

So, the CSA say 12% for 1 child, 20% 2, and 25% 3.

Not really unreasonable is it?

Can't find 99% anywhere. I reckon I currently pay a lot more than this. I reckon I have an obligation to my children, to continue paying as I always have, at more than the rate of CSA

I think the issue isn't financial at all, as you already pay more than this as a parent, I would suggest. I think the issue is a little different than just the financial....

But no, it's just me.

Jesus wept, you have children, you have an obligation towards them children, and your ex partner.

You, my friend, are just arguing, to argue.

[Wary]

So, the CSA say 12% for 1 child, 20% 2, and 25% 3.

Not really unreasonable is it?

Can't find 99% anywhere. I reckon I currently pay a lot more than this. I reckon I have an obligation to my children, to continue paying as I always have, at more than the rate of CSA

I think the issue isn't financial at all, as you already pay more than this as a parent, I would suggest. I think the issue is a little different than just the financial....

But no, it's just me.

Jesus wept, you have children, you have an obligation towards them children, and your ex partner.

You, my friend, are just arguing, to argue.

As I said, I used an extreme example as that’s often the best way to illustrate a point, and it seemed that I needed all the help I could get in this case! However, I realised afterwards the folly of quoting an extreme figure as you’d undoubtedly latch on to that in order to talk you way out of answering the point in hand, which is, as a matter of principle, whether you’d personally look at it in terms of what is “reasonable” if you got badly and unfairly squeezed by the CSA (which you've described as a “flawed” system).

How prophetic I am!

[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.

[BrilloPad]

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