have the money but dont want it to go to kids

I am also going to be blunt, whether your Ex-Wife works or not is no concern of yours. You should be paying a percentage of your wage, end of story.
Tell your new wife to stop spending and maybe buy a smaller house, if mortgage is too high.
Unbelievable.

Dereknjan.
I think you may be my ex and his new wife.
He left me 2 years ago...bought them a massive house, had a kid together within 11 months, drive new cars, foreign hols all the time, just had nice big wedding a long honeymoon and yet doesnt pay a penny maintenance because despite owning a company he does not draw a wage..he is being supported..what a laugh...I wish I could have his lifestyle on the "below £5 a week" he's supposed to be earning.
I work full time, have 5 kids at home and struggle every day financially.
Some men need stringing up.
You make a baby then it's yours for life..end of.
Get a grip you loser..and tell your present wife to stop spending...grow yourself a pair of balls!
Loux

Lou, I don't understand that. If he owns the company he should be assessed on net profit, not what he personally draws/earns. And that excludes pension contributions and any capital expenditure, so he can't pull that trick. Talk to a lawyer for an assessment.

CSA are doing criminal complaince..apparently while they are investigating no one else can alert my ex to this as he will be able to tie things up even further.
It's just taking ages though.
Lou x

To the op I reckon on £60000 gross your taking home approx £3500 a month after tax and n.i.
20% of this would be £700 a month even if you get clobbered for the tertiary education i.e university bit as well that would be £50400 over the next six years total.
What's your problem?Think of it as paying to put your daughters through uni and get them a better opportunity in life.
If they don't go to uni won't even cost you half of that.

I completely agree with your approach haway...

Derek - you really should stop seeing this is as money going to your ex-wife. This is money that your twins will benefit from. Simple.

I also had the same thoughts as Itma - I'm not sure that if I genuinely prized a 'good life' above making sure I had given to my children first.... I would actually say that out loud!!!

And so I too thought it must be a provocative statement for the purposes of stirring a debate

Shezi

Isn’t it amazing how calling it Child Support actually fools everyone into believing that this payment is made to support children?

In a well-known case recently a father was sent to prison for refusing to pay child support. They said he owed £45,000. He said that since his children spent at least as much time with him as they did with their mother he shouldn’t have to pay anything (the mother agreed).

The reality is that if he had paid what the CSA demanded only about a quarter of it would have gone to the mother (and thence to the children). The rest would have gone to the Treasury.

If he had paid, the money would have gone out of the family and impoverished the children, as it was the father spent every available penny on his children.

The realty is that ‘child support’ has nothing whatever to do with supporting children, that is best done by allowing fathers to be parents. Child support is nothing less than a tax on fatherhood. If it had been called that we wouldn’t be having this debate.

Adolf Hitler understood the sleight-of-hand the system has played on us:
“As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”