|
|
|
|
|
| |
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 3:53:12 PM | Sorry, but that is a very generalized stereotypical statement. This is 2009, not 1959, and less pay for equal work is illegal now as far as I know. There are certain career paths that are a lot more gender bias, of which many are lower earning types of careers typically filled by women.
Jobs like waitressing, housekeeping, secretarial, etc. seem to be filled by women mostly, but that does not mean that those are the jobs they must do. Hell, I was a waiter for over a year back when and I was constantly referred to as a waitress as many people weren't used to seeing a man in that type of job. I didn't receive a penny more than my female co-workers though. Just because a lot of other women work in lower earning jobs doesn't mean that they are in away restricted from higher earning career paths.
In my industry, construction, women are provided with more services and facilities than men are in an effort to try and increase female participation in the trades. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 3:53:21 PM | It is almost unheard of that a wife stays home for any length of time, at most until the youngest reaches school age the economics just do not allow it.
So another problem lies in the no fault divorce scenario. She would need no reason for filing other than I feel like it and a man would essentially be sustaining her lifestyle unless he could actuall get a 50/50 split on custody.
It is happenening more but it is an uphill fight for a father whereas a woman just has to be a woman.
Even if we had to somehow increase legal aid to help It might be in our best interests to go back to the old style of divorce. It could get ugly but would cut down on frivilous marraiges thus cutting down on custodt and cs battles in the long run.
There are currently more people living single then at any other time in our history so it seems that skipping the having kids and just go straight to the living alone for life may be what is sought after. A lot less headaches. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 3:55:18 PM |
How about the recipient get a better career? Not trying to be solely argumentative, but I believe the system is set up to support mediocrity in some cases.
In Canada Thatusernameistaken, you had already mentioned that the CS is based only on the payers income so the recipient's income has nothing to do with it.
IMO Both incomes should be looked at but thats not how its done in Canada.
If you are talking about alimony and there is no reason why the recipient cant get a better job then I can see your point and I completely agree. (get off your lazy butt)
If the recipient was a house wife that hasn't worked at all for many years or has only worked minimum wage jobs with not education and the payer has a high paying career, then the recipient after the break up can go to school and the payer has to fork over the bills for school for the ex as well as alimony costs. Because now the recipient has to be reeducated.
Once the recipient is reeducated there shouldn't be any reason for them not to get a job and the alimony should stop.
(I thought this thread was about CS) | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 4:00:11 PM | | It might be illegal but it still happens. I was reading not too long ago all about it in Cosmopolitan magazine. They were listing the trades, and the stats on how much men in each trade get paid and how much women get paid. Men by far made more for equal work. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 4:00:45 PM | The guidelines are just that - guidelines. The amount of household income (and therefore household expenses) will be taken into account if the parents take it to the next level. (ie, before the courts).
If a parent has sole custody, and the other parent doesn't contribute (ie care) for the child, what difference does it make what the receiver makes? If parent A makes $50,000, and Parent B makes $25,000 but never cares for the child, why shouldn't they pay? If it creates an undue hardship, there is an avenue to balance that out then.
And likewise, if both share custody, 50 50 down the line, (lets say week on week off, both have a bedroom for the child(ren) etc, then both incomes are taken into account, with whatever the difference is ending up to be the paying amount. (This also depends on the parents being civil to divulge the info). | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 4:30:46 PM | I have nevercome accross any woman ever being paid less for the same work.
Like you thatusername I was in the restaurant biz and I can tell you I as a man had to be that much better at it to even come close to what a woman would earn in tips, if she even halfway decent looking or better, guys would throw money at them. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 5:23:40 PM | child support is bullcrap. if a woman did not have children she would still need...a house, a car, gas in the car, food (and let's face it if you make hamburger helper for 3 instead of 1 how much more is that really), she needs electricity even if alone, water, and cable tv. so what is child support really. let's say the kids have 200 dollars every 6 months in new clothes. 150 extra a month for food, 200 for extra curricular activies a year. let's say 50 dollars more in gas to drive them a month here and back to soccer practice. 50 a month for school lunches. so a person needs a house, car, electricity, water, gas in there in tank, anyway without children. so roughly the incremental cost of raising a child is about 3,000 dollars a year. now, the ex is responsible for let's say 40% of it. so the guy should pay 60% of that incremental cost of raising a kid. so about 1700 a year. or about 140 dollars a month. now if there is daycare for a toddler then he should pay half that cost or 300 max more a month so about 440 max a month. now if the child is a teenager, then there is no law that says that dad has to pay if they want a cell phone or a car or car insurance. those are luxuries and i had to work for that when i was a teenager. so that shouldn't be computed.
so barring extenuating circumstances like your child has multiple personality disorder and needs hospitalization child support is a free income to the mother. now if she says well she doesn't work well......i bet she would have to if the ex died now wouldn't she? everyone needs to work but not if they are rewarded for not working.
so i don't mind child support but the whole calculation is all screwed up. people need the basics without children and there is such a thing as saying "no" to a child or not dragging him to the doctor every second for a sniffle and making the ex pay for it. if they were single and no child support or still in a husband and wife marriage they would say....think the kid is sick enough to go...we really can't afford it. but because they can...they drag them, hold out their hand and say i can do what i want so pay up.
some women don't get any money. and i think that sucks. but the majority that do based on the calculations, you know you're ripping people off. no worse than the banking industry right now. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 6:47:53 PM |
It might be illegal but it still happens. I was reading not too long ago all about it in Cosmopolitan magazine. They were listing the trades, and the stats on how much men in each trade get paid and how much women get paid. Men by far made more for equal work.
Well take home pay and per hour are two different things....
full time hours are based on...in Canada a 36 hr work week....so the whiners...the feminists who complain about the income disparity talk about someone working 36hrs...and compare i to some tradesman who works 60 hrs...and suggests they get paid the same???? | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:40:37 PM |
Tealwood you have obvious issues towards women but that doesn't give you the right to come into a forum and try to steal the thread by bashing the women in it. We are not your ex's, don't treat us as such. Getting back to the topic at hand........................................... So dad has a high quality of life, how would one increase the quality of life for a child living with mom and not expect it to benefit mom. Do you think mom is going to eat kraft dinner while across the table babe is eating steak and lobster? Of course it will benefit mom too, I'm not saying it wouldn't. Or is it better to have Dad in a mansion eating Steak and Lobster while mom and child are eating craft dinner all because dad is spiteful. LOL...what happened to your arguement about they both earned $2,000 per month or $22,000 per year...or $24,000....and then went to the fall back $80,000 and $20,000? I would suggest the father is required to pay cs to support his children...But then the question is required to be asked....why would he marry some bimbo who is unable to actually earn an income? And why is this woman not capable of actually earning an income...perhaps she just figures she can get by on her good looks...or she as a woman feels entitled to being taken care of by a man...nothing better than watching some woman who at 20's was the cat meow...and had everything...and the guys would do anything for....when they reach 30 something...they find the " bloom " is waning and can no longer get the guys to fall over themselves...to please her... Now I would have thought that you had integrity...pride...that you were actually capable or earning your own income...????as opposed to living of the avails of some man...I think there is an occupations that has done that....but then they actually earn an income... I refuse to get into another flaming war with some man who thinks yet again they are above everyone else.
You were not in my relationships, so you do not know what happened, being beaten, my daughter being beaten, being cheated on is NOT MY FAULT, nor is it any other womans fault. If you think we deserve it then you seriously have issues.
How come your single? Must be your fault eh? Very lame....very cheap....I was contacted by victim services and given a referral...but it seems they service did not accept men.....the reality was...I allowed the abuse....the physical assault to occur and the verbal and emotional garbage to escalate and be part of the relationship. That was something I allowed. But then i reached a point where i would no longer allow or tolerate it. Why am I single. Because I choose it. Or perhaps because I am unable to attract decent woman or good looking woman. You can come up with whatever comment you feel best suits your need for an answer. But part of the reason I am single is attributed to me..or my choices. The problems that was part of my marriage was my doing. I allowed it to occur because I felt I was not good enough for anything better...or I was unable to get anything better. That was my problem or my issue's in allowing the problem or the verbal emotional assault to occur. When it became physical and i allowed it to occur because it never actually physically hurt...then again it was my fault because I allowed or enabled the physical assault. Then there was a day when I realized that i did not care...I did not care what happened..i did care what the response might be...and i ended the marriage. Not because i was hurt or afraid of being hurt...i was afraid that I no longer cared about getting into trouble if I retaliated. My issues..or my own lack of self confidence in who i was allowed or enabled my ex to physically assaulted me...when she felt anger..or her depression/anger boiled over. Bottom line...you suggest 4 destructive relationships....you need to look in a mirror and realize that you are equally responsible in that you attract that type of man....or you are equally part of the relationship in respect to where it breaks down. I walked away. I realized that I did not need a relationship to be happy. I am satisfied being single if the relationship or partner is not what i am looking for. Who cares if you are cheated on. The reality is the relationship was not what you thought it was...if they are cheating...and then the reality is...it is you...not the ex who made the miscalculation. At the end...i am sure my ex cheated...and who cares. I never did...I later realized the only considerations i needed to worry about was myself. There are more than a few woman on this site who i have great admiration and respect for.....you just are not one of them as you seem to have this affection for hiding behind the victim label. A self confident independent individual who is capable of earning and forging their own way in life does need someone else to support or provide for them or their children. A user...a leach or someone who looks for someone else to provide for them..someone who is unable to actually provide for themself and their children are then perhaps more inclined to tolerate or enable this situation...because they need someone else to pay or provide because they are themselves unable to do so for them,self....so yes...they are just as responsible. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:51:36 PM | Matariki....Once again How can a women can't even make more then 3000/Annam so that she can receive the Working family benefit??????????????That's interesting.
Second ...If 9600 Tax credit does not make any difference , then why you oppose it when I suggested that the CS payer should Get it. Obviously it does make a huge difference.
For all the Females who are complaining about the wage difference....There are a lot of Female CEO's who are running the companies, somehow they have never complained about the wage issue.......Wow Interesting for example the CEO of Pepsi is a female.
Rest assured..The jobs are allocated to the qualified Candidates. Every immigrant has faced this situation but rather then complaining about it they went and update themselves to qualify for the better jobs.
This CS issue is a Major issue for every one. The only way to resolve is that " Don't have something one don't need".... That's it Love , live and enjoy the life. Have it with some one with honesty and dignity and advise him of it, then there will be lesser problem about it. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:52:19 PM |
Well take home pay and per hour are two different things....
full time hours are based on...in Canada a 36 hr work week....so the whiners...the feminists who complain about the income disparity talk about someone working 36hrs...and compare i to some tradesman who works 60 hrs...and suggests they get paid the same????
To my knowledge, there is a VOLUME of diverse studies about the differences between woman and men income, and all of these studies are comparing apple with apples. They are comparing what a man would do as a tradesman at 60 hours a week compared to what woman would do in the same exact position - just as they compare men and women in lawyer positions, office work, managerial positions, etc. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:07:33 PM | V_C let me clarify, I didn't mean they can only make $3000 I meant that as that is the amount they have to make before they qualify for the working income benefit. S0 if they make under the $3000 they don't qualify for it. I don't know why that is what the site states.
Why should the CS payer get a tax credit that is for the person that the child resides with?
And as I stated many times, everyone who does an income tax gets to claim their basic amount which is the 9600 you refer to. If you are single and have a child you get to claim equivalnt to spouse, if you are common law or married with children you claim the child credit. So either way the child credit gets claimed married or not. Even you get to claim a basic amount on your tax return and other deductions, shall we say you can't because of some stupid reason.
As I said I don't get CS and probably never will, but if instead of giving me money he bought diapers and stuff my son needed I would be totally fine with that, however, that wouldn't happen because he does not want to.
And V_C just a question, what should one do about the men that run around and have children with many different women. Maybe casterate them? That would solve some of the problems, as women are not solely to blame in this.
And also it isn't just some women who put the cs on stuff for them. My sisters ex has her two kids, the child tax goes to big screen tvs, guitars, game systems for him etc, very little is spent on the two kids. She is constantly paying for stuff for them, so men do it to. My sister isn't a bad person either she was very ill with cancer he got the kids and very rarely lets her see them. He lives at home with mummy has no job either. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:15:07 PM | Tealwood
LOL...what happened to your arguement about they both earned $2,000 per month or $22,000 per year...or $24,000....and then went to the fall back $80,000 and $20,000?
These were two different made up scenarios, try to follow the conversation will you.
I would suggest the father is required to pay cs to support his children...But then the question is required to be asked....why would he marry some bimbo who is unable to actually earn an income? And why is this woman not capable of actually earning an income...perhaps she just figures she can get by on her good looks...or she as a woman feels entitled to being taken care of by a man...nothing better than watching some woman who at 20's was the cat meow...and had everything...and the guys would do anything for....when they reach 30 something...they find the " bloom " is waning and can no longer get the guys to fall over themselves...to please her...
Again this is another example of your issue’s not mine and so is the rest of your message #135.
My personal scenario is never mentioned and you have no grounds to assume what I’m like in life.
V_C
If 9600 Tax credit does not make any difference , then why you oppose it when I suggested that the CS payer should Get it
We have already discussed this. There is no such credit for $9600 or the $2000 you had mentioned in other threads. Just ask any parent or non parent here.
Is it possible to stick to the topic at hand. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:24:33 PM | Diamond - This thread is about CS, what I am saying is that I feel the table amounts go above and beyond child support (outside of low income situations) and that the extra money is actually used as spousal support but is under the guise of child support. I was mentioning the recipients income as it relates to balancing a perceived "quality of living" standard.
Carterscutie - No offense, but you are quoting "facts" from a woman's magazine whose current headline is "What you always wanted to know about talking dirty". That's equivalent to me quoting Maxim for information on menopause. I have been in the construction industry since I was 17 and I have worked for women, worked along side women and have had them work for me. In not a single situation EVER was a woman ever paid less than a man, nor have I ever even heard of such a thing. I'll take 1st hand information over a puff magazine any day of the week. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:08:08 PM | | The formula here is based on both incomes - they figure what both make combinesd and the % that should go to child, then what percent of that is paid by who based on ind incomes. In some cases, if the custodial parent's income goes up, cs might also based on the childs standard of living going up. It sounds really wierd and complicated, but most of the time I think it's reasonable. I make 30,000, my ex makes 60,000. For 2 kids I get $600 and 75% of medical. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:14:11 PM | Sorry, but that is a very generalized stereotypical statement. This is 2009, not 1959, and less pay for equal work is illegal now as far as I know. There are certain career paths that are a lot more gender bias, of which many are lower earning types of careers typically filled by women.
Last year our local paper here said that idaho women make 60% of what men make. It may not always show in the sense of same job, seniority, etc though. The issue is usually more like its harder for women to get the same jobs (especially if they have kids) and harder to keep them because women miss work more than men especially if a child has serious health conditions. Less seniority = less pay. Of course we are a little backwards here - due to religion we have a really high rate of moms that don't have careers. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:47:41 PM | Okay, I actually had the opportunity to write a paper on this when I was in school. I found some very interesting facts, unfortunately, I don't remember my sources.
There is no such thing as the glass ceiling anymore. That is true. There are plenty of women CEOs, CFOs, COOs, on boards of directors, etc. But ask any single one of them what they had to give up to get there. I guarantee they don't have good family lives. They may have children, they may be married, but for most of these women they had to choose which would come first, their career or their family and they chose their career. I am not faulting that. That is their choice.
next to note, several studies have been done that compare jobs that are typically male and typically female and the amount of money paid in each job. The example on e particular study used was a painter's helper and a secretary. These are obviously 2 completely different jobs, but both jobs required approximately the same amount of education and actual labor. But a secretary is obviously more commonly a woman while a painter's helper is more commonly a man. That being said, women, on the average, earned 70% of what men earned. This does not mean that of both a man and woman were painter's helpers the man would be making 30% more than the woman. That is actually extremely illegal here in the states. It just means that positions that are more typically assigned as being a "woman's job" tend to pay less than those typical assigned to men.
There is no need to start flaming me for this post. I am well aware that a painter's helper may seem like a more labor intensive position than a secretary and therefor should require a higher pay. I cannot honestly say that one is worth more than the other as I have never been either. I am just restating the facts that I discovered.
I think Stacey has a very good point, also. In this economy and culture, single mothers have a very difficult time finding work simply because they are single parents. The employers have to be concerned with reliability and such. Once again, there is nothing wrong with a company doing that. That is just smart business. But at the same time it does contribute to women making less money than men.
*steps off soapbox* Sorry I know that whole thing was completely off topic, so I will shut up now....
 | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 11:40:49 PM |
This does not mean that of both a man and woman were painter's helpers the man would be making 30% more than the woman. That is actually extremely illegal here in the states. It just means that positions that are more typically assigned as being a "woman's job" tend to pay less than those typical assigned to men.
Actually, it's not only that.
In the corporate world, salary is based on a position level (for instance, manager level 1, manager level 2, etc..) and each position level is assigned a "middle point" salary. But there is a large gap between the minimal amount of pay and the maximal amount of pay someone can get at the same position. It depends on negotiation skills at the time of hire, as well as experience, and many other factors.
Many studies have pointed out that woman in managerial positions are often offered a salary that starts lower from the middle point - resulting in lower salaries and advantages for woman. Also, woman tend to HAVE to have a lot more diplomas and experience than men to reach certain higher positions. Yes, this is less and less true today as more salary equity laws are put into place to prevent this, but it's still very much the case in the corporate world. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/28/2009 11:44:43 PM | I have an example of how men are paid better then women in some jobs.
I worked at a fish plant for a bit and when I was hired I was getting $8/hour, the same as all the women that was hired there. There was approximately the same amount of men as there was women employed. At the time I had no idea what the men were getting to start until my BF at the time got a job there. He was doing the same job as me in fact we stood beside each other on the line. He started at 11.50/hour and after that we started to talk to other employee's we found out that all the men started higher then the women for no reason.
Yes I know, off topic.
Getting back to the child support thing.
Earlier on in the thread I made up a scenario were the babe's bills for the month were $750. Tealwood brought up that the Universal Child Care Benefit should be shared by both parents in order to offset the cost of the child expense then split the difference.
So what if this happens? Mom is very lucky; (which majority of people are not) she gets all kinds of handouts. Say she lives in Ontario and she is getting…
Contribution to Babe's bills
277 Canada Child Tax Benefit
+100 Universal Child Care Benefit
+100 Ontario Child Benefit
+214 CPP Children benefit
+200 Grand Parents Contribution (Rich grand parents want to help out.)
=891.00
My earlier scenario suggests the babe’s cost being $750/month. With this scenario she is getting $891.00 and so more then the childs expense. I haven’t even added dad’s contribution yet. So Daddy Tealwood sees this as off setting the cost of babe and says “Well you don’t need any more so I’m not giving you any more”. So daddy Tealwood takes off and does nothing to contribute and just walks away from his responsibilities.
So Tealwood according to you does this entitle a non-custodial parent to walk out on the financial responsibilities?
Or better yet…lol…since the hands outs should be shared does she owe you half of the $141.00 left over? | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/29/2009 2:13:47 AM | I love the selective math and reasoning some single disgruntled Dad's use as a template to complain.
When it gets to the point a single parent is receiving thae max tax benefits and credits to support her children, it really says something about the Father who should be helping to provide for the costs of those kids.
I know for a FACT that any and all daycare expenses and extra cirricular activity expenses paid by the NCP are tax deductable for the father if he chooses to pay them according to the equalized calculations.
For a parent to receive $108.00(or whatever it is) for the working family tax credit, that parent needs to be one or more of the following in order to qualify:
A) not receiving subsidy
B) dosen't receive extra ordinary expenses with support from father
C) earns less than $20.000 but more than $5,000 (below the poverty line I believe)
D) claims child care expenses on their annual tax return
****keeping in mind this benefit is only available until the child reaches age 7
The $100.00 universal tax credit is paid to EVERY FAMILY who has a child under the age of 7...and is required to be declared as INCOME at tax time by every canadian who receives it.
As far as the CTCB is concerned...the amount will depend on the amount of child care a parent with custody pays and claims for daycare expenses.
If the Dad isn't paying his fair share....he gets none of the deductions....not to say he would see a tax credit even if he claims it because in most cases his income is primarily the higher of the two parents.
So forgive me if i don't have much sympathy when men complain about why some single parent women get the max child tax benefits...because it is really an example or illistration of how badly men have behaved and copped out when it comes to providing for their own flesh and blood.
I have seen many NCP Dad's suggest that they share the tax deductions to maximize or gain the available tax credits available....how sad is that?....It all comes down to dollars and cents dosen't it?.....NCP's dollars and the CP sense....pardon the pun... | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:15:41 AM | | Good one lizbeth that is what I have been trying to say all along with the tax credits thing. V_C will most likely be in here this morning trying to discredit you as he thinks we are lying about how much we get. A whole thread was deleted over his rants. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:56:24 AM | child support is bullcrap. if a woman did not have children she would still need...a house, a car, gas in the car, food (and let's face it if you make hamburger helper for 3 instead of 1 how much more is that really), she needs electricity even if alone, water, and cable tv. so what is child support really. let's say the kids have 200 dollars every 6 months in new clothes. 150 extra a month for food, 200 for extra curricular activies a year. let's say 50 dollars more in gas to drive them a month here and back to soccer practice. 50 a month for school lunches. so a person needs a house, car, electricity, water, gas in there in tank, anyway without children. so roughly the incremental cost of raising a child is about 3,000 dollars a year. now, the ex is responsible for let's say 40% of it. so the guy should pay 60% of that incremental cost of raising a kid. so about 1700 a year. or about 140 dollars a month. now if there is daycare for a toddler then he should pay half that cost or 300 max more a month so about 440 max a month. now if the child is a teenager, then there is no law that says that dad has to pay if they want a cell phone or a car or car insurance. those are luxuries and i had to work for that when i was a teenager. so that shouldn't be computed.
So its crap but before daycare I was allotted $200 a month. Which is pretty damn close to what you deem reasonable. After daycare it went up to I think like $700 a month. Keep in mind that this was due mainly to his arrears he had accrued because he felt $200 was too much to pay. I think at least $200 a month was for arrears. So lets say it jumped to $500 a month. So again, $300 dollars a month for the daycare expense. And this is the norm for how child support goes around here. I don't know who all these women are who are getting this extravagant amount of money that all you bitter ass men are whining about but I doubt it is as common as you would make it out to be. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/29/2009 9:16:22 AM |
I don't know who all these women are who are getting this extravagant amount of money
There are many, many people who pay or receive high CS amounts. You use the word "extravagant" to describe these higher amounts. One of the things I have been trying to quantify in this thread is how much money is "extravagant" and how much is legit for costs.
all you bitter ass men are whining about
I understand that you're pissed at a few of the people posting, but I feel that all people should try not to generalize. I for one do not feel that I am "whining"; I would like to make sure that child support is just child support and not alimony. There are separate rules for alimony, and it should be separated entirely from any child support amounts.
I doubt it is as common as you would make it out to be.
Who knows. I've never seen the stats on what the average awarded amount of CS is, I doubt it is even tracked like that. | |
|
| An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 10/29/2009 9:24:01 AM |
child support is bullcrap. if a woman did not have children she would still need...a house...
Many people live in apartments, not houses. It takes a down payment to have a house. If you live in an apartment, you may have to upgrade from a 1 room apartment to a two room apartment, because you need a room for the child. That's a significant rent increase.
a car, gas in the car...
Without a kid, you can manage very well on public transport. Some people with kids have no choice but to manage on public transport even though it's hell to do so, because they don't have the money. A car is expansive as hell, if you include the cost of the car, insurance, license, registration, and gas, not to mention repairs. With a kid, especially a infant who must be transported in a special crib, you may not have the choice to get a car.
food (and let's face it if you make hamburger helper for 3 instead of 1 how much more is that really)
Have you ever had to purchase food for a newborn or an infant? Baby formula? Baby food? The first years are VERY expensive on food. It's only when the kid starts eating the same thing you eat that the cost returns to normal. But that's only for a few years, because when they reach adolescence, they eat more than 2 adults. That hamburger helper would have lasted 2 other meals using Tupperware and a microwave, but no longer.
she needs electricity even if alone, water, and cable tv.
Agreed for water and mostly for electricity, although in cold countries like in Canada, where you have to pay for heating you may end up heating more because you want your baby to be warm and comfy. I know of many people here in Canada who don't have kids, and they also don't heat enough in winter because it's too expansive. As for cable TV? Not everyone has cable TV, but I agree that this is luxury and unrequired.
let's say the kids have 200 dollars every 6 months in new clothes.
Did you go for some cloth shopping recently? I don't know about this where you live, but here a single adult jeans is $50 and if you throw in a couple of shirts, you are already blowing your $200 budget. Yet with an infant who is GROWING up, you have to buy shoes, pants, shirts, underwear, winter coat, hat, gloves, socks.. and you need at least 2 or 3 of each because it gets dirty REALLY fast (can you say puke? mud?) and you may have to change for new ones every few months: when the baby is 0-3 months, when it is 3-6 months, when it's 6-12 months, and so on. Thankfully, people have come up with used-cloth cooperatives and you can have help for this. But make no mistake: this is a HUGE expense.
so what is child support really?
Hum. What about toys? decoration and furniture for his room? Do you have any idea how expensive diapers can be on the long run? I am not even counting health care (because here in Canada at least it is free), medication cost when they get sick (and they will, especially when in daycare centers), plus you have to add the cost of extra curricular activities and the cost of daycare center themselves, babysitters, equipment for school (books, notepads, furniture) ...
And I am sure I forgot many other costs.
Raising a kid isn't cheap. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 21
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 |
|
Home
login 
