|
|
|
|
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:25:08 AM |
The payments should be made to the CHILD. In the childs name. Into an account that the CP has access to.
The NCP does not get taxed for this payment.
The CP does not get taxed for this payment.
The CHILD gets taxed for this payment.
If a couple is together, you earn income, pay tax on it and then from the remainder, you support your children. I don't get how that is different when split up : you earn income, pay tax on it and then use some to support your child. I think it is just because you have to give the money to the CP that is the rub..since it bleeds into the whole issue of how and for what the CP is using it (and I am not saying there is no merit to those issues). Child Support does not and should not go to child - children are supported with money from adults - not 'their' money | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:41:01 AM | The child support issue is a sensitive area. The thing I think I hear and experience personally is that parents as well as I pay on time all the time and then when the child comes to their home they are in ragged shoes and sometimes less than appealing clothes. I don't know about anyone else, but I pay a substanstial amount and to see my ex driving a Jaguar (me in a Honda Accord) and my son in tattered rags sometimes lights a fire under my rear. In addition, her and her new husband live with her mother and she does not work by choice.
The hardest thing is seeig their child together ALWAYS dressed very well. She is a girl and I know mom's like to play dress up and style their child as themselves but I think kids at a certain age see the inequity.
For instance, my ex's husband has 2 kids outside the home one the same age as my son. He purchased cell phones for his kids and yet refused to get one for my son. So when they are altogether 2 have cell phones one doesn't, the non bio child. That to me is infuriating. I hurt fr my own child. If the kids are the same age they should all have the same lifestyle. I addressed the issue and they said if you want him to have one you pay for it. So I did! Not that I don't feel it was necessary as I do call him daily and this way no MOM to take her daily frustrations out on me but this is what I mean about inequity. The custodial parent has ALL the power and manipulates the NCP through the child.
My point is being the non bio child in a family is a tough deal. I experienced the same crap. Basketball season my step mom took me to Kmart and bought me cheapies and my step (her son) Adidas, I remember in vividly to this very day and resent her deeply for these things. That messes with a kid . There are so many inequities in my son's situation it hurts me. I do not point these out to him but try having a discussion with his mom. This goes nowhere.
My point is the money should have to be spent on the kid or saved for their college. I already see that train coming down the tracks. I ask should a dad who pays 4 figures in support be asked and tortured into paying for half of camps, half of sports fees, have to buy shoes, coats, school clothes, etc? I thought that was what support was for. The tides are truly agaisnt anyone who is remotely successful as with each raise the support goes up. I end up with the same disposable income after taxes and benefit none from improving my income. Whoever tells you it takes 15,000 a year to raise a child and then add in the 1/2 fees for everything else is out of their minds. I see families of 4 with incomes of well less than 15K after tax for each family member.
I do applaud the people who raise their kids without help. I despise deadbeat parents. I just think I should be given the ability to have some kind of life as well. Hell I would like a Corvette, BMW or a Mercedes and with what I make that should be a cinch, but not given the ever escalating costs I pay each year. The inequity, strife and manipulation is sometimes what makes dad's walk away. I would never dream of it but I have seen siyuations where the mother verbally assaults the dad on dropoffs (yes in front of the child) and this is the custodial parent deemed the fitter of the 2 parents due to their sex? I tried to get custody of my son due to his om's instability)my son 11 in 5th school thru 6th grade) and it cost a fortune and they laughed at me. They basically said unless she is dead, found with a needle in her arm (and given numerous chances to rehab) or found to beating or not feeding the kid, I could forget ever dreaming about custody. This view is just wrong. The gentleman who referred to it as entitlement is correct. I see women who have targeted men with good jobs, have kids by three or 4 of them and never work a day in their lives living on the support. This is outrageous to me but the programs are so lucrative now I guess why not lay down once and get a 22-23 year annuity? This is sad to me.
It is almost a disincentive to strive for further success and it certainly is a strain in any new relationship. I do not have a problem paying the support it is all the other things on top of it that anger me. I know you say don't pay. Guess what? I tried that with camps after I didn't get half from her for sending my son to a famous baseball camp. No equity in these situations. She held him out of camp for 2 weeks and he was bummed. So I paid of course. This type of manipulation is constant and this is why men are so careful and cautious the second time through. We become gun shy! | |
|
babs3
|
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 53 | |
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:37:29 AM | Wow Spider....a whole new can of worms!....and I really like the way you laid them on the plate!.........presentation is everything!
Hiya scruld....I missed ya!...and if you are mocking me a bit....I gotta respect that....at least I know you are reading my posts!
So where to start.....I guess it is only fair to start with the OP (spider)....I am curious why it is you feel the need to gather support for your personal view before expressing it in this particular thread? When you state "there are no wrong answers here" in your post, clearly you have designated yourself an impartial moderator of this discussion.
You have to pick a role and stick with it....at least in one thread!!......You can't please everyone all the time and appeal to all sides...(unless you are a NDP supporter!)...There are clearly three sides to this type of debate...his side...her side....and in the middle the truth! You can't pick a sides halfway through the discussion!
Now back to scruld....I always love reading your posts. I like the way you debate and I have alot of respect for alot of your arguements. However, the drama factor you display sometimes with what you are "subjected" too dosen't fly with me! You pay support...on a guideline....and if your ex was a billionaire....you would still have to pay basic support! Now granted, I am sure your extra cirricular activities go up in portion if your ex makes less than you do....except....that is your deduction!...FYI...the government has issued a $500 credit to parents who have their children enrolled in physical activities for 2007...I would be happy to send you the thread regarding the specifics.....and before you say...you don't get that deduction because.....well it's because you make to much money! You will get no sympathy from me if that is your current circumstance!
The basic neccessity's of life cost money...heat...btw prices soared here in Ontario the last year....hydro....that also went way up....water...taxes..(even rentals are affected by property taxes).....oh yeah....food....lol........kids generally do like to eat! So, if you as comitted to the arguement you have scruld, would you go as far to deny your children these basic needs....even if it was only 10% of the time they had to spend at your ex's?
This arguement of mine sounds kinda silly now dosen't it?.....well that is how your arguement sounds to me! It is ludicrous to me that any NCP demand the control over where child support is spent.
Okay...moving onto lyrical girl...I am dissapointed to say the least. Your post about turning over custody to a NCP if a CP parent couldn't afford to put food on the table hit a hot button with me. Lemme turn this around and ask you if a NCP can afford to take care of those kids...why is it they can't support those same kids in some kind of similiar fashion while the kids reside with their origional CP? Anyone notice a common thread here yet?.....I'll save it for my summation....
I will say, I am a single Mom who works part-time. I have made the choice to stay home to be here for my kids. I do recieve various tax credits because my net income is lower than the average middle class person. I have paid my dues and taxes for several years and have earned an income over the middle class average at one time. For the one's who crab about people like me living off "your" taxes....here is my response....It just makes good business sense! I could go back to my full-time job making 45k+ ....like I was before I made the choice to stay home...but...why?....why should I pick a fulltime job over my kids childhood when the finacial result is almost even when you compare them?
Before this turns into a novel (and I am afraid it already has!)....I want to point out to everyone going through a CP issue with their ex.....It all comes down to control or lack of it...in most cases....It tick's me off to read posts where someone feels the need to make an immediate judgement after reading only one paragraph...and I will admitt I have been guilty of that in the past....but like I have said before....there are three sides to every story! | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:04:57 AM | as cp, i understand the finacial prospect of raising children. while i do not work in the traditional sence of going out to a job, i do look at raising my children as a full time job.
i am in this exact situation. i have 3 children by 2 men. my oldest daughters father sends child support and sees her alomst every weekend. my younger 2 father is pretty much the defintion of "dead beat" . i dont mean it out of malice as he moved out of state on our daughter birthday and has only seen our baby once in the 6 months she has been alive. i guess i am one of the lucky ones as my ex comes around and spends time with alll of the children. i would have to say yes, there is some biast when it comes to how the ncp handles thier relationship with thier child(ren). if they act like they want nothing to do with them, and also refuse to pay cs, yes im going to be a bit more resrictive with that one. if your not going to see or spend time with your child, then you shoudl help to support them. i would rather them be there as thier parent then pay me any money. as an example, my one ncp is suppost to pay over $800 a month cs, but becouse he does spend the weekends here, i dont care that he only pays $200.
i think it has alot to do with the person. some people look at aonther persons kids and thinks, " its not mine. so i dont have to be anything to it". if the child is in the situation that mine are, as one father ignores his children, it can be very hurtfull for them. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:05:49 AM | f a couple is together, you earn income, pay tax on it and then from the remainder, you support your children.
Can you show me why this plan is a problem? A flaw? Anyone getting an unfair benefit of this? Anyone getting an unfair "burden" our of this? i think not.
The CP gets the tax advantages because the NCP is paying taxes, plus the tax advantages of " having custody" .. does that make sence? i pay my half of the expences and she gets 100% of the benefits? How many people here spend $2300 a month on thier kids "lifestyle"?
And if a couple is together, they make JOINT decisions on that money and .. oh yes.. SHARE THE TAX ADVANTAGES OF HAVING KIDS , the tax breaks, the tax incentives and the tax cuts, which the NCP no long has.
The percentages are skewed as well. I can tell you when we were togehter, we wernt spending $2300 on the kids "portion" of things.. but once we split thats what i am expected to cover?
But where is the burden in this plan? NO ONE gets hit with a "Tax Burden" which is the whole reason it was changed in the first place.. right...? AND in Canada the CP is the CHILDS right.. it is owed TO THE CHILD, which is why a NCP parent can't sign away responcibility to the CP and walk away ever. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:22:34 AM | | don't forget that the CP earns money, pays tax on it and then uses some of that to support the child - so I think it is fair all around: both parties are taxed on their own income and all money used to support children (CPs and NCPs contribution) is after-tax. seems fair to me. | |
|
babs3
|
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 57 | |
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:22:35 AM | to not done living....
In Canada....if you pay over and above CP in regards to extra expenses at 100%.....you ARE the one entitled to claim it! If your ex has the extra cirricular activities inflated to cause you to pay more....it is up too you to provide evidence contradicting what she is claiming! You can't whine about something that could easily be rectified if you had the proper documentation. It's like someone whining over the newly elected goverment when they didn't vote!! ..........sheesh! | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:58:38 AM |
Can you show me why this plan is a problem? A flaw? Anyone getting an unfair benefit of this? Anyone getting an unfair "burden" our of this? i think not.
Let's explore this.
if NCP's child support payment goes to child, would the child owe tax on it?
If yes, then the child support is taxed and the CP is receiving less money - effectively, the CP is being taxed.
If no, that means NCP didn't pay tax on the money and neither did the child so it is a total tax break. Do married people who raise children get to do this? Apply some of their income as untaxed 'child income'? If not, there is your unfair benefit and one which rewards divorce.
AND in Canada the CP is the CHILDS right.. it is owed TO THE CHILD, which is why a NCP parent can't sign away responcibility to the CP and walk away ever.
In the US, it is owed to the CP 'on behalf of' the child
as to tax breaks etc, I dont know Canadian Tax Law. In the US, there is a 'deduction' for dependant children. The statute says (paraphrasing) that the deduction goes to the parent who is providing the greatest (51%) of support and is presumed to be custodial and burden of proof to the contrary on NCP. However, statute recognizes that Court can assign deductions which often occurs (NCP can claim deduction for this child and CP for that one)
In the final analysis, I contend that unless any plan provides the same tax relief for a married couple raising children than it does for the CP/NCP, it is unfair. Parents paying tax on all income (same as do those of us with no children to raise) is a fundamental fairness; then a special deduction for dependant children.
The percentages are skewed as well. I can tell you when we were togehter, we wernt spending $2300 on the kids "portion" of things.. but once we split thats what i am expected to cover?
Isn't that really a different issue to your tax issue? | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 9:24:56 AM | Here is another query to throw into the wind. What about a mom/dad who has multiple children with multiple partners... Say 1 parent is paying support, the other is not. Should that persons child receive more perks then the other? Or should it just be expected they will get treated equally with the money provided?
I have this very same problem, my ex has 2 children from other relationships and I honestly dont have a problem with her using the money to take care of the the house and kids. What I do have a problem with is that she has not had my kid in over a year and I'm still paying cs. I have contacted the state of FL and they just keep moving the court date so she can argue her case but she's in jail and its not a criminal matter so they wont take her to court. So I'll just keep my son home with me and keep paying cs. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 10:32:06 AM |
Should that persons child receive more perks then the other
I know that CS isnt always the fair amount but in 'theory', the NCP should be contributing his/her share for necessities. "Perks" - the NCP and CP should be able to buy perks outside of child support. NCP shouldnt have to fund CP with movie money for example. NCP should have movie money and take child. of course, theory and real life are far apart.
As to necessities, face it - CP is going to feed and clothe each child. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 10:58:32 AM | "well that is how your arguement sounds to me! It is ludicrous to me that any NCP demand the control over where child support is spent"
I know we spoken of this issue before in other threads. I don't see a NCP concern over how the child support is spent as control, in my opinion it has to do with accountability. When the CP is granted sole custody of the child they are accountable for the that childs well being and to ensure that the child support funds are expended in such a manner that the child is taken care of.
The issue for me is that, as noted in a post above, the NCP is accountable as to how much they have to pay based on their previous year tax return. So the laws have made one side accountable but not the other. I feel that if the NCP feels that the child support is not being properly used to support the child then the very same government agencies that enforce the payment of child support should be responsible for conducting an audit. Now, an granting of an audit would only be allowed for example once every 5 to 7 years and where there is no documented evidence of abuse in the relationship. The NCP would have provide documented evidence to show that the funds are not being properly expended prior to the audit being granted. The CP would still have option of appeal prior to any audit taking place.
This type of arrangement is standard in most business contracts where upon if my business was paying funds to another to take care of a part of my business, it is standard language that I have the right to audit that company to ensure that the portion of the business is being taken care.
Babs, for me it isn't about controll, its about being accountable, in my opinion two totally separate items. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 11:29:35 AM | | Well, lesse, I'm a single mum and thus far have not recieved so much as a penny i child support. He's really not in the picture seeing as how I have no idea where he is and don't care to know- his laziness anyways. So, I can't exactly speak about the subject from exp, only opinion. So far I've recieved gift certificates and checks made out to my babe. I've been really careful to only spend that money on her. Sure, she might not know the difference but I will. Granted we haven't been starving or close to eviction. I'd say 50% should be spent on food for the kid, clothing, general items they might NEED. The rest can go to the fun stuff like toys and books. However it should be adjusted per family. If there isn't enough money for the rent, well don't buy the toy. It's stupid to argue when the alternative is homelessness. Also, if the mom has more than one child from different fathers, do a joint account for the kids. It would be so wrong to only get toys for one and tell the other he gets nothing cuz his dad is a loser. | |
|
babs3
|
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 63 | |
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 12:18:21 PM | Chef,
You hit the nail on the head for how men think when you compared paying CP to a business arrangement! Only it isn't a business arrangement..and it never will be....what do you want to audit? How much a gas bill was?....how do you measure that? Or...will you audit the grocery tab?....and insist on the CP purchasing no-name products only, in order to meet your forecasted budget of what you deem appropriate to pay? I know I am presenting the extreme situation. Control and accountability have everything in common....To be accountable to anyone for any reason demonstrates one dosen't have control. To be the person where someone is accountable to you....for any reason...demonstrates having control of the situation. If there is a grossly neglegent claim where the CP is squandering the child support...take them back to court...and I also think if that were the case...then money should be the furthest thing from a NCP's mind...because they should be fighting for custody! The terms you used ie. contracts, audits, expenditures...weren't in any of the parenting books I glanced through! (yeah, I'm winging it!)....and now that I think about it....I don't remember my parents using those terms either! | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 4:32:24 PM |
You hit the nail on the head for how men think when you compared paying CP to a business arrangement! Only it isn't a business arrangement..and it never will be....what do you want to audit? How much a gas bill was?....how do you measure that? Or...will you audit the grocery tab?....and insist on the CP purchasing no-name products only, in order to meet your forecasted budget of what you deem appropriate to pay? I know I am presenting the extreme situation. Control and accountability have everything in common....To be accountable to anyone for any reason demonstrates one dosen't have control. To be the person where someone is accountable to you....for any reason...demonstrates having control of the situation. If there is a grossly neglegent claim where the CP is squandering the child support...take them back to court...and I also think if that were the case...then money should be the furthest thing from a NCP's mind...because they should be fighting for custody! The terms you used ie. contracts, audits, expenditures...weren't in any of the parenting books I glanced through! (yeah, I'm winging it!)....and now that I think about it....I don't remember my parents using those terms either!
What you are describing is all well and good I think when the NCP is paying a couple hundred bucks a month. It's certainly not hard to spend that kind of money raising a child when taking into account a portion of rent/mortgage, insurance and utilities, but what about when the NCP is paying considerably more?
My ex's son had been living with his father for the 7 years we were married, with the exception of the last 2 months of our marriage. Since he was living under my roof when we split up, I was classified as a parent and was forced to pay child support, even though his father is still very much in his life. Due to a change in positions a couple of months ago, my child support went from about $850 a month to over $1400 a month, not to mention the $1900 in alimony that she was awarded and is getting it raised another $1500 a month.
I do not see the child and do not talk to the child. She can allow me to see him if she wants, but since I am not the biological father, nor a father figure, she is under no obligation to do so, so does not. I was not close with the child at all, so I'm pretty much ambivalent towards visitation anyway. But it sure would be nice to see what she is spending not only the $1400 on, but the $1900 as well (soon to be $3400). When the alimony increase goes through, she'll once again be making more money than I do. Over half of my income goes to support my ex-wife and her child (not our child; her child).
Do you really think that she should be able to spend almost $5000 a month of my money without being accountable to anyone at all? She lives in an $800 a month apartment with no vehicle and no bills, so it's not like she has a $2500 a month mortgage to pay. She has far more disposable incoming each month than I do, even though I'm the one working 70 hour work weeks, while she doesn't work by choice. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 4:57:06 PM | Vanguy.. she is making 60k per year AFTER TAX for doing nothing.. she doesn't work cause she doesn't have to.
Seems to be very much like MY ex.. except that on top of the money i have to give her tax free, she already earns 45k a year..
Mind you,, i would very much appeal that child support issue.. living in yor place for 2 months does not make you a "parent".... | |
|
babs3
|
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 66 | |
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:21:33 PM | I was classified as a parent and was forced to pay child support, even though his father is still very much in his life.
Do I think it is fair?....no.... you are complaining to the wrong person though. I have two boys with my ex-husband. He is in a somewhat similiar situation as you. He broke up with his common-law girlfriend and is paying her substancially more CP than I have ever gotten from him. So me and my kids are as affected pertaining to this new loophole the same way you are. I can understand why the government has gone to this extreme though. It discourages people from "playing house" and forces people to review their responsibilities and options before diving into a marriage or common-law situation. I guess why I am so argumentitive regarding this topic is because most of the people who post on here seem to have extreme or exceptional cases! I agree that you are a victim of the system being forced to pay CP. My only question would be is...Didn't you realize what you were sighning up for? | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:31:21 PM | | i look at it as going into the 'family pot'.i receive $120 a month,broke up into $60 every other week,so i'm not getting rich off it. i pay most bills the first week of the month out of my own money,and use the CS towards whatever needed when it arrives later in the month. its not like i take it out of the atm and mark it CS,it goes into the rest of the money and is dispersed towards all kinds of things.dd is dressed decent(Old Navy,Childrens Place,Target,i'm not going overboard when shes growing and tough on her clothes and shops sales),always has what she needs and she always gets all school pictures,book fair money,all holidays are celebrated and she gets little wants all the time,i save big gifts for Christmas. i do make a point of telling my ex when i buy her clothes,shoes,school fees etc so he knows. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:17:59 PM | Support as I understand it is for the costs of raising a child.
Clothes, food, activities, medical, dental, toys,school supplies and expenses related to school. I also feel that there is a portion of expenses that are incurred by having the child in your home.
Hydro, cable TV, maybe the size of the living accomadations etc. Support usually only is enough to cover the basics and I do feel that the NCPs get away with paying less of the costs of raising a child than the CPs. The most moeny that I have heard a parent pay in support was $800 per month for one child. The NCP makes $ 130,000 per year, working alot of overtime and he has no trouble paying that amount. The average that I have heard is that NCPs pay, on average, $300 - $400 per month. Not alot of money for raising a kid, if you ask me. Mind you the CP also has an obligation to get off their butt and bring in as much as they reasonably can, while still being able to look after the kid(s). | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:37:53 PM | Ok, good points here and bad points. I get $250 per month per child (two). I am on disability and the gov't pays $280 per month per child.
My ex had his c.s. reduced because he is paying more per month for health insurance and they are on his insurance. My thought is that he would be paying that for him and his wife anyway, why penalize the kids because he is paying more (this ins doesn't cost per person, it is either individual or family regardless). He is supposed to reimburse me for 1/2 of their medical expenses that the ins doesn't pay - guess what, he has been in arrears since October. If I notified the court, yes, he could go to jail, but since he works for a police dept. he would loose his job and probably die in jail. What to do? I don't want my kids saying that I was the cause of their dad dying by trying to make him pay what he owes.
By the way, he takes the kids to the movies and out to eat; they have cable and internet; and he and his wife have even been to the casinos gambling.
I use the money I get from him and the gov't to pay for food, clothes and shelter. I don't know how you can raise a child without the above. Oh, and I have to let social security disability know what the gov'ts money goes for each year.
I really feel for the CPs who don't/can't get any support. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:39:53 PM | | Oh, and I feel that if you have multiple partners with multiple children, it is ONLY the NCP of the child's who should take them places and buy them clothes. Too bad the kids can't go to Disney with their own dad (or mom) because the CP has more than 1 set of kids. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:34:34 PM | Well crane an I am here to tell you $800/month is now not the highest amount you heard for 1 child now. I feel for the gentleman that pays the $2500. I pay much more than 800/mo for one child as well as insurance and other "perks" as someone referenced. Those "perks" routinely include all of his school clothes, winter coats, shoes and camps! I don't undersdtand where the hell that kind of money could go or how anyone could ever "order" those kinds of amounts. I stated my case was similar to the "raise" the CP gets every single time I get one basically making my raise a "same" not a raise when you consider taxes. I would just say I think it has gotten out of hand. I send the money, I never reference it to my boy and I go on and pray to be employed at the same levels I am now in 7 years when he is 18. Then again, since she has come out directly and stated she has saved ZERO funds for my son's college, I know what that will be like as well. The step father who has insurance policies with HIS kids as beneficiary and my son has no such policy, my ex brought the policies she found to me to review to make certain she read them right, she did! That is the kind of crap that goes on. His reasoning for no insurance or allowing and I mean allowing her to get a policy for herself w/my son as beneficiary: " He will go to his dad if anything happens to you!" He'll take care of his expenses. So if she would croak when he is 18 and no life insurance, guess who gets the entire college bill? You guessed her! ME! That is the dumbest most selfish thinking I have ever seen and I deal with it constantly. That is why we are infuriated. I should be able to take 10% of those funds and direct them straight to a collge fund and I should be able to buy life insurance on her with the cash as well so he would not suffer 2 losses. These are issues why we detest paying so much and not even getting the tax ememption. The inequity has become too wide. As an aside: anyone paying $200-$300 a month has no right to ask ANY questions about the money!
The bright side is I am at least half way through it! lol! | |
|
anj73
|
Joined: 3/12/2007
Msg: 72 | |
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:49:59 PM | I think the complaning comes in because in most situations the paying parent does not like the receiving parent etc(That's why we are divorced) Keep emotion out of it in my humble opinion. Pay the guidelines for your state and know you are doing right thing for your kids, regardless if your ex uses it inapppropriately in your eyes. You have no control over that, unfortunately in some situations...
As for me, I hope there comes a day when I can take the cs my ex pays me and put it away for my child to have when she becomes an adult. In the meantime, I rely on the support I get to help provide a roof over her head and tennis shoes on her feet and food in her stomach. The amount of course is far less then he would be putting out every month if we all lived together as a family unit, and I can almost be assured most parents would not walk around complaing that their spouse bought their kid too many toys, too many clothes, etc if they were all living together as a family unit. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 8:24:12 PM | | Yes we can all agree that CS is for the child. That means taking care of the child as in providing a roof over their heads, feeding them, clothing them and buying things that they want. I see where NCP's pay alot in support plus are ordered to pay half of daycare costs and medical costs etc. Wish the heck that was done here. My ex pays $75.00 a week and thats it. He wasnt ordered to pay half of daycare costs or anything else. He was ordered to provide medical insurance but never has, if he doesnt provide insurance then I have to pay the first $269.00 a year on med bills and then after that it is to be split 50-50. He gets a 10% discount on CS for regular visitation but yet has seen her maybe 10 times since 2004. He has NEVER bought her anything extra or clothes or school supplies or anything else and refuses to take her anywhere that costs money because as he sees it he pays support and he shouldnt have to buy her anything else. So I am responsible for childcare, all utility bills, all food bills, all rent, all clothes, and all school supplies so do you all think that his $300.00 a month even comes close to covering all of that? Oh, he does manage to keep $100.00 a week to buy his beer and $30.00 a week to buy a carton of cigs because evidently those are the most important. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 9:32:28 PM |
don't forget that the CP earns money, pays tax on it and then uses some of that to support the child - so I think it is fair all around: both parties are taxed on their own income and all money used to support children (CPs and NCPs contribution) is after-tax. seems fair to me .
You don't seem to realize the the CP pays lower taxes because of the child. They get to file head of household, get a deduction, and a tax credit. | |
|
| Child Support OR Family Support
Posted: 3/29/2007 9:42:17 PM | Correct me if I am wrong, but this can be negotiated in seperation agreements.
My ex, if he is current in child support, is entitled to claim our son during odd numbered years. So, the tax benefit isnt set in stone. It can be divided. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
