|
|
|
|
|
| | Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!Page 32 of 33 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33) |
For 2 children and a gross annual income of $300,000.00, the monthly child support payment will be $3,891.00.
If you're making 300,000.00/year, 3,891.00/month is not out of line.
it does not take the custodial parents income into account, it is only based on the non custodial parents income.
Then try to get custody of the kids. I assume the reasonong behind that is that the custodial parent is paying a similar fraction of his/her income. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/24/2011 11:03:02 AM | LOL Albien,
that was directed for the OP, I have my child with me. I see no problem if a person is making that much to pay that much, my problem is with the women who whine and whine about it never being enough.
A few were writing as though they had these outrageous expenses that the guy should be responsible for. One even broke her rental payment for shelter into 2/3 of the payment. Uh ok. The guy shouldn't have to pay 2/3 of the shelter, he has to live too, then they added on other expenses as though these amounts of 2500 and such were just not enough for them to get by.
Wonder what they would say about the tiny bit of $200 a month some parents receive from the non custodial parent in a month?
The world has come to nothing but greediness and me me me attitudes. (i think the gulls in Finding Nemo got it right when they said mine mine mine mine....) | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/24/2011 11:40:38 AM | Yes, there is nothing like facts to clear the air. For instance, a $100K income yields about $48K net, or about $4K per month. So $2400/month in child support results in a net to the payer of about $1600/month. So, the payer can't, according to your figures, actually afford to live in the same city as the 2 kids.
Believe it or not, there are payers who suffer larger source deductions for child support than their entire net pay. The government of course carries them at 6-8 % compound daily interest until they go bankrupt and are forced into the underground economy. These are not isolated cases.
Yep, government child support scales are just about as fair as you can make them, and very reasonable, all things considered.
Here is how it works: Strip the payer of any hope of living a descent life, force the payer to move to a dump in Hamilton or beyond, slowly drive him into debt while making sure the welfare of the kids is assured.
Sounds right to me. I really can't understand why so many avoid getting into another relationship.... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/24/2011 12:02:26 PM |
Yes, there is nothing like facts to clear the air. For instance, a $100K income yields about $48K net, or about $4K per month. So $2400/month in child support results in a net to the payer of about $1600/month.
According to BC FMEP site referenced earlier, the child support for a person with an income of $100k is 1440.00/month. Again, that seems reasonable. From what I can tell, the child support in Canada runs between about 15% and 19% of a person's gross income. The higher percentage was for a person making $20,000.00/year. The payments were 315.00/month. I really don't see how that's unreasonable. If you have kids, you have an obligation to care for them. The only aspect of the Canadian system that seems unfair is that a guy doesn't have to be the biological father to end up stuck with child support by virtue of a relationship. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/24/2011 12:09:30 PM |
The only aspect of the Canadian system that seems unfair is that a guy doesn't have to be the biological father to end up stuck with child support by virtue of a relationship.
Same in parts of the US as well. | |
|
paulpa
| | Joined: 2/12/2011
Msg: 781 | |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/24/2011 2:19:24 PM | | when... I know a few girls who marry and wait until they can get the most out of it when they break up, then they do it again with other men, it is like a black widow, without killing the man... just leaving him broke. This one lady is middle aged now, never had a job, but is rich. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/2/2011 9:00:04 AM | Zekestone.....Let me throw some minimum figures at you.....
Cost of "renting" a 3 bedroom home in Toronto....... $1800-2000 monthly
Utilities;Gas,Hydro,Cable,Internet,Phone................$400 "
Groceries for family of 3...........................................$650 "
_____________________________________________________
Sub Total $2850
Divide the above figure by 2/3 for housing
& feeding 2 kids $1950 monthly
Clothing $150 "
School supplies/extra curricular activities $100 "
Transportation $100 "
Miscellaneous/Health etc $100 "
_______________________________________________________
Totals $2400
Well Smarts, since I live in and OWN a detached 3 bedroom house in Toronto, I can say with confidence that some of your figures are inflated.
First... you're spending $150/month on clothing on your kids????!!!!????
What the hell is the matter with you?
My ex and I don't even spend that on ourselves, let alone the kids on a monthly basis.
And 2/3 of the costs attributed to the kids? No... THAT is NOT reality.
Here's what my monthly budget looks like:
Cost of OWNING house, including tax and utilities and the odd repair monthly - $1800 - 2000
Groceries for a family of 3 - $500
(My grocery bill took a much bigger dive than expected since my Ex moved out)
Internet and phone - $80/month
Cable TV - $0/month - I use a regular antenna that costs me nothing. Only get a couple of stations, but that's fine. TV is not a need.
Car - $500/month (includes gas, insurance, repairs, maintenance and depreciation)
Misc child expenses including health - $100 (actually it's less than that, but let's use a nice round number)
Child care - $200/month (but would be $400 if I didn't have a shared custody situation. But note that the child support tables EXCLUDE special expenses like child care. Child care gets piled on top of that.)
So I have $3180 - $3380/month in expenses. On top of that is maybe $300 for misc stuff for myself... whether it's clothing, a hair cut, whatever. Much of those expenses are not child rearing expenses. The car for one isn't. And I would have phone and internet with or without kids... so that doesn't qualify as an expense that should be apportioned to the kids. And at most 30% of the house costs can truly be apportioned to the kids.
Same deal with the groceries.
With the non-child expenses stripped out, the figure drops to $2600 to $2800.
And since child care is not included in the Child support table calculation, you need to strip that out too... so now we're down to $2400 to $2600.
Now we have to look at the portion of that figure that is attributable to the kids.
And NO, it's NOT 2/3 of the overall costs. It's less than 1/3. I know that because I've seen my expenses before and after having kids.
$540 - $600 for housing... $100 for expenses... at most $200 for food. No transportation costs attributable to the kids since I walk my kids to school... just like I did when I was little.
And the grand total for my two kids is $900/month, excluding the baby sitter. Note that I have the kids about 3/4 of the time these days because my Ex is in full time college and works part time. So on the weeks when she theoretically has them, I'm her "babysitter" and I offer that service for free. And she does the same for me when I need it and when she can. But on her weeks, she's still responsible for paying the babysitter.
And when my Ex lived with me, I know for a fact that my two kids did not cost me more than $1000/month. I know because I paid all the bills and did the budgeting. Basically I was paying for everything I'm paying now, plus supporting her, less the child care costs. And looking at the period before and after she moved out, I can clearly see that supporting her cost more than $400/month.
And that means that this statement:
I think the government figures are right on! $1200 child support for 2 kids based on your income isn't out of line! It constitutes half of the costs.
... is false. The child support tables don't constitute half of the costs, they constitute more that 100% of the portion of costs that are directly attributed to the kids. And if you add in child care costs, you're still WAAAAAAY over merely pay half the costs.
BTW... about this statement:
If you "own" a detached, 3 bedroom home, in TO the cost of such a home in the cheapest areas will run you to $450,000+ and require a minimum downpayment, and substantial income to carry.
You are a liar. You know how I know you're a liar? Two reasons:
1. The listings on realtor.ca that show many 3 bedroom places. In my own area in southwest Toronto, I see nine 3br houses listed for less than $350,000. And if I include condos and townhouses, then there are 74 properties listed. And my area is far from being the cheapest. But it's also far from being the most expensive.
2. The fact that I paid $359,000 for my 3 bedroom detached house in 2008. And since then, prices did NOT move up that much.
Of course I had previous savings/equity built up from previous places I lived in BEFORE I had two kids.
It's delusional parents who don't want to have a clue, that are in denial as to the real cost of raising children.
The only person that is delusional is you... in that you have deluded yourself into believing that YOUR costs are to be included into the child costs.
Stop whining, you both brought these kids into the world and it's your responsibility to help raise them.
Another false statement. Yes we both brought these kids into the world, but it's NOT just MY responsibility to help raise them. It's BOTH of our responsibility... including sharing costs.
But the way the child support tables are set up, the financial burden of the real child-related costs rests 100% with the non-custodial parent.
Imagine how children feel when they see their "Dad" living better than them, and they're forced to do without in their own homes,with a mom who struggles to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies
There's a solution to that... the kids can just live with their dad until mom gets her act together. That's exactly what I'm doing in practice right now.
Child support is not spousal support! I can imagine how you'd be b*tching if you had that to pay that as well. Your ex obviously worked while you were married.
Any child support amount over $400 to $500 a month per child IS a pseudo child and spousal support hybrid.
And my Ex stayed mostly home while married. She never worked full time.
She only worked part time off and on over the years.
Stop being bitter and spend constructive time nurturing your relationship with your children and maintaining a civil one with your ex. Begrudging your children's support isn't building you up in anyone's eyes.
I'm not bitter. I'm simply speaking the cold hard truth... the truth that the child support tables are not based on the cost of supporting a child, but in fact are modeled after a fantasy world where the kids benefit from the income of both parents as if they were still together... hence... "re-balancing of lifestyles" between the two parties. Even says so on the government website.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/sup-pen/index.html
And that lifestyle re-balancing means it's not child support anymore. It means that it's child support with some spousal support mixed in... plus expenses like child care added on top of that... plus then the courts will add spousal support on top of that.
In this day of "equality" between men and women, if child support truly was child support, it would be based on the costs directly attributable to the kids. It should be up to each adult parent to work and provide any 'lifestyle' beyond that.
But that's not the reality in Canada... or the USA for that matter.
After all, if women are "equal", then why can't they work the same as I have for the past 15+ years?
| |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/2/2011 2:51:51 PM |
According to BC FMEP site referenced earlier, the child support for a person with an income of $100k is 1440.00/month. Again, that seems reasonable. From what I can tell, the child support in Canada runs between about 15% and 19% of a person's gross income. The higher percentage was for a person making $20,000.00/year. The payments were 315.00/month. I really don't see how that's unreasonable.
Abelian,
It's only reasonable for a society with a mentality that the men work and the women look after the kids... and that women must be financially supported by men because they are incapable of doing so themselves.
It is NOT reasonable for a society where both men and women work and both men and women share child rearing duties. It is also not reasonable for any society that recognizes the many studies that show that shared custody is almost always the best solution for kids after divorce.
In a society where men and women are "equals", it should be up to each adult to provide their own lifestyle and not depend on some sugardaddy to provide it.
What we have right now is a system that says men and women are equals, but then conveniently reverts to the 1950s mentality when it comes to payments... and often custody. Though the custody thing will get rectified if/when bill C-422 gets passed. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/2/2011 3:15:32 PM | The whole issue of child support is very confusing to me.
While I do agree the father should be active in support of
his kids, I don't get the monthly stipend usually assigned,
nor do I get the formula used to come to the agreed amount.
My kids were older when I was divorced, but one lived with me,
and my expenses with her there were not noticiably higher. Sure
we spent more on groceries than a single person, but on the other
hand I'd be still be spending the same for heat, electricity, cable,
phone, etc. I'm not sure what other expenses
the custodial parent experiences regarding housing and groceries.
I do see the need for money for clothing and
dance lessons, swim lessons, etc. whatever. And of course if there are out of
pocket medical expenses not covered by insurance. But you don't
spend the same amount every month. I mean I didn't buy my kids
new clothes and shoes every month. Seems like the easier thing to
do would be when they spent time with dad, he took them out shopping
for something they might need, maybe paid for the swimming and mom
paid for the dance lessons.
I honestly don't get it. Unless there is alimony involved (which I don't
get at all) I don't see why someone should get money every month
simply because their kids live with them. Why wouldn't you share the
expenses as they came up? Give some money every week for groceries,
invite the kid out and pay for the entertainment.
When you pay child support, do you
get to deduct the days or weeks in the case of summer vacation that
the kids stay with you, or does the other parent have to start paying?
I think the child support system right now is archaic and dates back to when
women didn't work and stayed home taking care of kids. I also think a lot
of times the "child support" is used for expenses that have nothing at all to
do with the child.
Of course this is only my opinion based on the screwing my brother got
from his ex wife, and based on the forms I had to fill out when I got divorced.
One of my daughters lived with my ex because she was in school and the other
lived with me. Neither one of us asked for money from the other, and when
the girls needed something it was never an issue between us. Maybe the difference
was we had a civil divorce and knew we were both responsible for the kids.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I'm okei with that. I've often thought (for
the most part) guys really get screwed in divorces. No doubt there are really
bad stories out there (and I'm sure they'll come flying on the screen any moment),
but something wrong when a couple gets divorced and the dad has to file
bankruptcy and move back home with his parents so he can afford to pay his
ex wife so she can live in the family home.
I'm outta here for the day, so flame away. I'll try to remember to check back!
 | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/2/2011 7:35:30 PM | | No flame here, but browneyesboo, cs has no correlation to the family home, it is merely a percentage of income; the percentage that has been figured, actuarially (is that a word?), to be attributed to the continued maintenance of children. It is, of course, assumed, that one would continue to spend the same percentage of income on expenses attributed to their children as they did prior to a failed relationship. If we're being honest, human nature seems to indicate that most (men & women) are quick to deny their children the same things they chose for them once they have decided to split, instead choosing selfishness. Of course, in this case, not having children yet, the parties discussed really have no idea how it feels to explain to a child that they can no longer take dance lessons since mommy or daddy now has to go out socially, or buy present or dinners , whatever the case may be. If you ask me, this is at the heart of much of the cs debate that rages on in these forums. Raising children involves sacrifice, and it seems evident that those who are willing to sacrifice for their children become less willing when they themselves want some free time during which they would spend their money on themselves. I certainly recognize the detrimental (often monumental!) financial effects of a breakup, but they are shared by both parties, far more often than not. If you are willing & able to have your children enrolled in the best schools, live in the best neighborhood, wear the designer toddler clothing, why should it be the kids who have to make the sacrifice? Perhaps it might be best to think this out prior to actually bringing your children up in a world that may one day fall out from under them so that you can continue a lifestyle you enjoy. Forgo the Mercedes, the 3000 sq foot home, whatever, and get in touch with what is really important. Let's face it; it is more likely than not that you will end up divorced. Wouldn't it be better to prepare by living more modestly than to prepare legally to force to your children to do so? | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 8:31:01 AM |
human nature seems to indicate that most (men & women) are quick to deny their children the same things they chose for them once they have decided to split, instead choosing selfishness
..... explain to a child that they can no longer take dance lessons since mommy or daddy now has to go out socially, or buy present or dinners
These statements can't be any further from the truth. Its not about selfishness. Its about the new reality!!! The separated parties now have to foot alone previously joint- bills. Utilities, Rent/Mortgage, Car Payments, etc etc... hence at the end of the day, after all the "necessities of life" are paid for, there is not enough money for the kids to attend dance classes, flute lessons, camping trips, or live the posh life they used to live.
Wouldn't it be better to prepare by living more modestly than to prepare legally to force to your children to do so? It really doesn't matter how modestly you lived before the break-up. Its rather, if your ex is willing to continue "living modestly" as before when he/she knows that, with the backing of the courts, they can force you to pay for a new not-so-modest lifestyle because you can afford it. How many times have we heard the courts awarding ridiculous amounts (eg $12K, $33K, $56K) per month for a child when we all know very well that they didn't use to spend that much on them when they were married. If fact, how on earth do you spend that much money of a kid(s) per month?
Anytime someone complains about CS, some people jump to the conclusion that the person does not want to care for the kids. About time we stop that stupid line of reasoning! | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 5:40:23 PM |
I'm not bitter. I'm simply speaking the cold hard truth... the truth that the child support tables are not based on the cost of supporting a child, but in fact are modeled after a fantasy world where the kids benefit from the income of both parents as if they were still together... hence... "re-balancing of lifestyles" between the two parties. Even says so on the government website.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/sup-pen/index.html
And that lifestyle re-balancing means it's not child support anymore. It means that it's child support with some spousal support mixed in... plus expenses like child care added on top of that... plus then the courts will add spousal support on top of that.
In this day of "equality" between men and women, if child support truly was child support, it would be based on the costs directly attributable to the kids. It should be up to each adult parent to work and provide any 'lifestyle' beyond that.
But that's not the reality in Canada... or the USA for that matter.
After all, if women are "equal", then why can't they work the same as I have for the past 15+ years?
I wholeheartedly agree that reality is specific to the individual; I also agree that child support tables are basically fair. That's the reality; basically & general apply when it comes to statute. Everyone's situation is different, but I do believe that the percentages of incomes set aside as attributable to the expense of one's children are fair & not unrealistic. It is not unrealistic to think that the sacrifice of a failed relationship should be borne to as small a degree as possible by children, instead falling on the shoulders of the adult parties. "Re-balancing of lifestyles" has to do with the lifestyles of the adults, and I feel quite comfortable stating that more often than not, lifestyles changes befall both parties of a failed relationships, whether one chooses to acknowledge that fact or not.
Women & men being equal doesn't have all that much to do with it, except for the fact that more women than men have custody, and that more women than men forgo work experience to stay home with their children. How could you expect anyone who has not worked in 15 years to be able to earn the same income as someone who has spent the last 15 yrs gaining work experience? Gender aside, but as a matter of reality? Also as a matter of reality, many women can & do work the same as they have the past 15 years. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 5:57:27 PM |
How could you expect anyone who has not worked in 15 years to be able to earn the same income as someone who has spent the last 15 yrs gaining work experience?
Well, if they had been working during the 11 years that the kid was in school, then they wouldn't have such a predicament. That 7 hours of free time a day could contribute to not only having work experience in the event of a break-up, but the added income allows for a better home-living. And between 3-4 people (assuming the kids are old enough to start doing a few chores), it's really not that hard to maintain a clean house. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 6:10:54 PM |
Well, if they had been working during the 11 years that the kid was in school, then they wouldn't have such a predicament. That 7 hours of free time a day could contribute to not only having work experience in the event of a break-up, but the added income allows for a better home-living.
You, you, you, cruel heartless bastidge...
... are you suggesting that mother go to work and kids may have to, like, make their own lunches and spend ALL day at school and have mother WORK? Mother needs to stay at home while they're in school just in case there's an emergency!
What a horrible little man you are.....
 | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 6:23:00 PM | ^^^ 
Actually, I agree with that idea for the most part. Once the children are of school age, is there really a reason for one partner to stay home all day, when they could at least be working part-time?
In this day and age, with marriage breakdown statistics being so high, I'm surprised so many women (or whichever partner is the stay-at-home one) are even willing to risk coming out of the work force for so long, with nothing to fall back on if the marriage dissolves. Not to mention with the economy, I'm surprised that so many can afford to do so in the first place.
This thread is mainly about high income earners, and while I realize that child support is supposed to be based on the "status/quality of life" the child would have received had the partnership not dissolved....does it REALLY cost $2500 a month to raise a child and still provide them with a good quality of life, as in the example from the O-Post?
Since the courts go by an income scale, I'd think a good solution might be to put a cap on what is a "reasonable amount" that would be paid directly to the custodial parent for child support...and the remainder of that figure (based on income) would be put into a trust for the child for post-secondary education, medical needs, things like that. Extra-curricular sporting/activity costs could come out of that as well. Just an idea, at any rate.
No matter how high someone's income might be...does any toddler really need to be dripping in diamonds like Tom Cruise's kid is just to achieve a solid level of comfort? I mean, REALLY? JMO. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 8:10:25 PM | Once children are in school, there may well not be a reason to be at home, but it can take several years before a youngest child is of school age, can't it? Those years impact earning ability. Additionally, children don't go to school in the summer. The flexibility to provide for one's children more often than not has a negative impact on earnings. Lest we forget it is more often than not, and whether one might like to admit or not, a decision made by two parties for one of them to stay at home.
As far as how much it costs to raise a child, the percentage of income works because that is subjective. I am 100% confident that it costs Tom Cruise far more to raise his child than it cost me or my ex to raise ours. That was his choice, however, and he should be held accountable to the implicit contract brought about by draping his child with diamonds. No one should be held less accountable to providing for their children the lifestyle they chose for them. Do you think that $2,500.00 affects Tom the one who earns a million annually to the extent that $2,500.00/ month would affect me, really? It's all relative. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 8:38:17 PM |
Lest we forget it is more often than not, and whether one might like to admit or not, a decision made by two parties for one of them to stay at home.
You know, every time I hear, or read, this bit of drivel, I just can't help but think about how the women who say this have obviously NEVER lived with a female spouse.
There really is NEVER any discussion about who's going to stay home with the kids. Women invariably have a veto on this vote.....
.. I know you're trying your bestest to make it sound like men have a choice, but, seriously, how many women have you EVER met who DON'T want to stay home for the first year, at least, after a kid's born?
Come on, be honest.
| |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/23/2011 10:11:16 PM | snipped and cut, I can without reservations say, it aint mine, every single time.... and if you had one while with me, there is no clearer evidence of your infidelity.
(curb - kick - done)
Lloyds was actually looking at running a 'marriage' insurance policy.... they couldnt get the numbers to work that it was profitable and that men would still enroll in it..... maybe Obama can fix that one too ;) | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/24/2011 2:49:58 PM |
There really is NEVER any discussion about who's going to stay home with the kids. Women invariably have a veto on this vote.....
.. I know you're trying your bestest to make it sound like men have a choice, but, seriously, how many women have you EVER met who DON'T want to stay home for the first year, at least, after a kid's born?
Come on, be honest.
I wanted to stay home with my little ones, but I can't say what other women want. My ex felt even more strongly than I did that I should stay home with our kiddies. He was raised by two hard working parents who were never home, and he hated that.
Maybe most women DO want to stay home for at least some time, but maybe a majority of men who can afford it would also much rather have their children cared for by their mother, rather than see their children in full time day care. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/24/2011 2:53:10 PM |
Wonder what they would say about the tiny bit of $200 a month some parents receive from the non custodial parent in a month?
CS is based on income. One would know that if one's spouse only earned a $30000 per year, he/she should not expect to receive much in the way of CS in the event of a divorce. There is no logical basis for any complaint. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/24/2011 6:27:24 PM | You are a liar. You know how I know you're a liar? Two reasons:
1. The listings on realtor.ca that show many 3 bedroom places. In my own area in southwest Toronto, I see nine 3br houses listed for less than $350,000. And if I include condos and townhouses, then there are 74 properties listed. And my area is far from being the cheapest. But it's also far from being the most expensive.
2. The fact that I paid $359,000 for my 3 bedroom detached house in 2008. And since then, prices did NOT move up that much.
I don't lie, but obviously you don't comprehend what you read very well!
I was refering to YOUR home which you say, is a 3 bedroom DETACHED property; not a semi, townhouse, Condo, or a tear down fixer upper. I stand by the fact that a decent DETACHED home, on an average lot, under $450,000 in Toronto doesn't exist, in this market! In 2008 we had a small recession when the prices dropped 10-15% which may have been when you bought. In the past 3 years the prices have made a tremendous recovery over and beyond! Your house is most definitly worth $450,000+. Fact not fiction.
Check Realtor.ca .....AGAIN WE'RE TALKING "DETACHED".
( For your personal info, in your area, SW TO, a 2 bedroom, less than 800 sq ft 40's, post war, detached bungalow, with basement leaks, crumbling brick work, asbestos wrapped ducting, original boiler and rads, no garage, near the Ontario food terminal area, listed for $400,000 in March 2011, had multiple (3)offers over list and the owner still held out for more sending them all back!( One of those offers was mine, on behalf of a client) I can go on and on!
That's the danger of being an amateur, looking through Realtor.ca and not decifering what those facts really mean. If you really believe your 3 bedroom detached home house isn't worth much more than $385,000 I have a client buyer who may be willing to buy your home for $425,000, cash deal with a 2 week closing! That's 10%+ more than what you think your house is worth! )
If a parent doesn't have custody of kids, they have a choice of living in a 1 bedroom dwelling, a basement apartment, or anywhere else of their choice. But when you have physical custody of children you decisions are based on them.
Your grocery bills may have gone down "considerably" because there are 3 fewer people eating at home and if you're totally honest, your eating "out" expenses probably have gone up as a single person.
As for $150 for clothing for 2 children....$75 dollars averaged a month for each child...roughly $900 a year for Winter coats, Jackets, Sweaters, Pants, Shirts, Underwear, Boots, Running shoes, Socks, etc for a GROWING child being unreasonable.....I really don't think so!
Child support is based on the income of the non-custodial parent. In Ontario $1200 a month payment for 2 children is based on roughly an $85,000 income. That doesn't seem out of line for 2 children. Anyone who thinks that that constitutes subsidized spousal support, truly isn't living in any major North American city I know of.
Just as an aside....no, I never received this kind of child support from my ex. I "know" exactly what it costs to provide for a child. The majority of women out there bear the brunt of child rearing and support, not men. That's also a fact that can be supported by facts and figures.
To the responsible men and women who ungrugingly,do support their children, you'll reap the benefits in the long run. Well cared for children are our future. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/24/2011 6:48:40 PM | Yes, there is nothing like facts to clear the air. For instance, a $100K income yields about $48K net, or about $4K per month. So $2400/month in child support results in a net to the payer of about $1600/month. So, the payer can't, according to your figures, actually afford to live in the same city as the 2 kids.
If you want to stick to facts, with an income of $100,000 you'd end up paying under $1300 for 2 children, in Quebec, and around $1400 in Ontario so I don't know where you get the $2400 ?
On $100,000 annual income in Ontario taxes would be about $29,000, leaving a net income of $71,000, $5900 a month, minus $1400 for child support, leaving $4500 a month.
It never fails to amaze me how much exaggeration and fabrication is involved in stating child support amounts! It tells me that perhaps it's individuals who have never paid, that are making these comments. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/25/2011 4:09:24 AM | Let me explain a few things before I get to my take on the issue.
When I got together with my ex, before we got married, we agreed that we both wanted kids, and that it would be me the one going on a "career break" to be with them whilst they were young, and then work part time when they were in School (*).
(*) In Britain, children go to school from 9-15:15. A colleague of mine had two little boys and she worked from 9:30-14:30, to allow time because of the traffic, and received a pro-rated pay. Obviously, at the end of the working week, she fell short by 12 hours. She was also able to modify her working hours if, for instance, the kids weren't with her and she wanted to do more hours to get more pay.
Whilst I worked for the Government, all the provisions for family friendly policies were in place. when, after splitting from my ex, I was on my own with the little one, there was never a problem if I received a call from the nursery to say that the child was sick, and I had just to leave the office to pick her up. Obviously, in the private company, this is a whole different world and these provisions, although they should be there by law, mostly don't apply.
Back to me. We worked, we had a comparatively small mortage and my salary wasn't necessary to cover the basic outgoings, so we were able to save a lot of money and also to have a few treats. We trimmed our lifestyle so the plan we had for the kids would be financially viable (I wouldn't have kids if, from 5 months of age, I would have to leave them in a nursery).
When I was 5 months pregnant, my ex started a decline into depression (probably manic), which led to a lot of problems. He had a good job, with a fairly good pay and good working provisions (access to sports facilities, study for free, family friendly, work from home).
He started to say that he needed a break, his behaviour declined severely, to the point that he made a case for a career break. He said he wanted to be at home when the child was born. So he gave up his job, in order to get a 6 month break. He ignored his depression and issues, and the break became 3 years long (we lived from savings all that time), time by which his behaviour was out of hand. For that last year I had been trying to get him treatment and counselling, plus help him to go back to work, with no success.
I made an estimation that my daughter, in her first year of life, needed about 1,800 nappy changes. My ex did about 5-6 of those, never got up in the night when she woke up and, claiming a bad back and, therefore, needing to sleep in a proper bed, forced me out of the bedroom and to the sofa for the first 2 months of my baby's life.
When the child was three, I had successfully raised her through the different stages, to the point she was out of nappies and everything. She was then elegible for 12.5 hours a week of free preschool by the government, and I signed her up for that. I also saw a job offer for a bilingual agent for a call centre and, seeing what I had at home, decided to apply and was successful in the interview, so I went back to work, full time. Still, cooking, ironing and the majority of cleaning was up to me, because he spent his day going to the gym, visiting friends and reading.
When the time came for us to split up, I found a very good nursery for the little one and I was recommended to go to a mediation service, as it was favoured by the courts. Because he was unemployed, my ex didn't have to pay for it. Because I was employed, each session costed me 45 GBP (about 75 USD). We went to three sessions, during which he suggested that I would have to move out of the marital home with the child (that meant renting a property) and that I should pay his living costs (mortage, bills, petrol, etc), so that he could be "available" if the little girl needed anything. I called BS on that, told him and the mediator to stop wasting my time and money, and told him, in front of the (female) mediator, to stop warming chairs, get off his backside and get a job.
He miraculously found a good job very quickly, which he has kept to this date. During the divorce process, he told me he could only offer 30 GBP (50 USD) a month on child support and, when I pressed for more (*), he raised it to 50 GBP (82.64 USD), which I had to agree to, as my solicitor told me that she couldn't assure me I would get more if I went to a final hearing in court. Given the amount, which doesn't cover 20% of her expenses, I have chosen to leave it in the account where it's paid, and see if, at some point in the future, amounts to something decent for her.
(*) The UK's child support agency (CSA) has a calculator which, given the circumstances, earnings, etc, calculated the amount of support he should give me in 45 GBP (75 USD) per week. Currently, and thanks to the inflation, I receive 51.85 GBP (85.70 USD) a month. The CSA would otherwise pursue him and get the money out of his paycheck everymonth but, as I have now returned to my country, even if the child is a British subject, they wont help me.
In order for him to sign the agreement, so I could finalise the divorce and avoid having to return to the UK for a court hearing, I had to agree to a clause which says that I won't make any future claims on his estate and money.
Which brings me to my point about the subject of the OP...
If my ex would be to win the lottery, and become a multimillionaire, I cannot make any claim on him to give more money to his daughter, nor to contribute to her schooling costs, nor to an university fund, nor anything.
My solicitor told me that, legally, we couldn't even ask the court to force him to make a will in favour of his daughter.
Is this fair on her? In the current climate, work is difficult, business is difficult and we go very, very just financially every month, although I'm grateful that I don't belong to that 20% of unemployed population in my country. When things start to pick up, it should be different and good for us, but that may be years away...
Is it fair for the child? And, moreover, is it fair that, to the respects of the people still in UK who "hear" him, I have to share the credit of her development, health and education with him?
I'm all in favour of a prenuptial agreement, furthermore, I will never get married again without one. But, if a parent is not going to rennounce their children, they should be responsible and contribute in a suitable manner to them. | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:38:04 PM |
I keep wondering what's going to happen as the trend continues that women are going to be the main money-makers in marriages/relationships....
Well Capitano, I can answer that. They will act the same way any guy would because emotionally speaking, men and women aren't that different
When I first separated from my ex, he paid support based on his income. If he complained about it, or thought it was unjust, he never expressed that to me or our children. When one of our kids wanted to try living with him, we simply looked up the amount I would pay for the child based on my income and I paid it. He makes way more money than I do, so the amounts paid by him and me were not really close, but I would never, ever have tried to get out of paying it. So I agree that women and men often act very similarly.
The child support tables are a necessary evil. There is no way the courts can be deciding how much a NCP should be paying on a case by case basis. Different families have different standards and different views on what they would want to provide to their children, so the government has to step in and set a standard based on income of the NCP. Obviously, the rates are the same all over ON, even though the cost of living varies greatly. A CP parent receiving $1200 per month for two children in Fort Erie could easily cover rent of a decent house where each kid could have his/her own room, and yard just using CS, whereas in Burlington it might not be doable. That's life. There is no point breaking down what it costs to live where, because the federal support tables call for a set amount in each province. Nobody cares if you want to feed your kids spaghetti every night and dress them in used clothing from goodwill, even though you make a decent living. You are not allowed to pay less just because you are cheap. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
32
of
33 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
|
|
Home
login 
