Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > An "unofficial" look at CS payment amounts.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 414
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.Page 31 of 31    (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)
"^^^^^BINGO.....it is totally about a sense of control. I do empathize with you as I am going through a very similiar situation myself right now.
There is a remedy to squash that feeling of insecurity that as a parent your Ex feels...it is half communication and half comprimise....let me know if you figure out how to balance the two!
As for me...some little sense of acknowledgement of how I managed to provide for my kids and survive would go a long way with me when it comes to my Ex.....so I do understand your feelings of being backed into a corner...but just so you realize...it is really not a gender specific isssue....unless your posting on these single parent forums I guess.! "

Communication and compromise only work when your looking to achieve a similar goal. I do not believe that she and I are reading the same book let alone the same page of the same book. So communication and compromise arent effective in this scenario, unfortunately.

I have no need to control any part of this other than my own part and I am drawn into a legal battle to do so. I will once again state that I have no problem paying CS but I do believe that the term "fair amount" in her eyes is far more than is necessary to do so. I know from experiance what it takes and what it costs to do so, as I have done it and in the process no one suffered for it.

SO its not that I feel like I have been backed into a corner.. I have been backed into the corner and there are two ways out. One is to hang your head and pay ( some call it manning up and the right thing to do).. The other is to ask why and end up fighting your way out. Unfortunately ( for them not me) I have chosen the later as I dont think the former is really manning up or the right thing to do.

Child support should never be a gender specific issue..both genders should be supporting the child/ren. It only becomes specific to gender on a case by case situation as far as who is and isn't doing their part.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 415
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/21/2010 11:04:10 AM
"Careful who's train you hitch your argument too...We are sometimes judged by the company we keep!"

All too true when the judgements we make are based purely on assumption alone. But then again in some threads we have little to go on and are left with only speculation to form an opinion. I will freely admit that I too, have fallen into this catagory at times and am not afraid to admit when I have mistakenly done so, so I try to choose my words carefully.

While we may be heading in the same direction we may not be on the same track but rather a parallel rail as I know I prefer to be my own engine rather than along for the ride.. That way I pull my own weight and refuse to drag along dead weight simply because I have the power to do so.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 416
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/27/2010 1:21:22 AM
Simply, CS payments (at least in NY) are based on the percentage of income which has been determined as applicable to the expense of providing for children being applied to each parent in amounts equal to their percentage of income. For example, if you have two children, you add together the two incomes, then apply the income percentage to that total. Divide by 52, that's the weekly payment. For a man earning 50K/yr., with a coparent earning 30K, that means .25 of 80K, or $20K in child expense. Since the man earns 5/8 of the income, he pays 5/8 of the expense, or 12.5K/yr.

We could all make arguments against the fairness, valid ones even, albeit based on personal experience but, in general, they do seem fair to me.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 417
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/27/2010 8:03:28 AM
ohwhynot46....

Seems fair when the one is earning 50K to the other earning 30k assuming they are both working full time...but is their a legal requirement for the custodial parent to work full time when it is required of the non custodial?

Fair??

Or when the custodial parent is earning the same amount of money as the non custodial yet you would I imagine still expect the same cs payments? is that fair?

Or when a custodial parent works full time and earns more money....something statistics suggest found more with male custodial parents....why is it fair that a custodial parent who earns more still be sitting their with their hands out demanding money?

So perhaps one determines fair by the side of fence they happen to be standing on!


Hey, I've been searching through the post but I can't see if the original question was ever answered. How are the federal CS tables derived?

The Anatomy of Canada’s Child Support Guidelines: The Effects, Details, and History
of a Feminist Family Policy

Douglas W. Allen
Simon Fraser University

Abstract:
Recent studies have shown that Canada’s Child Support Guidelines, adapted from the U.S. “Wisconsin” model, have serious negative incentive effects on marriage stability. The source of this outcome is found in the design of the guidelines, which consistently transfer net wealth to the custodial parent. This paper examines the details of Canada’s guidelines, and then traces backwards to their source. It argues that the guidelines are the logical implication of family policy based on feminist theories of the family. The paper concludes that an institutional view of the family is a better model to base family law on.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1441607



But you might also Google Senator Anne Cools who articulated a theory during a speech to the Senate:


"The evidence indicates that child support guidelines were never about the best interest of children but were instead about transfer of wealth from support-paying parents, mostly fathers, to support-receiving mothers, under the guise of child support"


Livingagoodlife....what might also be a good question is why a parent who is involved with their children in terms of co-parenting and having heir own housing costs to manage are required to pay the same amount of cs as a parent who is not involved?

Also try Googling the economist Ross Finne. He was instrumental in developing some of the formulas even if he he opposed the actual guidlines implemented as being too rigid and would generate inequitable awards and would create effects of work effort...perhaps illustrated by part time jobs while collecting cs?

But I also challenge anyone to look at the profile of the custodial parent who is complaining about the cs they do not receive...part time or still a student long after one would suggest they should be finished their schooling. I also suggest that career choices are something that one makes and I fail to understand why one should be awarded by someone else for the choice they made in life when they are not doing the job they could have? I made my career choice and there is no one else who is responsible or should be responsible for that choice. yet to often woman whine or suggest they were disadvantaged by having children. That was perhaps once true but today the reality is the ones who are no where in life are there because of their own choices in life and to blame it on children or expect the other parent to finacially compensate for ever is corrupt.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 418
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/27/2010 8:17:37 PM
Every scenario is different. If two parents agreed that it was in the best interest of their children for one of them to remain at home until the children went to school, then it could be considered fair that this arrangement be continued.

When the CS earns more, than they receive less, percentage wise. To say that they are "sitting with their hands out" as if they are stealing from you, is suggestive. The truth is that BOTH parents are responsible to provide financially for their children, regardless of income.

There was really no need for argument here. I simply answered as to what I believe the tables were based on. Again, if it can be determined that approx. 25% of combined income is spent on child expenses, then providing for this percentage relative to percentage of income does seem fair.

There are tons of examples where parents of both genders avoid responsibility; they conveniently have trouble finding or keeping a job, they get "injured" on the job, all in an effort to reduce payments made to someone they have come to feel vindictive against. That doesn't make the basic premise, or calculation, unfair.

It is simply not true that only one parent is required to work, and it is not a mandate at all! That determination is made by the court in individual cases and, as is the way of the law, the party with the most money to expend on an attorney usually prevails. No one has said that the courts are fair, or that it is their job to monitor the fairness of every situation, we are discussing CS payments & how they are determined.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 419
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/28/2010 7:20:17 AM

It is simply not true that only one parent is required to work, and it is not a mandate at all! That determination is made by the court in individual cases and, as is the way of the law, the party with the most money to expend on an attorney usually prevails. No one has said that the courts are fair, or that it is their job to monitor the fairness of every situation, we are discussing CS payments & how they are determined.


Okay; So where would there be a law or legal requirement mandating that the custodial parent must have a job? Now in Canada we have some whacked on rules in terms of cs requirements for children who are not biologically yours....but it also never requires custodial parents to hold down a job.

In fact....a woman can remarry and then become a stay at home parent to a new child from that marriage and not pay cs to children from her first marriage. As it seems it is her "right" to stay at home and nurture her child. Or a woman can re-marry and not work with her custodial children being supported by her new husband but still expect the ex husband to pay his appropriate cs as it is not the expectation of the new husband to be finacially supporting the children. But the courts or laws do not require the mother or custodial parent to be finacially contributing.

So are the requirements in New York for both parents to be finacially supporting the children?

As to the new husband...his income is not allowed to be considered...LOL unless he becomes an ex himself...then the custodial mother can ask for cs from the step father..and collect from both the biological father and the step father.

Again never requiring the mother or custodial parent to actually be holding down a job herself.


Then again shouldn't a custodial parent be entitled to a caregiver amount?


No. I have a house and would have a house if they were here full time...the majority of the time or simply every other weekend and I was the non custodial parent.

As custodial parent I am entitled to claim the CCTB and when younger benefit from the tax deductions. But I thought the option of having children was the joy they brought to you? yet it seems like many other custodial parents you think you deserve a payment for what you do! so what amount do you place on your children? How much are they worth it to you?


Furthermore, aren't federal cs tables based on 60/40? So if the co-parenting arrangement is 50/50 or 55/45 then the tables wouldn't apply and a lesser amount or even no payment at all would be required.


Really? How so? 60/40 and the tables were or for some are used and then the larger amount owing is deducted from the lesser amount and then the amount is paid out to the lower income parent...but the Supreme Court did overturn that principle....a few years ago.

Federal cs tables are based on income. Nothing else.


I would love to hear some ideas as to how that could work so I could present to the ex. Perhaps this week with you next week with me kind of thing but how would that work for the kids. It seems like a yo-yo type arrangement for the kids.


I had it occur for one of the two children for a couple of years...after a few years of every other weekend ????? decided to split the week 50/50....little problem as both houses were in the same school district and a few minutes from each other. But after a couple of years gradually ???? choice is back using this house as primary housing point.

I suggest that the problem is often more often the parent and not the children. Just like temp workers who every day go to different place to work...you adapt.

CS is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Now payments like sharing dental costs or post secondary education I have a different slant on.

But then unlike you livingagood life...I have not put a value on the head of my children.
I am capable of paying for their needs and I would have the same housing costs if they were here 20% or 100% of the time....

So where is this need for a caregiver amount? I think you need to stop seeing your children as a source of income! So are you also always found with your hand out at the government agencies suggesting it is your right to have these funds for your choice to have children? One makes the choice to have children. One would hope that when the choice was made, they had a place to live and the finacial capability to support themselves and their children. But we know often people are not that bright or realistic and we have single parents going to school and not working whining about why they need more money from the ex when no ones asks why they are themselves not working and not capable of being self sufficient.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 420
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/28/2010 11:43:06 AM
Then again shouldn't a custodial parent be entitled to a caregiver amount?


I fail to see where you say "should'nt a full time custodial parent get a caregiver amount".....or a parent whose non custodial ex partner should pay if they are not involved and not pay if they are involved.


I don't even get cs. You sound really upset about the cs you pay. Maybe you should try contacting your MP to try and bring about constructive, positive change or return to court to have your situation reviewed stop projecting your own anger at others.


LOL...never paid a dime! They either live with me full time or over the golden 50%---60% of the time...and over the last 7 1/2 years it is probably averaged out at 80% plus...and I have a record going.

Never received a dime...and as my ex has a house and a home that also has to be paid for...so the children can have a choice as to where they might wish to live...without crippling the non custodial parent...I happen to see that as more important than extorting funds out of the other parent.

But then that requires the custodial parent to actually working and earning an income and we have some very vocal custodial mothers who either do not work or work part time using cs and government programs to top up what they feel they are not required to earn on their own merit.


Where did you get a value on my kids' head from that?


Then again shouldn't a custodial parent be entitled to a caregiver amount?


Asking for a caregiver amount is putting a value on what one would expect a parent to be doing. I fail to see why I should be given any amount for doing and following through what is what I should be doing since I am responsible for my children. The other reality is why should the non custodial parent be adding to the finacial resources of the custodial parent? What portion per child in square feet is deemed as required and then is a income transfer from a custodial parent to a non custodial parent?

The existing system in Canada has a component of 100-125 sq feet per child housing cost that effectively transfers resources from the hands of the non custodial parent into the hands of the custodial parent without any consideration of the same costs that the non custodial is required to bear if they are to be involved and have housing.

Why not sit back and evaluate the disposable income of two parents earning $50,000 per year in Brampton. 2 Children ? Simplified tables $753 month

custodial parent $50,000 + $9,036 = $59,036
non custodial $50,000 - $9,036 = $40,964

Now you being in the financial field know that the income tax of the non custodial parent is paid on the $50,000 less the Federal tax credit...but the custodial parent pays on the $50,000 less the same Federal tax credit and the additional spousal credit so the actual taxes paid by custodial parents is less than what non custodial parents on the exact same income earned.

Then on top of that lowered income tax paid the custodial parent also benefits from additional tax write offs and the CCTB.

So I ask how much financial value...or how much more financial value do you put on the head of each of your children as a custodial parent?

Now in our situation we do not realize the benefit of the cs in our hands...but I assume you are collecting the CCTB and are gaining the benefit of the additional tax credits.

But what the heck....if my math or beliefs are faulty then feel free to critique the postings....i was always brought up with the concept if you do not want to be critiqued....keep your opinion to yourself or find a doormat who agrees with everything you say?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 421
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/28/2010 6:59:06 PM

Okay; So where would there be a law or legal requirement mandating that the custodial parent must have a job? Now in Canada we have some whacked on rules in terms of cs requirements for children who are not biologically yours....but it also never requires custodial parents to hold down a job.


There is no legal requirement to have a job for either parent. Income can be imputed, and this is often the case, based on past years' tax returns, as well as the ability to earn income. It is obvious that Canada is quite different from the US, but that doesn't negate any parents responsibility for their offspring. In any case, it is my opinion, and perhaps shared by the courts, that a woman at home with a baby does contribute to the family. Assuming that the nonCP's payments don't increase in the example you mention, then I guess the step parent IS contributing to the support of that child, isn't he?
In any case, the answer to your question is, for the most part, yes. The tables as I showed them do indeed base CS payments on the assumption that both parents are supporting their children. If one earns 90% of the income, then that person is responsible for 90% of the 25% of total income attributable to the cost of raising (in the instance where 25% applies) two children.

I agree with you, the problem is the parents, not the children, and it doesn't seem to matter which side of the argument one is on. However, assuming that someone who brings up the need for payment to a caregiver looks upon children as income producers is quite ludicrous. I know that child care for only one of my three children costs exactly 23% of my AGI; my ex contributes zero for that ex[ense, so it can hardly be said that I "profit" , or that I don't sacrifice. Certainly, children bring joy to their parents (mostly), but to deny the fact that raising children involves sacrifice (opportunity cost, if you will), is simply having one's head in the clouds. Particularly for those of us who are single, parenting REQUIRES sacrifice. Accepting this willingly without denying the fact that it exists, is part of maturity & realism.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > An "unofficial" look at CS payment amounts.