I frequently read and hear anecdotes about non-custodial parents (usually fathers) being ordered to pay outrageously high child support – amounts that are impossible for anyone with an ordinary income to afford. No doubt some of these anecdotes are exaggerated, but I’m convinced that some are not. Unaffordable child support payments don’t benefit anyone – not even the children – and should not be imposed. Furthermore, some measures to help non-custodial parents pay child support – such as a tax deduction of some sort – would be reasonable.
However, some men’s rights activists (MRAs) use rhetoric which suggests that child support payments are often or typically outrageously high, or that child support has made single motherhood a profitable situation for women. Neither claim is true.
According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher – $350 a month. That’s a noticeable amount – similar in scope to payments on a new car – but it’s hardly the crushing, slavery-like burden some MRAs seem to describe child support as.
Although the Census Bureau report doesn’t provide detailed income breakdowns, what information it has indicates that child support amounts are sensitive to income. For instance, among fathers who are below the poverty line, the median child support payment is $125 a month, compared to a median of $300 a month for those above the poverty line.
So despite the terrible anecdotes that we hear (and if you think about it, it’s those who are mistreated by the system who are going to talk about their experiences the most often), the evidence shows that typical child support payments are not ridiculously high. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about those outliers who are being ordered to pay unaffordable amounts of child support; however, I think the weight of the evidence suggests that while the system may need some tweaking, on the whole it’s not broken.
* * *
So the typical child support payment is $280 a month – put another way, half of custodial parents who receive child support get $280 a month or less. How does that compare to the costs of raising a child?
Again, the federal government compiles some good statistics on this (pdf link). For a single parent with an income of about $17,500, raising a single child for 17 years will cost about $10,125 a year, or $840 a month.
Of course, a single parent who earns $17,500 a year is pretty poor. What about single parents who aren’t poor? For better-off single parents – those earning an average of $65,000 a year – raising a single child for 17 years will cost almost $21,600 a year, or a little over $1,800 a month.
All told, the typical child support payment in the USA covers much less than half the expense of raising a child. Custodial parents – usually mothers – are taking on not only the majority of the work involved in childrearing, and the majority of the opportunity costs – they’re taking on the majority of the cash expenses, as well.
Therefore, I’d support a two-tiered reform to child support. Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases. At the same time, typical child support payments are simply too low, compared to the cost of raising a child; therefore, most non-custodial parents should have their child support obligations increased. (This will also have the side benefit of reducing unwed motherhood.)
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can verify for myself that she’d tell me the same version of events that you’re telling me, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort is more useful than the federal data.
Mythago – you are entitled to your idea’s…
Jake- OK NOTE: As per your request-
“But hey, if anybody wants to stop by my workplace, just drop me a note. I’ll be happy to show you the paystubs w/ names blanked out.”
I have my GPS ready, shoot….
Ken,
Shoot me an email – jakesquid at hotmail. Let’s see when we can arrange to meet.
Indeed I am, ken. Such as the idea that if you really believe Jake had violated a specific law, you could say so, rather than throwing in a kitchen sink of vague allusions to privacy laws coupled with threats about private investigators. “A sub of the Federal Privacy Act”? Which sub would that be, given that the act protects individuals’ privacy from collection by the federal government? C
Hmmm. I received an email from Kelly Drayer at a va.gov address. Is that you, ken? Why didn’t try to arrange for us to meet? What is this “site” to which your email refers? What “voluntary request” did I make of the Veteran’s Administration?
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
So you’ve decided to try to intimidate me? Good luck with that.
LOL. that’s entertaining… I bet someone was hoping to rattle ya!
Well… as a lawyer who does a lot of consumer stuff, I’d agree with both parties a bit.
If Jake actually posted real numbers (and there’s no way to know, is there?) that would probably be unwise. There’s no reason not to tweak them all to the nearest $10, for example, which would functionally anonymize them while still protecting the underlying point.*
But unwise isn’t illegal. Illegality doesn’t arise from a theoretical possibility of disclosure (“if the NSA hacked your IP, and decided to disclose it to your spouse under the grounds of national security, then….”) Illegality is a circumstance-based issue. Posting numbers under an anonymous moniker on an Internet bulletin board is extremely unlikely to be illegal, because we don’t know enough to identify people–or, for that matter, to know if Senor Squid is even being truthful about it. If anything, the “tell me who you are” guy is making it more illegal, not less. Tell me more? Er, no.
Of course, I suspect Jake already did that. I’m betting that the numbers were already altered by a few dollars (how many folks are paid $44,498 and not $44,500?) in which case this is entirely moot.
Jake: am i right?
*It just has to do with a reverse data search, i.e. typing the salaries into PACER or somewhere else, and actually finding something. Which would be incredibly difficult, but isn’t 100% impossible for more unusual numbers–ergo “unwise.” Change the numbers even a bit, though–say, by rounding to the nearest $5 or $10–and it changes from “incredibly difficult” to “functionally impossible.”
Some numbers may vary by small amounts, yes. Not that I’m particularly worried that names could be determined if I hadn’t done that.
It’s interesting, though, isn’t it? I mean how giving real world numbers that didn’t match preconceived notions resulted in threats rather than changing opinion or somehow reconciling those numbers (anecdote, small sample, etc.). It tells you something about that person and gives a hint, not conclusive evidence, about folks in that movement in general.
I’ve been on this board for years. I think my track history of truthfulness speaks for itself (correctness is a different matter and more open to debate, I think). ken has been on this board for weeks, if that, and now has a track record as a bully. I know which kind of person I’m more inclined to believe.
If nothing else, ken has given me a position on the issue. An issue that I’d thought little about before.
Jake, why do you hate privacy? How much is SkyNet paying you to track your fellow humans?
Hey Squidward,
It was my brother, he’s an investigator for the Federal VA. He just wanted to see if you were stupid enough to send him the info. I told him you didn’t have the balls.. But, you can send it to me at kdrayer@semperfi0106,com, I’ll be your huckleberry!
Hey Jenn- and you take advice from a person who quotes:
“If nothing else, ken has given me a position on the issue. An issue that I’d thought little about before.” oooh, you might want to put down that shovel.. PS. and flattery will get you nowhere..
Well at least I’m not stupid enough to have balls…
PS: Can we bid a fond farewell to ken at this point? Or does he have to physically threaten me for that to happen?
Q: What was the name of Dylan’s back-up group? The ___________?
A: Banned.
Well, that was creepy as hell.
here’s an interesting article about child support. I agree with it completely. http://carrieferland.hubpages.com/hub/what-is-child-support-supposed-to-cover
My husband was just ordered by the court to pay $1000/month for his 10 year old daughter. He was paying $450. He makes 100K a year and she makes 40K. The unfair part about it is now she will never try to make any more money. Because she doesn’t need to. There is no way she spends 1000 a month on their daughter. She uses his mother for child care at any time. Which is usually every other weekend and all school breaks. His daughter spends the night at least 100 days a year at his mothers. We had to move out of state because his job relocated. We also pay 760/month on healthcare. I think the system is unfair. Especially when it comes to taxes. We used to put money in her savings for school and will not be able to do that anymore, because we dont have the money. She certainly won;t be doing it either. She is horrible with money. Eventhough her expenses have decreased because she moved in with her fiance.
the thing that is really frustrating is as a custodial father I bust my ass to pay my ex 30% of my check to see my daughter once a week while she gets to babysit her and spend my money because she doesn’t have a job. I’m not saying that she’s lazy and worthless she’s a good mom to my daughter I’m just saying it’s bullshit that I have to work my ass off for one day and she gets her all of them with some of my money.
I would be hestitant to judge his ex wife.
Its not like she makes a ton of money, and at 450/month she really couldnt have afforded commerical daycare/holiday care/summer care easily. It’s a good thing she has her mother. some people leave 10 year old kids alone to save money. Not always the bet choice.
And wow he was really underpaying prior to the adjustment! I wonder how that happened. How do you know she doesn’t or wont give her mother money to help with expenses? How do you know her expenses? Sounds like you guys don’t physically help with the daughter at all (I could be wrong, but you said you were out of state, and she stays with grand mother).
Yeah, you might want to resist judgement. The new wife/girl friend rarely know really what’s going on.
I just reread your post, i realize now you said his mother (not hers). So I guess you may know if she helps with expenses!
Regardless of who’s mother it is, it is good she has another option for child care, as the PRIOR child support wouldn’t have nearly been enough.
Still, you are in no place to judge her expenses/situation. Several years ago my ex was married for a bit (that has since ended). He was behind in child support and his tax refund came to me. His new wife had the guts to email me asking me if I’d give it to them after the feds sent it to me. She was very nice about. To this day, for the life of me, I can not figure out why she thought that was an “ok” thing to do. I have no idea what my ex was telling her to think there was ANY hope of that.
Why was the child support increased from $450 to $1000?
Mythago, I guess we’ll never know!
Maybe because it’s completely outrageous for someone who makes $100,000 a year to contribute only $5400 per year to the support of their own child?
Probably, but there was apparently some reason it was lower before. Increase in salary? Decrease in custodial time?
I admit I don’t understand the argument “This man’s child support is too high because I’m sleeping with him now and his kids are by a previous female!”, but I’m willing to listen.
See, I said earlier in this discussion that I see an obligation for NCPs to prioritize ongoing support to existing children, up to and including not having further children with future partners if you can’t afford to support both Batch #1 and Batch #2. Because your obligation to your kids doesn’t end just because you don’t love their other parent any more. And I would extend that obligation to not letting future partners try to undermine your obligation to your existing children. So I am with you, mythago, in your lack of comprehension here.
It’s funny, I typed the same comment (but using percentages and comparison of before and after) as Elusis did at #720. But then I didn’t post it because I haven’t had much part in the conversation. I’m relieved that I’m not the only one who was immediately struck by those numbers.
I agree with Elusis.
Pretty much the main reason I let comment 714 through is that I thought it was so remarkable that someone who makes $100,000 a year (if Theresa’s opinion matches her husbands) resents spending $12,000 a year supporting his own daughter.
For most of my adult life, I’ve lived on under $20,000 a year (pre-taxes) — and I live comfortably. I am warm in the winter, adequately clothed, never lack for food, use AC on hot days, etc. The idea that I should feel sympathy for someone because they have only $88,000 to scrape by on after the horrible burden of supporting his daughter — it’s just beyond my comprehension.
Post 714 falls into the common trap of these kinds of posts, of being a litany of how unfair everything is to poor, poor, me…but I think you underestimate the impact of the change, o sub-20k-ampersandian. The key element of Theresa’s lament, which she did not elaborate on but which I will, was taxes.
(I’ll start by saying that $1000 a month out of a $8333 monthly wage is far from an unreasonable support order. But I am interested in exploring the economics of the question beyond just “fairness”.)
You say, Amp, that it is hard to feel pity for someone who only has $88k left. And your perspective is not without foundation…but dad doesn’t actually have $88k left. Dad makes $100k a year. Exact taxes paid is a weed-overgrown area but this link has a table that looks workable, so I’m going with it. Dad is paying either 8.1 or 11.9 percent of his income in total Federal taxes. I’m gonna call it 10%, and then let’s add another 5% for state and local taxes. (The actual mean rate is higher than that, so I’m not being overly taxophobic; this is a good-faith estimate.)
So Dad’s real net income is $85k, not $100k. Then he deducts the $12k in child support (which does not come off his taxable income, which is where there is some injustice in the system), so he’s making $73k net-net. Still, ain’t bad.
Mom – who I do acknowledge is carrying about 2/3 or more of the cost of raising the kid, with grandma apparently providing an uncompensated subsidy – earns $40k. Her net tax rate is about 11.5%, so her real cash income is $35k or so. Then she adds the $12k on from child support (which she does not pay taxes on), giving her a net-net of $47k.
Dad: $73k
Mom: $47k
Also note that poster 714 mentioned Dad carries daughter’s health insurance (this, by the way, is probably one big reason the previous support order was not overly generous) and that this costs $760 per month. She doesn’t specify that this is JUST for daughter and Mom wouldn’t be getting it anyway so I’m not going to add it in to these figures, but we should remember Dad is kicking a few K a year at least for that.
Nobody is going to cry dad a river because he is sooooo poor, particularly Amp in his urban troglodyte dwelling, peering at the dimly flickering computer screen by the light from a discarded kerosene lantern.
But in raw terms, Dad was earning 2.5 times as much money as Mom was in their purely professional capacities. Presumably, this is because Dad has much more education, or is doing much higher-level work, or some other rational factor. Dad is a doctor, Mom is a 1st grade teacher or a mail carrier. Not dissing either of those professions, and TOTALLY not interested in a “but they’re working hard too!!!!!” digression – but Dad’s salary, and Mom’s salary, in all likelihood reflect choices they made, investments they made, conditions of their work, etc.
But the child support and the structure of the taxation regime means that the $60k premium Dad used to enjoy as the fruit of going to Hahvahd or being a hotshot lawyer or w/e, becomes a $25k premium.
Does daughter deserve that level of support? Absolutely.
Do I have some degree of sympathy to Dad for the perceived tightening of his belt, at least some of which goes to the benefit of his ex? Absolutely – particularly when you consider that given the RAW income figures, daughter, Mom, family members, etc., are all going to be expecting Dad to pay the lion’s share of optional additional (non-support) expenses. And the Court is likely – having just done this, and having had the functionaries of the Court singularly uninterested in the actual net ratio of incomes – to assign any mandatory extra costs in a proportion of 2.5:1 (nominal income basis) rather than 73:47 (real income basis).
I suspect that the poster of 714 is a lot more concerned with how much lucre she can skim off of Dad, than with justice – but her contention that Mom is now strongly disincentivized to earn more money seems to be pretty dead on. If she improves her lot, Dad is going to go back to Court to ask for another adjustment, and the money she gets from Dad is *tax-free* – it’s worth more to her than new money from personal income would be. I doubt she’d have zero marginal incentive, but even a few percentage points can knock a lot off a person’s motivation at the margin, and it would be more than a few percentage points of disincentive.
It’s better to be the higher-earning ex-partner, at least when both partners are working for a living (NOT THAT I’M BITTER), but it isn’t all a bed of roses either.
I have heard the argument that child support should be untaxed before.. Or a deduction for tax purposes. I haven’t thought a whole lot about it, but it does seem to keep coming up. Married people are taxed on income they earn that goes to the kids. Why would divorced people not? Could then the CP take a portion of their income and claim it as child expenses and not pay taxes on that?
I guess because the NCP see’s it as ‘gross income’ to the CP, verses the part of their ‘net income’ that goes towards the well being of the child.
Not quite following you. Child support is tax-free for the recipient; the payor pays taxes on it. I make and pay taxes on $50, I hand you $10 for our kid’s CS, you don’t pay on the $10. I am not sure what the rationale behind this is; it would make more logical sense for paid CS to be a deduction from taxable income, and for the receiving parent to pay taxes on it; they are the one who actually has the income. I guess one major reason for NOT making the change is that it would be a big, but very variable depending on individual situations, shift in the balance of payments; suddenly a lot of payors are paying less (same amount to the other parent, less to the state) and a lot of receivers are receiving less (same gross amount, but now taxed).
“Child support is tax-free for the recipient”… well that depends how you look at it. is this really income to the CP. or is this the NCP paying their part of the childs expenses.
Income is income, and it does not depend on how you look at it; it’s tax-free.
The custodial parent is already paying taxes on their income, including on the portion that goes to their kid. It’s not like the custodial parent isn’t paying for things their kid needs.
I also don’t understand why the NCP’s obligation goes down if the CP’s income goes up. Is that really how it works? If both parents make $80K, the NCP would pay less than if the NCP makes $80K and the CP makes $40K?
Robert – imagine you and I buy a house together as a business venture, and we take out a mortgage, such that each month I pay the 50% of the mortgage payment and you pay the other 50%. Am I expected to pay income tax on your contribution to the mortgage?
A child is an 18 year debt by both legal parents that cannot be bought out of (under normal circumstances). Child support is the contribution by the NCP towards that debt. It is not income for the PC.
chingona – some states do take each parties income into account when calculating c/s. Many of those states also use the amount of time the parent has the kids to come up with a c/s amount also.
I live in a state where it is a % based on NCP based on the numbers of kids.
I do know people in my state who share custody and share expenses and do something closer to what other states do, but that is not the norm where i live.
@731:
It goes down because child support is based on the difference in income modified by the relative share of parenting time. If the NCP’s income goes up, child support goes up (or will if is taken to court). If the NCP’s parenting time goes up, child support goes down (or can – depends on the state, and in some places there’s a magic number but not a smooth curve). The opposite is true for the CP; CP’s income up, child support down; CP’s parenting time up, child support up. Note that this is if it’s a disputed divorce and the court is having to make rulings on everything; I know of plenty of people with amicable divorces who got an initial court order but have just been managing everything themselves subsequently without going back to have the court approve it. That’s sooo much easier, but of course, also sooo much riskier if one parent decides to go into Douche Mode.
@732:
Yes, it is income. Come on. It’s a check with a dollar figure on it, and they will trade it at the bank for currency for you, and you can spend that currency on whatever you like. Money is fungible. The fact that money is supposed to be used for the support of the child (and usually is, naturally) doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not it’s income or not. If my employer decides to put $10,000 a year into a savings account for my kid, but I have access to the funds and no oversight of how they’re spent, does my income go up? Obviously it does. If I’m an honest person, I spend it on my kid – yay for me and my honesty. But it’s income no matter how I spend it.
In the case of your housing analogy, it’s more like this. You and I buy a house together as a business venture, and each pay half the mortgage. But later you become a supervillain and you move the house to the Moon and move into it, and allow me access on alternate weekends IF I can find a Moon rocket to take me there and back. But we still have a contract on Earth that causes 50% of the mortgage payment to be deducted from my salary every month. Should you be paying the income tax on that, since it’s income to you now? Hell yes. We’re no longer in partnership.
I disagree about the income part. If you want to split hairs, it’s the child’s income for the childs expenses. the parents each support their child with their after tax income. the money was already taxed at the place it was earned.
Both parents pay taxes on their income. Both parents spend some of their money on the kids. That’s really simple. It’s what married people do. It’s what divorced or never-married people do. It’s the same system for everyone.
You make another human being with a person, then some of your income must continue to go toward that “joint venture.”
You can make all sorts of fancy analogies, and basically make yourself correct by defining the terms. That doesn’t mean your argument actually makes sense.
Then the child should be filing the income tax returns. The people who are using the money are the people realizing the income, and they should be the ones paying the taxes on it. The non-custodial parent is NOT paying the support from after-tax income; they are paying it from (and based on) before-tax income. That’s the unfairness; not that “support is too high” or any of that nonsense, but that the tax regime is taxing the person who nominally earned it rather than the person who actually gets it.
Maybe it would help to exaggerate what happens, to make the unfairness pop.
Let’s say that my tax rate is 90%. Yep, the nightmare of the wingnuts is upon us, and productive citizens like me are having nearly all their income confiscated. Amp chortles in his socialistic trog-cave and the productive class all moves to Nevada to start Galt’s Gulch and starves. But I don’t go because nobody told me how to fly the plane.
So my income is $100k, and the government takes $90k. Bastards. But my child support obligation of $10k doesn’t disappear; it’s based on $100k, not $10k. So I send off the check for $10k, and go live with mom and dad on $0 a year. Meanwhile, my supervillain ex, who does not work, gets a $10k check to spend on our kid. She pays no taxes; she does not work; her household income is $10k. I pay $90k in taxes; I work full-time; my household income is $0.
Obviously, the tax rate is not 90% and if it was we’d have a different child support system in place – the point of this is to show how the income flow is treated by the tax system and why that ends up being unfair to the person paying the support.
Chingona, I am not arguing that people should not support their children. They should. I am arguing that the tax system is collecting the tax at the wrong place, and that it is a mild, not-revolution-worthy, but real injustice.
The non-custodial parent is NOT paying the support from after-tax income; they are paying it from (and based on) before-tax income.
I understand that. It’s just as true of the custodial parent.
Let me put this another way. We have a married couple in which the husband earns $100,000 a year and the wife stays home with the kids and they spend approximately $10,000 a year on the kid. He pays whatever the tax rate is – let’s just say 20 percent to make it easy. Then they divorce. He continues to spend $10,000 a year on this kid. He continues to pay a 20 percent tax rate. All of a sudden it’s an injustice? This makes no sense.
Robert @725, actually the key element of Theresa’s lament is “my beloved has to give that no-account bitch more of our money.” There is nothing about why the child support amount allegedly more than doubled, so we have no idea if her darling was paying too little before, if his income went up, if the child’s expenses increased, or what. I suspect if it were something at least plausibly unfair (“she got more custody!”) it would have been part of the lament.
I’m not sure why you think Mom is disincentivized from making more money. Presumably, if she makes more money she will have more money, right? Unless the argument is that she will suffer a net loss. Yes, there are custodial parents who are lazy and would rather sit around all day than have a lot more money, just as there are non-custodial parents who would rather be unemployed and couch-surf than have decent jobs and pay their child support. I doubt either is the norm.
Mythago, she’s disincentivized in that her marginal hourly wage is lower. You might work more hours for $30/hour. You might not work more hours for $10/hour. “More money” has to be compared with “what I have to do to get it”.
If Mom714 was working 40 hours a week to make her $40k a year, then she’s getting about $20/hour. So an opportunity comes along to work another 10 hours a week at non-overtime rates (she’s lower management), which would boost her income by $200 a week, $10k a year. But if she does that, her child support will drop by $5k. So her real income will only go up by $100 a week – $10 an hour. But wait – she wasn’t paying tax on the $5k a year she just lost, and she IS paying tax on the entire $20 an hour that she’s nominally paid. Her net real wage increase might be just a couple bucks an hour, or maybe $5 or $6 an hour. She doesn’t make $20 for working an extra hour, she makes $6 – it’s like reverse-overtime. That’s a powerful disincentive for working more.
Chingona – Yes, that’s the way things used to be. But the divorce ended that partnership. Working dad is no longer entitled to having a no-cash-cost child support system from mom, mom is no longer entitled to enjoying a $100k a year lifestyle. Mom and Dad each need to contribute $5k a year toward the kids’ benefit, and X hours per week of parenting work, to meet their equal obligation. That might not be equally divisible in that way, especially if one parent is non-custodial, so the court will work out some compromise – quite possibly, that mom continues to do all the labor and dad continues to do all the paid work, at the same level as before.
But dad is no longer in control of the disposition of that $10,000, or half in control. He’s not buying $10k a year of supplies and services and shipping them off to mom; he’s sending mom a check which she then spends as she pleases. Mom is in control of the money; it’s part of her income, not his. The partnership is broken and the distribution of responsibilities is now handled differently, probably by court order rather than by mutual agreement. So the assumption that things are just the same as they were before is incorrect, and we have to look at the economics of the question from a fresh starting-over perspective, not a status quo ante perspective.
Robert, extra money is a powerful incentive for working more, particularly when it is extra income in the long run. If mom is lower management, then taking extra hours is a way to seek promotion and a step up the career ladder – which means more income in the future, and more stability, since her child support income is partially dependent on the other parent’s income. If the NCP loses their job or successfully petitioned for more custody, she’s rejected that extra work (and likely, the chances of promotion for that employer) for nothing.
In the case of two well-off parents, is a bad thing if the custodial parent has a disincentive to work as much as possible? A lot of people think that it’s good for a child to have their custodial parent working 35 hours a week rather than 50, for instance, since a 35-hour-a-week parent is more available for, well, parenting.
It might help you come around to Robert’s POV if you think about these.
Scenario A [now]: The NCP pays 50% tax and spends $500 tax and $500 CS, and the CP pays 20% tax and gets $500 tax free.
Scenario B [deductable, child gain]: The NCP pays 50% tax and spends $0 tax and $1000 pre-tax CS, and the CP pays 20% tax and gets $1000 CS taxed down to $800.
Scenario C [deductable, NCP gain]: The NCP pays 50% tax and spends $0 tax and $625 pre-tax CS, and the CP pays 20% tax and gets $625 CS taxed down to $500.
Or we could have a Scenario D with both the child and NCP gaining to some degree. The only people worse off under B or C or D are the government. Family breakup has inevitable financial costs, by making no allowance I think all the current law does is pass the financial risks of this from the government to individual families.
Mythago, that’s a fair point about career development – but only a minority of people work that way. Most are more immediate in their incentive response.
Amp, whether it’s good or not probably depends on the individual. Should our tax policy be aimed at getting divorced people to slow their careers?
If we are going to subsidize the child support payments of non-custodial parents by letting child support be pre-tax (and hugely complicate the taxes of custodial parents receiving child support), it makes no sense to me to disproportionately subsidize the child support payments of wealthy non-custodial parents. Who needs child support subsidies more, someone making $100k/yr or someone making $20k/yr?
Robert @746: Most people aren’t lower management, either. Which means that for a lot of people, even an extra $60 a week net is going to be a big incentive to keep working.
Your example in @742 also makes a lot of assumptions about the pre-divorce marriage. Did Dad have any say in how the money was spent on the kids, or did he just hand over money to Mom to take care of the kids with? Did she actually provide childcare instead of paying a provider or letting Grandma handle it?
Charles, in a progressive tax system, any transfer of income from richer to poorer, pre-tax, is going to cut government income. That’s not really a subsidy, it’s an artifact of soaking the rich. If Bill Gates sends a tax-deductible but taxable gift to a bunch of people, the gummint gets less tax that year, but Bill isn’t being subsidized.
As for complicating the returns of the lower-income “hugely”, a) how? and b) so? Being a custodial parent does not excuse anyone from the ordinary duties of citizenship, other than the draft. If filing a 1040 is such a burden, let’s reduce the strain on everyone, not just mommies and daddies.
Mythago, the specifics of the example, and their incidence in the populace, are largely incidental. You asked how “more money” could ever be a disincentive, and I explained with the most clarity-facilitating examples I could think of how the current system could end up making additional work seem unattractive, by being ill-paid per new hour and thus being less utility-maximizing than other choices for the use of that time.
That some people would or ought to take on the work anyway for longer-term outcome optimization doesn’t bear on what the system does to current marginal incentives; those long term rational strategies would still be rational even if the system did nothing to reduce the receiving parent’s marginsl wage.
You asked how “more money” could ever be a disincentive
No, I asked why more money is a disincentive when it actually results in more money, rather than less. I understand the marginal wage concept. I think you’re ignoring other factors that may influence how important that additional money is – when it makes the difference between paying the bills and not, when it is very minor compared to overall income, when the offset from child support is steady enough to rely upon and refuse extra work, how many hours are already worked, and so on. Certainly there will be cases where the CP compares additional work vs. the effect on child support and says “blow this noise”.
Robert, it’s not that I don’t understand the math. I don’t understand why noncustodial parents should get to deduct the money they spend on their kids, when no other parent gets to deduct the money spent on their kids. I understand that he writes a check and someone else spends it. It’s still money for stuff that kids need. I can’t think of any reason why it should be in a different tax category than the money I spend on my kids.
Because you don’t control it. It’s NOT money “for what the kids need”; it’s money, period. CP can spend it on crack and whores. CP can spend it on kids’ tuition and lessons. CP can spend it on a beach house or vital medicine or cable TV.
The purpose of the Court in ordering the support is the kid’s needs. The intention of the payor is almost always the kid’s needs. The general use of the money, by the CP, is more often than not, the kid’s needs. But the payment is a cash transfer, not an in-kind transfer, and the funds are owned, controlled and disbursed by the CP. A cash tranfer, the use of which is out of my control and over which I get no oversight or even accounting, ought to be a pre-tax transaction.
Thought experiment. Instead of your court-ordered support, your ex sends you goods and services worth approximately the same amount, but without consulting you. Is the Court satisfied? Probably not. Are you satisfied? Probably not. But if all that matters is that the other party supports their kid, what’s the problem? The problem is that the Court ordered, and the CP expects, a transfer of income under the CP’s control. Control of cash constitutes that cash being the controller’s income, even if they spend it on someone else.
Shorter: parents don’t get to deduct the money that they spend on their kids.
Money that I send to my ex is not money that I am spending on my kids. At best, it’s money that SHE is spending on her kids. See first sentence: she doesn’t get to deduct that from her income.
Robert – I can see your logic in requiring the CP to pay tax for the child support payments (I don’t agree, but your argument makes sense to me). What I fail to understand is why the NCP shouldn’t be taxed as well. Could you please explain that part?
Because income should only be taxed once. The CP currently doesn’t pay tax because the NCP already paid; if the CP is going to pay then the NCP shouldn’t have to. Our system generally tries pretty hard to avoid double (or worse) taxation; it’s pernicious.
But wait… You’re having your cake and eating it too here. Income should only be taxed once, *per entity*. If I pay my taxes, and use some of the remaining money to hire a carpenter to build me a new table, she can’t then claim that she doesn’t need to pay tax on her income because I’ve already paid. Neither can I ask the government for a tax refund because the carpenter will pay income tax on the money I give her.
You are explicitly denying that the NCP and CP are engaged in a joint venture; your entire logic is that once the marriage broke down, the NCP is simply paying the CP to take care of the child. In that case, the CP is a service provider – hence the requirement that the CP treat the money as income. The fact that it’s a court-mandated service is besides the point. It seems to me that the very argument you are using to state that the CP must pay taxes also means that the NCP must pay them.
That’s a reasonable perspective. However, I think that the appropriate entity is the child(ren) – income putatively (and usually) going to the child’s welfare should only be taxed the one time, without fretting that it passes through two different taxpayers. Unlike your carpentry example, the NCP doesn’t have the option to not “hire” the CP; s/he is a pass-through for the money, not a decider of where it goes.
But I could be wrong; maybe we should tax ’em both. I am open to argument.
I don’t think treating child support as income for the CP completely works. It is income in the sense that they’re getting a check, but they’re getting that check in place of having the other parent either present spending money on the kid, or having 50% custody and spending money on the kid while they’re with them.
At most, I can see it being taxed at the child rate (and ignoring the cap above which a kid’s income starts getting taxed at the parent’s rate). Or, potentially, to avoid having it taxed twice, the NCP pays taxes on it at their rate minus the child rate, and the CP is taxed at the child rate.
It should also only be taxed if similar income to the child would be taxed if it weren’t court-ordered child support. If an NCP gives money to the kid, either above and beyond ordered child support or in the absence of a formal order, Is that money taxed? If another relative sends money to a kid (aside from birthdays or other gift occasions, but just because), is that taxed? If it isn’t, why should child support be taxed differently because it’s court-ordered?
The issue is NCPs sees it as GIVING money to the CP.
In my experience NCPs seem to forget probably the biggest component for having custody of a child is housing them. The size of the house, the location of the house (school district), the heating, the cooling, the electricity, are all part of the child’s expenses. Yet the NCP “no way she spends x on the kids” and therefore they are thinking they are GIVING money to the CS.
In my particular situation – NO WAY would I live in a three bedroom house in the best school zone in my city if not for the kids.
income putatively (and usually) going to the child’s welfare should only be taxed the one time
Why? If the policy argument is “we want the kid to get as much money as possible” I guess that’s a point. But Eytan is right; we don’t say that income should only be taxed once as a matter of principle.
“The CP can spend money on whatever” – that’s true in a marriage, too. If I decide to go out and spend my paycheck on hookers and blow, there’s not a whole lot my stay-at-home spouse can do about it. Unless the children are actively neglected (ie., after my whorefest we can’t afford to feed them) there’s no law saying I have to spend a certain amount on their needs.
mythago you are cracking me up! LOL
Jenn @70, I think that for some NCPs, it may also be a function of not having been involved enough in day-to-day child costs, during the marriage, to understand how much things actually do cost.
Perhaps “double taxation” is not the best way to phrase the argument.
I sense Robert’s point is that the divorce decree is attempting to promote continuity for kids, leaving parties as close to the pre-divorce status as possible. Pre-divorce, the state did not tax money flowing from Robert to his wife (and vice versa), and consequently she had more money available for kids (and all other purposes). By taxing this same transfer payment post-divorce, the state undermines its own goal of maintaining continuity.
Seems like a reasonable argument to me. But tax loopholes have an odd way of altering people’s behavior. Perhaps the loophole would prompt daycare providers to offer a two-tiered rate structure: They’d offer a standard price. And they’d offer a lower price for any person who was willing to marry and then divorce them, thereby rendering payments for child care tax-free.
Ok, this seems like a pretty fanciful loophole. But I’m still working on it; let me get some coffee….
But nobody.really – that seems to be the opposite of what Robert is saying. Pre-divorce, the state taxes paychecks, but not money flowing between the spouses. Robert is arguing that post-divorce, the state should start taxing the money flowing between the ex-spouses instead of the paycheck.
That’s because pre-divorce, Robert and his wife were married, forming a joint economic unit. (This is what causes the “marriage penalty” in many two-income marriages, by the way; there are structures meant to avoid using transfers of wealth between spouses as an unintended tax shelter.) Post-divorce, they aren’t.
Actually, the daycare thing is interesting, because you can put up to $5,000 for childcare (or elder care) expenses into a pre-tax flexible spending account. Maybe NCP should offer to pay the childcare, get a commensurate reduction in his obligation, and then he can put the money in an FSA and not pay taxes on it. (Course, this only works with younger kids who have expensive childcare needs, but even elementary school kids often have before- and after-school care and vacation camps that are all pretty expensive.)
I agree with Eytan’s contractor argument. Even if the CP should pay taxes on it, I don’t see why that should make it not taxable for the NCP.
There are a couple of related issues that have not been brought up regarding the tax issue.
Alimony is deductible to the payor and is income to the payee. It seems that Robert’s question could be why they don’t treat child support the same way.
Secondly, support is sort of deductible. I do not think anyone has addressed that there is a personal deduction for the child. So, of course, divorcing couples have one more thing to fight about. But the NCP could have a legitmate beef if the CP gets money that is not taxed and then also gets a deduction for the child. Somebody is going to deduct that child’s existence on their taxes and the argument could be made that that deduction is related to the support payment (which was not taxed to the payee).
-Jut
Alimony is deductible to the payor and is income to the payee. It seems that Robert’s question could be why they don’t treat child support the same way.
That is a good question. I’ll see if Mama Mythago the tax lawyer has an answer.
Deducting a child is not really anything to do with support per se; it’s because the child is a dependent, just as married couples deduct dependent children from their taxes.
I have no idea what US law says on this, but it seems to me that if a parent is paying child support, then they should be able to claim the child as a dependent. That’s a different issue than claiming that the child support payment itself should be tax deductable.
Eytan, the issue is that if you have people filing tax returns separately (because they’re not married to each other anymore), they can’t both claim the child as a dependent; that would be claiming the exemption twice. If the NCP is claiming the child as a dependent the CP can’t, and vice versa. A person can only be claimed as an exemption once.
The IRS throws a wobbler if both parties claim the dependent. If the parties can work it out (it is often spelled out in the decree) then either can claim; if there’s only one claim it’s all good. If it rises to IRS-wobbler level, the official rule is that whoever provides the majority of the child’s financial support wins. Good luck working THAT out; “I send nineteen thousand dollars a year” versus “the housing I provide is worth twenty two thousand”, repeat until legal fees swamp the value of the claim.
Mythago:
“Deducting a child is not really anything to do with support per se; it’s because the child is a dependent, just as married couples deduct dependent children from their taxes.”
Not because they are a dependent; at least, not really. Everyone gets the exemption; because the child is a dependent, a different party gets to claim it. The question is: why even have the exemption? I do not know the “official” rationale, but it would seem to be connected to some sort of inherent cost of existing (that is why the government only values it at $3,800.00); it is an amount of money that is needed to sustain the person.
Looking at it that way (and that may not be the right way), the personal exemption for dependents looks like it addresses the same thing that child support addresses: how much it costs to provide for one’s basic expenses.
-Jut
I don’t think they do. Expenditure goes from non-rivalrous to rivalrous post-seperation. If I spend money heating my house so my child doesn’t freeze, I can also enjoy the benefit of the heat myself. If spend money heating my ex’s house so my child doesn’t freeze, I can’t benefit but she can. Housing is similar, If I buy housing for my child I own equity in the property, if I pay someone else to provide this I don’t have this.
Because of that you get people legitimately arguing about these costs. Say you have a heating bill of $100, how much is spent on the kids? Everything used when the kids are at home? Or the marginal cost over what would be necessary for you as an adult? How much housing cost is due to the kid? Cost of the house? Marginal cost of extra room? Interest charge for marginal cost of extra room?
I can see why people argue. The law’s pragmatic rather than principled and it’s hard to turn the vague idea people use to motivate their support for the law into concrete number.
Child support use to be tax-deductible, now no longer.
Another variable is the annual cost of living raise the CSU imposes/enforces.
So what starts out as 18% of your GROSS = 25% of your NET then add-on cost of living increases, which in reality ends up being almost 30% within two years. Even if your salary did not change, for one child. Now factor in you are also responsible for 70% of all medical costs, 100% of daycare expense and 80% of any extra curricular activities/education. This is your typical CS Bloomberg standard form that most courts use. What I fail to understand is why the NCP is burdened with the majority of the expenses, even in cases where the CP had a higher salary?
I don’t know what a “CS Bloomberg” standard form is, but I don’t think “most courts” use them, because if most courts used them then a Google search on the term wouldn’t come up with nothing. Child support in Canada before 1997 was tax-deductible; I don’t think it’s ever been tax-deductible here but I could be wrong about that. As for why a NCP would be accountable for X% of other expenses – you would need to ask the individual court or judge what the justification is. There is not any kind of overarching rule or guideline, that I am aware of; in Colorado those things are negotiated between the parties and put into the settlement agreement, or imposed by the judge if the parties cannot reach agreement, with the default being that unusual expenses are covered proportional to the income of the parties. I’ve never heard of child support payments having automatic COLA increments built-in, but again, my knowledge is far from perfect.
What state are you in, Max?
It’s a standardized court document used when the decision is defaulted to the courts. Here is an excerpt from the newyorkchildsupport.com website:
Every two years the child support agency automatically reviews each child support order to determine cost of living increases. If the cost of living has increased by more than ten percent since the order was made or since the last review, the child support order amount will increase by the amount of the change in the cost of living. The cost of living adjustments can be made without going to court. For non-temporary assistance or non-safety net cases, a notice is sent to both parents when a case is eligible for a cost of living adjustment, and either parent may request the adjustment. For cases where the custodial parent or child is on temporary or safety net assistance, the cost of living adjustment is automatically made when the case becomes eligible— without either parent requesting the adjustment.
Thanks, Max. I’ve looked at their site and sure enough, that does appear to be the way it works in New York. They mention an appeals process, but don’t provide information on it.
Depending on the appeals process, I’m either mildly or greatly appalled. The system in New York seems designed to force non-custodial parents who are not economically successful (and increasingly so) into arrearage.
Believe me it’s not easy, I’ve had to except going from middle class to just above lower class income and I’ve grown tired of trying to fight the court systems. All I want is to be with my daughter, and I try to spend every minute I can with her. I can’t compete with her mother when it comes to financially providing for her, ie: taking her on vacations, buying gifts, going to dinner/movies. But I more than make up for it when she comes over for a visit on popcorn and movie night… :-) Thanks for listening..
I do not agree with this article at all! I have been paying child support for some years now and the child support agency has been a real burden to deal with. The first time I was ordered to pay child support I was in the military and making about $800 every two weeks. I was ordered to pay $1100 a month! Little did I know that whatever the military wasn’t paying went to an arrears account! Which ruined my credit! Today I’m out of the military and even tho I make slightly more than I did back then. I’m border line poverty because the system continues to deduct high payments from my check. Don’t get me wrong I love and acknowledge that I have children that I need to provide for, but it’s not right that women now a days do treat and depend on child support as a form of income. How am I going to provide for my children when I can barley afford to provide for myself?! It is so frustrating and stressful that the system doesn’t notice that! I can’t even afford to put money away for a retirement plan because whatever money I have left over goes into essential bills to get by! Its a constant struggle and the system doesn’t care. No matter what women will always will always have the upper hand when it comes to child support issues, and whoever doesn’t acknowledge that is in denial. The system is one way when it comes to child support. If anyone has any solutions as too how I can lower my child support with out getting a lawyer. I would love to hear it since I can’t afford one, and to the writer/poster of this article. To some of us this is not a myth its a reality we have to deal with on a daily basis!
http://johanntetreault.hubpages.com/hub/Florida-Child-Support-Laws-Evil-Incarnate
Another great flaw in the system. How are Dads going to provide child support if this happens?! FYI, I live in FL so I feel his pain….I also got warnings about getting my license suspended when I first got out of the military and couldn’t find work for six moths after I got out!
Charlie, what do you think is a fair amount of child support then? What %.
Charlie, you don’t have child support ordered without some court saying you have to pay it and determining how much you have to pay. Did you appear in court? Did you check to see if you are eligible for legal assistance through JAG, or Legal Aid, or any self-help programs offered by your local courts? There are also legal self-help guides (I recommend Nolo, and no, I don’t get paid to say that) which can explain how custody and support are determined, and things you can do to change how much support you pay or what visitation/custody you have. Even if you can’t afford a private lawyer, there are many options you can look into.
I am assuming here that you genuinely want help in your situation so that you can support your kids and still pay your bills. If all you want to do is vent about what bitches women are, there’s not a legal-aid program in the world that will fix it.
Save your $40.00 Charlie and get this book instead for $16.00 “The Father’s Guide to Child Support Reduction” ISBN: 978-1-4489-7984-4. Sites like Nolo are geared toward only one thing, making money and taking advantage of people’s vulnerability. Charlie came here for help/advice not to be ostracized.
I can understand his frustration in wanting to vent. If you haven’t experienced it, you shouldn’t be giving advice, especially with such an opprobrious behavior.
max, I can understand his frustration, too. That’s why I offered actual advice on things he could do to get help that don’t require spending lots of money hiring a private lawyer. This is a pro-feminist blog; it’s not really the place for venting about how angry you are at women. (How would you feel if Jenn ranted about how all men are irresponsible jerks who don’t take care of their kids? Would that be OK because she’s ‘been through it’ and is just ‘venting’? I wouldn’t agree, and hope you wouldn’t either.)
I’m a little baffled at your hating on Nolo, which is one of the oldest and most respected publisher of self-help legal guides. Their books are written by knowledgeable lawyers, are regularly updated, and are excellent at informing the reader of pitfalls and when they should put down the book and talk to an attorney. Best of all, they are stocked by every public library I’ve ever visited, so you don’t have to shell out $40, $16 or any money at all to use them. As an attorney I have no qualms about recommending them.
The book you refer to is a self-published, 48-page book, which is a little steep for $16. There doesn’t appear to be any information about Mr. Edward’s qualifications or knowledge to show that the book is reliable; Amazon has no ratings and no way to look inside the book.
That may have been the case in the past, but currently the IRS goes by which parent the child spent the majority of the year with. Since the year is an odd number of days long, even when splitting custody 50/50 one parent will have to have at least one more day than the other. Whichever one does, gets the deduction.
Not that that’s any better than the standard you mentioned, but I suppose it’s marginally easier for IRS auditors to prove, rather than evaluating the significance of cash contributions vs. housing.
Mythago – I don’t hate the Nolo site, in fact I find it to be very informational. But after reading the bio, it seems more geared toward helping the cp than the non-cp. In fact the only advice for the ncp, is reciting the bylaws of child support according to that state’s regulations… The book I suggested is more of a survival guide on how to stand against a system that has failed. And when I say venting, it is by no means a show of anger towards woman, but the frustration toward the SCU and the family court system and the need to get their act together. I did check Amazon on a particular book titled “Pericles, Prince of Tyre” but for some reason could not get a look inside that book either, though there was plenty of information on the author :-).
Here’s a little tidbit, I recently had to go in person to my county SCU office. The first thing I noticed was a bulletin board that had nothing but information on dead beat dads, how to sue for support, fathers who don’t pay, nothing but negativity against fathers. What really got me was that it was geared toward fathers not NCP’s. So I took a picture of it and plan to release it to the press. Anyhow, the reason I was there was because I wanted to find out why the SCU had refused a court order to adjust my support obligations and had me in a credit for $2,400.00. Long story short, I requested to have the money released back to me, but was told they could not, here is their excuse. They say it takes 6 -10 weeks for the SCU to send the adjusted order to my HR and another 2-4 weeks for my HR to respond. After which they will send it to a review board to determine that I do not owe any arrears, (thank you Bradley Amendment). By the time this is all done, they will have owed me over $10,000.00 in over charged child support. By that time I will have most likely fallen behind in my mortgage, car payment and many other bills.
What I fail to understand is why it takes so long to adjust or stop an order, but it only takes 24 hours after a request for a support order to go in effect and under a week to start attaching wages. BTW, my order was adjusted because I had my oldest daughter who is 23 and married, emancipated from the order after a year long court battle. Please remember that I am writing to contribute to this blog, with a bit of venting, but no animosity toward women..
“What I fail to understand is why it takes so long to adjust or stop an order, but it only takes 24 hours after a request for a support order to go in effect and under a week to start attaching wages. ”
What world are you living in?
It takes a very long time to get things garnished. My ex recently worked three months at a job, then quit. NOTHING ever got garnished. he’s 20K behind. he’s staying one step ahead of the system. His u/e never got garnished between June 2010 and Jan 2012? why not? I dunno, but the system moves very slowly both way.
A few years ago his tax refund was intercepted it. I got is like three months after he didn’t get it. The system is NOT fast for the CP either.
In my experience as HR, I usually get the notice of adjusted CS in the mail before the employee does. Granted, most of the orders and adjustments I get are in Oregon and it may not be the same in your state. But it’s outrageous that HR would take 2 to 4 weeks to respond. I mean, I never have to respond to an adjustment or order (unless the garnishee no longer or never worked for our company), I merely need to garnish for the amount specified. It may be two weeks before they receive the adjusted amounted, but only if I received the order or adjustment on the day I do payroll and after payroll has already been completed. Any delay in the adjustment should be solely on the shoulders of SCU. Your state appears to handle this very differently than the states with which I have dealt and SCU is trying to pass the buck on the cause of the delay. That absolutely sucks for you and you have my sympathy.
That can happen, too, but it’s different than what max is complaining about. When I get a CS order for a new employee, it can show up anywhere from a couple of weeks to several months after they start. It’s a matter of CSEU being alerted that the employee has a new job. Once they know where the nc is working, however, garnishments and changes get implemented very quickly. I’ve had guys skipping through jobs for short periods to avoid CS. It happens a lot less now that the job market sucks.
Well my point is, it’s not a cake walk for the CP. NOTHING happens fast in regard to child support. My ex was recently given 180 MORE days to catch up. ok, he hasn’t voluntarily made a payment in a year, why does he get another 180 days? He didn’t even show up OR fill out a written response to the summons.
TO ME – the system seems to favor the non compliant.
Jake and Jenn, you both have valid points, and I agree completely, the system needs improvement. My HR said that their policy is to send a letter to the employee immediately after receiving the order, stating that a garnishment/adjustment has been applied and will take effect within two bi-weekly pay periods, that’s after the SCU gets their act together!! Does your state SCU apply a monthly account charge to the cp? I have a friend that went to court for support of her adopted child. The support order was against the biological mother. The court ordered $125.00 to be paid but the CSU subtracted two payments of $25.00 each for account fees?? That left $75.00 for the cp. What kind of crap is that, when the SCU makes sure they feed themselves before the child?? Take a look at the site under annual service fee. https://newyorkchildsupport.com/child_support_services.html
My state does have a monthly fee. But (luckily) they don’t charge you if you aren’t collecting….
I came across this blog by accident while researching some info about CS. Here is my CS story (I will try to be brief). My husband and I separated in 2009. We have 2 kids (boy,9 and girl,2). We agreed that he would cover daycare (DC), which is $170/wk. I work for an insurance company, making $10.50/hr. He is a long distance truck driver, he makes $400/load (he takes a min. of 3 loads/wk=$1200/wk…CASH). In 2011, the DC owner informs me that there is an outstanding balance of $1100 for the DC bill. My ex has been working for the same company, taking the same amount of loads, making the same money. Never the less, I agree to take the kids out of DC, let his sister watch my daughter in my home, so he can catch up on the DC bill. This lasted for 2mos (until I found out his sister put my kids in a dangerous situation). During this entire time, he paid $500 on the DC balance. At the beginning of 2012, I decided to file for CS (he would not answer the DC owner nor my phone calls) and the DC balance increased to $1900 (he would make a payment every now and then). June 20th, we meet with a negotiator about CS. He lies, and says that he makes minimum wage and that he makes only $400/wk because he is working for a new trucking company that has been in business for only 3 mos (it is the same company he has been driving for since 2007, they change names every 2yrs). He then lies and says that he stopped paying the DC in May, when he received the notice about CS, which he deemed as a breech of our agreement (the DC bill on that day was $2400!! I don’t understand his math).When it was calculated, I made more money than him!! The calculation was $170/wk CS for 2 kids, including court costs, meaning I would get approx. $150/wk for the kids. I was fine with this, I just want to cover the DC bill. He says he can’t afford that amount and asks the negotiator “Why can’t she do more?” She asks him, “What more do you want her to do?” He says,”Can’t she get a ABC Voucher for daycare?” Now we have to go before the judge, which is fine with me because he has to prove his income, bring in the daycare statement, and last year’s income tax info (which he doesn’t file). This is my point, I take care of my kids, making $10.50/hr. I pay light bill, gas, car insurance, house insurance, food, clothing, and not to mention the extras that my kids “want”. He lives with his mother, drives her car, and pays no bills (she complains that he doesn’t). He never asks to visit the kids and only sees them when they go visit their grandmother. It pisses me off for a NCP to question how much it takes to care for a child!! How would a NCP know, they are not doing it. To be honest, I don’t care if a NCP is having a hard time, KIDS NEED REGARDLESS. If they had custody, they would know. I read a post from a guy who was having a difficult time financially because his “existing family” of a wife and kids could not afford his CS. Guess what, the child you are paying CS for is your family too. Does that child stop needing because your pockets are being squeezed? No! And if the CS is going toward household expenses, guess what, that is part of “supporting the child”. So for the NCP’s that are complaining about how much CS they are paying, I suggest that they become the sole provider for the child for 6mos with their current income, see how difficult it really is.
I don’t know what state some of these NCP’s are living in that requires them to pay more in CS than they make!! I guess I find it hard to believe from personal experience. I know that my state (SC) goes by Gross income. Maybe this is the error. Perhaps they have a high Gross and huge deductions. However, as a CP, my Gross income is used too (If my net was my Gross, I wouldn’t need CS). In a perfect world, CS would not exist, because each and every parent would go above and beyond for their kids. However, we do not live in a perfect world. I think that the NCP that makes statements like “How can I support my kids if I can’t support myself?” have the most issues with CS. As a CP, I my position is, “I have to support my kids, what can I do without?”
“So for the NCP’s that are complaining about how much CS they are paying, I suggest that they become the sole provider for the child for 6mos with their current income, see how difficult it really is.”. I agree
I raised two kids from ages 9-10 onward. I got zero child support from their mother.
I have to say, though, some people like their kids and like being around them. They also helped quite a bit in their teens. It’s not a huge burden to everyone.
@TG
I agree. A “parent” doesn’t see their kids as burdens. I respect you being able to raise your kids without CS. If I hadn’t been battling a medical condition that required 2 surgeries & 4 hr travel 3 times a month, I wouldn’t be seeking it either. I would just pay the DC myself. It is a lot less stressful handling things on your own sonetimes. GREAT JOB!! (we parents don’t hear that as often as we should…lol)
erica @799, a good parent doesn’t see their kids as burdens, but I don’t think there’s any reason to shame people for finding the other parent’s irresponsibility and selfishness to be a burden. It IS burdensome, as I’m sure you and TG know well, to have to manage all the financial and caretaking parts of parenthood, including those parts that a responsible other parent would handle.
I like my kids and I like being around them, but that doesn’t pay bills, nor does it mind a sick child with a 104-degree fever when I’m at work or appear at a school event or spend time with them on their birtdhays.