"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
OK boys and girls, here's today's question..

What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise
snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the
real question, but I gotta start somewhere..)

Any one?
Any one?

OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must
admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few
years back. Now for the real question..

What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42
it's teeth.

Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in
the USC-book! (ha!)

I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the
answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you
already know?

42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages,
unemployment compensation, and workers compensation.

45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the procedures
to be followed.

15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the Consumer
Credit Protection Act.

Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds the
"teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first of 4
sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is unfortunate
for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42, 666... Title 5
CFR, section 581.

The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what
monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly
extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104 and
105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law ever
seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment and 105
covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment.

So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross
income", guess what? No, they can't.

Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee
of the Federal government, or in the military.

Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND/OR
ALIMONY

I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the federal
government's procedures for handling garnishment orders received which
apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand where the states
would have any reason to use the federal government's internal personnel
procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically outlines how federal civil
service employees will be subjected to state court garnishments.

Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the states
by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of the
employee.

For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is,
before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court
order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR 581
says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines &
forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the
garnishment can happen.

The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing
allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that
these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the
service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay
(minus deductions) and not a whole lot else.

What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or net
income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders. Personally,
I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to establish CS
orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are used to reach a net
CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on adjustments to take into
consideration both parent's federal and state income tax liabilities. I
challenge anyone to explain how each parent's income tax situation can be
determined before a CS guideline is established. The guidelines assume both
parents have identical tax positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is
BS.

Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent
exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions.
Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no
dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother
gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting CS
guidelines it is bogus.


Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only
take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up to
60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support.

In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a
change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a
civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit more
to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same situation.

I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants.

Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS
orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If
withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding
order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than the
withholding order voluntarily.