60% of child support in Pennsylvania is hidden alimony!

Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation the obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation. So 1/2 =20% leaving 60%
unexplained?

Let the games begin

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...
Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation the obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation. So 1/2 =20% leaving 60%
unexplained?

Let the games begin

The methodology used to calculate parenting time credits is very confusing.
I believe if you check out the calculation details you will find the
percentage credit is calculated based on the TOTAL child support obligation
rather than the father's CS obligation. Then the full credit is subtracted
from the father's pro-rata share of the CS obligation.

Here's how it works in my state where a 50/50 shared custody agreement gets
a 48.6% CS credit:

$1000 guideline total CS obligation split 60/40 (assumption for this
example) would have the father paying $600. With a shared custody credit of
48.6%, the shared custody credit would be $486. So the final CS obligation
would be $600 minus the $486 for an amount due of $114. The $114 is a 81%
reduction for the father from the original $600 amount.

The real built in mother subsidy is the ~20% factor paid in the above
example. In my state the parenting time credits are adjusted for this 20%
factor throughout various amounts of shared parenting because the parenting
time calculations do not give any credit for the first 20% or less of
visitation time.

As I said......Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation the
obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation.
10. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


11. Net Income Expressed as a Percentage Share of Income (Divide line
4 by line 5 and multiply by 100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%
12. Each Parent's Monthly Share of the Basic Child Support Obligation
(Multiply line 10 and 11)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


PART II. SUBSTANTIAL or SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY ADJUSTMENT, IF APPLICABLE
(See subdivision (c) of this Rule)



13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (Divide number of
overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

b. Subtract 30%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

c. Obligor's Adjusted Percentage Share of the Basic Monthly Support
Obligation (Subtract line 13b from line 11)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

d. Obligors' Adjusted Share of the Basic Monthly Support Obligation
(Multiply line 13c and line 10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Further adjustment, if necessary under subdivision (c)(2) of this
Rule

But thank you for clarifying?


So again, if you have em 50% of the time you get a 20% reduction not a
50% reduction.









"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...
Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation the obliger gets
a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation. So 1/2 =20% leaving 60%
unexplained?

Let the games begin

The methodology used to calculate parenting time credits is very
confusing.
I believe if you check out the calculation details you will find the
percentage credit is calculated based on the TOTAL child support
obligation
rather than the father's CS obligation. Then the full credit is
subtracted
from the father's pro-rata share of the CS obligation.

Here's how it works in my state where a 50/50 shared custody agreement
gets
a 48.6% CS credit:

$1000 guideline total CS obligation split 60/40 (assumption for this
example) would have the father paying $600. With a shared custody credit
of
48.6%, the shared custody credit would be $486. So the final CS
obligation
would be $600 minus the $486 for an amount due of $114. The $114 is a 81%
reduction for the father from the original $600 amount.

The real built in mother subsidy is the ~20% factor paid in the above
example. In my state the parenting time credits are adjusted for this 20%
factor throughout various amounts of shared parenting because the
parenting
time calculations do not give any credit for the first 20% or less of
visitation time.

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...
As I said......Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation the
obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation.
10. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

$1000



11. Net Income Expressed as a Percentage Share of Income (Divide
line
4 by line 5 and multiply by 100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

60% father

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

40% mother

12. Each Parent's Monthly Share of the Basic Child Support
Obligation
(Multiply line 10 and 11)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

$600 father


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

$400 mother



PART II. SUBSTANTIAL or SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY ADJUSTMENT, IF
APPLICABLE
(See subdivision (c) of this Rule)



13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (Divide number of
overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

50%


b. Subtract 30%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

20%


c. Obligor's Adjusted Percentage Share of the Basic Monthly Support
Obligation (Subtract line 13b from line 11)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%

60% minus 20% = 40%


d. Obligors' Adjusted Share of the Basic Monthly Support Obligation
(Multiply line 13c and line 10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

40% of $1000 is $400


e. Further adjustment, if necessary under subdivision (c)(2) of this
Rule

But thank you for clarifying?


So again, if you have em 50% of the time you get a 20% reduction not
a
50% reduction.

The father's CS obligation went from $600 down to $400. That is a 33.3%
decrease.

The difference from what I posted earlier is my state does not adjust for
the first 20% of visitation time. PA does not adjust for the first 30% of
visitation time. Both mommie subsidies are bogus.

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...

As I said......Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation the
obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation.
10. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$1000



11. Net Income Expressed as a Percentage Share of Income (Divide

line

4 by line 5 and multiply by 100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


60% father


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


40% mother


12. Each Parent's Monthly Share of the Basic Child Support

Obligation

(Multiply line 10 and 11)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$600 father


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$400 mother



PART II. SUBSTANTIAL or SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY ADJUSTMENT, IF

APPLICABLE

(See subdivision (c) of this Rule)



13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (Divide number of
overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


50%


b. Subtract 30%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


20%


c. Obligor's Adjusted Percentage Share of the Basic Monthly Support
Obligation (Subtract line 13b from line 11)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


60% minus 20% = 40%


d. Obligors' Adjusted Share of the Basic Monthly Support Obligation
(Multiply line 13c and line 10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


40% of $1000 is $400


e. Further adjustment, if necessary under subdivision (c)(2) of this
Rule

But thank you for clarifying?


So again, if you have em 50% of the time you get a 20% reduction not

a

50% reduction.


The father's CS obligation went from $600 down to $400. That is a 33.3%
decrease.

The difference from what I posted earlier is my state does not adjust for
the first 20% of visitation time. PA does not adjust for the first 30% of
visitation time. Both mommie subsidies are bogus.

I have dealt with this nonsense in Rhode Island, and am dealing still.
I match my ex-wife hour per hour in parenting time per week (I have him
4 nights per week and extra time on weekends), and I am "graciously"
given a 10% discount on CS obligation. That equates to about $70 per
month, or maybe almost as much as he eats in the time I have him in my
care. Meanwhile, my ex gets about $600 per month for her time with him.
It is absolute insanity, despite the legalese and economic gymnastics
I have seen being used to justify it. It's almost amusing to read that
crap -- like the rhetoric used to justify slavery by "revealing" how
"beneficial" it was for the slaves.

Of course the most sound economic move I could make would be to ditch my
son at his mother's doorstep and never see him again, and pay the extra
$70 per month in CS instead of paying my various expenses to care for
him half the time. How sad, I wonder how many fathers in my state end
up realizing this and then following through on it. As always, in the
end it's the kids who suffer.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:i8G7e.1719$H53.1300@lakeread05...


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Father of the Year" wrote in
message
...

As I said......Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation
the
obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation.
10. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$1000



11. Net Income Expressed as a Percentage Share of Income (Divide

line

4 by line 5 and multiply by 100)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


60% father



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


40% mother


12. Each Parent's Monthly Share of the Basic Child Support

Obligation

(Multiply line 10 and 11)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$600 father



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$400 mother



PART II. SUBSTANTIAL or SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY ADJUSTMENT, IF

APPLICABLE

(See subdivision (c) of this Rule)



13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (Divide number of
overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


50%


b. Subtract 30%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


20%


c. Obligor's Adjusted Percentage Share of the Basic Monthly Support
Obligation (Subtract line 13b from line 11)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


60% minus 20% = 40%


d. Obligors' Adjusted Share of the Basic Monthly Support Obligation
(Multiply line 13c and line 10)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


40% of $1000 is $400


e. Further adjustment, if necessary under subdivision (c)(2) of
this
Rule

But thank you for clarifying?


So again, if you have em 50% of the time you get a 20% reduction
not

a

50% reduction.


The father's CS obligation went from $600 down to $400. That is a 33.3%
decrease.

The difference from what I posted earlier is my state does not adjust
for
the first 20% of visitation time. PA does not adjust for the first 30%
of
visitation time. Both mommie subsidies are bogus.

I have dealt with this nonsense in Rhode Island, and am dealing still.
I match my ex-wife hour per hour in parenting time per week (I have him
4 nights per week and extra time on weekends), and I am "graciously"
given a 10% discount on CS obligation. That equates to about $70 per
month, or maybe almost as much as he eats in the time I have him in my
care. Meanwhile, my ex gets about $600 per month for her time with him.
It is absolute insanity, despite the legalese and economic gymnastics
I have seen being used to justify it. It's almost amusing to read that
crap -- like the rhetoric used to justify slavery by "revealing" how
"beneficial" it was for the slaves.

Of course the most sound economic move I could make would be to ditch my
son at his mother's doorstep and never see him again, and pay the extra
$70 per month in CS instead of paying my various expenses to care for
him half the time. How sad, I wonder how many fathers in my state end
up realizing this and then following through on it. As always, in the
end it's the kids who suffer.

You may recall some of my previous posts where I have stated the CS
guidelines are developed based on solid science, which means they are fair.
What causes concerns for me is the trickery used by states in the
calculation methodology. This thread is a great example of how the states
play games with how they calculate CS awards.

In my state, the adjustment for shared custody is an "above the line"
calculation, i.e. the adjustment for shared parenting time is taken off the
CS guideline basic award amount before the percentage split is calculated.
That method reduces the total CS obligation for both parents and both
parents share in the reduced CS obligation.

In PA, and your state, the adjustment for shared custody is a "below the
line" calculation, i.e. the adjustment is taken off the NCP's percentage
calculation after the percentage split is calculated and then applied to the
NCP's share only. That method protects the CP from sharing in the shared
custody CS reduction and forces the NCP to absorb the entire impact of the
calculation.

Just look at the results to see the difference. In my state the 50/50
custody calculation methodology gives the NCP an 81% reduction is CS paid.
Under the same circumstances in other states the 50/50 shared custody
calculation methodology gives the NCP a 33.3% reduction in CS.

If I were you I'd lobby the legislature hard to adopt an "above the line"
method for calculating shared custody CS awards by insisting they make the
adjustment to the total basic CS award and not just to one parents
percentage share.

I stand corrected so then is 34% hidden alimony? 17% x 2... and why does
money change hands with shared custody?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:i8G7e.1719$H53.1300@lakeread05...


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Father of the Year" wrote in
message
...

As I said......Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation
the
obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation.
10. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$1000



11. Net Income Expressed as a Percentage Share of Income (Divide

line

4 by line 5 and multiply by 100)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


60% father




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


40% mother


12. Each Parent's Monthly Share of the Basic Child Support

Obligation

(Multiply line 10 and 11)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$600 father




--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$400 mother



PART II. SUBSTANTIAL or SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY ADJUSTMENT, IF

APPLICABLE

(See subdivision (c) of this Rule)



13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (Divide number of
overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


50%


b. Subtract 30%


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


20%


c. Obligor's Adjusted Percentage Share of the Basic Monthly
Support
Obligation (Subtract line 13b from line 11)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
%


60% minus 20% = 40%


d. Obligors' Adjusted Share of the Basic Monthly Support
Obligation
(Multiply line 13c and line 10)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


40% of $1000 is $400


e. Further adjustment, if necessary under subdivision (c)(2) of
this
Rule

But thank you for clarifying?


So again, if you have em 50% of the time you get a 20% reduction
not

a

50% reduction.


The father's CS obligation went from $600 down to $400. That is a
33.3%
decrease.

The difference from what I posted earlier is my state does not adjust
for
the first 20% of visitation time. PA does not adjust for the first
30%
of
visitation time. Both mommie subsidies are bogus.

I have dealt with this nonsense in Rhode Island, and am dealing still.
I match my ex-wife hour per hour in parenting time per week (I have him
4 nights per week and extra time on weekends), and I am "graciously"
given a 10% discount on CS obligation. That equates to about $70 per
month, or maybe almost as much as he eats in the time I have him in my
care. Meanwhile, my ex gets about $600 per month for her time with him.
It is absolute insanity, despite the legalese and economic gymnastics
I have seen being used to justify it. It's almost amusing to read that
crap -- like the rhetoric used to justify slavery by "revealing" how
"beneficial" it was for the slaves.

Of course the most sound economic move I could make would be to ditch my
son at his mother's doorstep and never see him again, and pay the extra
$70 per month in CS instead of paying my various expenses to care for
him half the time. How sad, I wonder how many fathers in my state end
up realizing this and then following through on it. As always, in the
end it's the kids who suffer.

You may recall some of my previous posts where I have stated the CS
guidelines are developed based on solid science, which means they are
fair.
What causes concerns for me is the trickery used by states in the
calculation methodology. This thread is a great example of how the states
play games with how they calculate CS awards.

In my state, the adjustment for shared custody is an "above the line"
calculation, i.e. the adjustment for shared parenting time is taken off
the
CS guideline basic award amount before the percentage split is calculated.
That method reduces the total CS obligation for both parents and both
parents share in the reduced CS obligation.

In PA, and your state, the adjustment for shared custody is a "below the
line" calculation, i.e. the adjustment is taken off the NCP's percentage
calculation after the percentage split is calculated and then applied to
the
NCP's share only. That method protects the CP from sharing in the shared
custody CS reduction and forces the NCP to absorb the entire impact of the
calculation.

Just look at the results to see the difference. In my state the 50/50
custody calculation methodology gives the NCP an 81% reduction is CS paid.
Under the same circumstances in other states the 50/50 shared custody
calculation methodology gives the NCP a 33.3% reduction in CS.

If I were you I'd lobby the legislature hard to adopt an "above the line"
method for calculating shared custody CS awards by insisting they make the
adjustment to the total basic CS award and not just to one parents
percentage share.

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...
I stand corrected so then is 34% hidden alimony? 17% x 2... and why does
money change hands with shared custody?

I'm hesitant to call any CS hidden alimony because I believe the science
behind establishing the CS guidelines is sound. But, as you have
experienced, the calculation methodology created and used within individual
states can undo all the good social data behind the CS guidelines.

I'm more inclined to call the way shared custody CS awards are calculated
what it really is - BS manipulations of numbers that produce mommie
subsidies at the father's expense!

But if you really want to call it hidden alimony, here is some help with the
math. You cited the numbers a little off for getting at what could be
called hidden alimony. The difference between PA's calculation result, i.e.
$400 due after running the example numbers, and my state's calculation
result, i.e. $114 due after running the numbers is $334. That extra $334
represents 33.4% ($334/1000) more than what my state would access as CS.
Then if you add in the 20% visitation my state will not give an NCP credit
for, you get 53.4%. That means a father is paying a 53.4% premium for the
right to have 50/50 shared custody.

There was a thread here last week about the PA legislature considering a
groundbreaking change in the law to start with a presumption of 50/50 shared
custody. I posted there were lots of flaws in the bill including questions
about how PA calculates shared custody CS awards. But now, knowing how PA
calculates shared custody CS awards, I feel even stronger against its
passage. As long as a father has to pay a premium to get shared custody not
many will go for it.

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:i8G7e.1719$H53.1300@lakeread05...


Bob Whiteside wrote:


"Father of the Year" wrote in

message

...


As I said......Pennsylvania law: In a 50% shared custody situation

the

obliger gets a
20% reduction in HIS child support obligation.
10. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$1000



11. Net Income Expressed as a Percentage Share of Income (Divide

line


4 by line 5 and multiply by 100)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

%


60% father



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

%


40% mother



12. Each Parent's Monthly Share of the Basic Child Support

Obligation


(Multiply line 10 and 11)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$600 father



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


$400 mother



PART II. SUBSTANTIAL or SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY ADJUSTMENT, IF

APPLICABLE


(See subdivision (c) of this Rule)



13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (Divide number of
overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

%


50%



b. Subtract 30%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

%


20%



c. Obligor's Adjusted Percentage Share of the Basic Monthly Support
Obligation (Subtract line 13b from line 11)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

%


60% minus 20% = 40%



d. Obligors' Adjusted Share of the Basic Monthly Support Obligation
(Multiply line 13c and line 10)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


40% of $1000 is $400



e. Further adjustment, if necessary under subdivision (c)(2) of

this

Rule

But thank you for clarifying?


So again, if you have em 50% of the time you get a 20% reduction

not

a


50% reduction.


The father's CS obligation went from $600 down to $400. That is a 33.3%
decrease.

The difference from what I posted earlier is my state does not adjust

for

the first 20% of visitation time. PA does not adjust for the first 30%

of

visitation time. Both mommie subsidies are bogus.

I have dealt with this nonsense in Rhode Island, and am dealing still.
I match my ex-wife hour per hour in parenting time per week (I have him
4 nights per week and extra time on weekends), and I am "graciously"
given a 10% discount on CS obligation. That equates to about $70 per
month, or maybe almost as much as he eats in the time I have him in my
care. Meanwhile, my ex gets about $600 per month for her time with him.
It is absolute insanity, despite the legalese and economic gymnastics
I have seen being used to justify it. It's almost amusing to read that
crap -- like the rhetoric used to justify slavery by "revealing" how
"beneficial" it was for the slaves.

Of course the most sound economic move I could make would be to ditch my
son at his mother's doorstep and never see him again, and pay the extra
$70 per month in CS instead of paying my various expenses to care for
him half the time. How sad, I wonder how many fathers in my state end
up realizing this and then following through on it. As always, in the
end it's the kids who suffer.


You may recall some of my previous posts where I have stated the CS
guidelines are developed based on solid science, which means they are fair.
What causes concerns for me is the trickery used by states in the
calculation methodology. This thread is a great example of how the states
play games with how they calculate CS awards.

In my state, the adjustment for shared custody is an "above the line"
calculation, i.e. the adjustment for shared parenting time is taken off the
CS guideline basic award amount before the percentage split is calculated.
That method reduces the total CS obligation for both parents and both
parents share in the reduced CS obligation.

In PA, and your state, the adjustment for shared custody is a "below the
line" calculation, i.e. the adjustment is taken off the NCP's percentage
calculation after the percentage split is calculated and then applied to the
NCP's share only. That method protects the CP from sharing in the shared
custody CS reduction and forces the NCP to absorb the entire impact of the
calculation.

Just look at the results to see the difference. In my state the 50/50
custody calculation methodology gives the NCP an 81% reduction is CS paid.
Under the same circumstances in other states the 50/50 shared custody
calculation methodology gives the NCP a 33.3% reduction in CS.

If I were you I'd lobby the legislature hard to adopt an "above the line"
method for calculating shared custody CS awards by insisting they make the
adjustment to the total basic CS award and not just to one parents
percentage share.

Bob, Math is not my strong suit. I must be having a mental block, but
try as I may I cannot break down the mechanical difference you are
talking about into chunks small enough for my mind to hold. Is there
any way you can repeat it, slowly and with examples and diagrams, for
this English teacher? :^)

I'd like to know specifically what it is I should be lobbying for in my
state. I checks out the statutes recently and what they actually say is
something along the lines of "since every shared custody case is
different, it's up to the court to decide how to award CS in these
cases". Which means that Welfare/CSE's lawyer *may* have been being...
ahem... "Less than honest" when explaining to my ex and I what "the
formula" was that the judge would use. Although for that to be true, my
own lawyer would have had to have been either asleep at the wheel or in
on the deal.

- Ron ^*^

The problem with Income shares and 50/50 custody is not that if the
father makes more money, he is expected to contribute more by the
guidelines, the problem lies with the fact that a certain portion of
his income is taken and given to the mother, he is forced to pay for
things he would have paid for anyway. The guidelines are set up for a
CP/NCP relationship. Therefore if I make 2000 and she makes 1000, I am
paying her to cover the extra money I would have spent if my children
were theoretical with both of us, all of the time. This is a silly
notion. If I had 50% parenting time, then surely I would spend more on
the child during that time than the mother would on her time, due to
higher income. Why am I subsidizing her parenting time? Oh wait, I
know, the CS agency must make their collections. 50/50 custody should
presume that the parent will spend on the child out of their own money.
All the costs are equal, ie. food, shelter, etc. The extra expenses are
going to automatically be picked up by the higher earning parent (ie
clothing, vehicle, college, braces, etc, etc). It is that simple! But
the machine must keep going, we must collect that federal subsidy.

The hidden alimony claim is valid also, I just thought I would put that
thought out there too.