GM bonuses cut because of child support

"gini52" wrote in message
...
==
Ummm. Slow down. I said the NCP is not obligated to cover *the CP's* costs
of living.
Those are *your* responsibility, not his.
==

You claim that everything is the CP's responsiblity.. the way you want
things no money would ever be given to support the child. There are EXTRA
COSTS.. whether you want to beleive it or not. I take care of MORE than my
fair share of responsiblity regarding my children !!!!

==
That's an interesting assertion. It costs more to heat two bodies than
one.
I did not know that. From what body of scientific data did you pull that
gem?
==

BECAUSE IN MOST CASES THE HOUSE WOULD BE BIGGER AND MORE SPACE TO HEAT, and
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT BODIES ABSORB and PUT off HEAT. If we could heat
a room once and never turn the heater on again well that would be great but
we cant.

==
Ummm...I said that. The NCP is responsible for a percentage of the
additional costs
for housing that you have over and above the costs of housing you would
pay
without
the children of the order.
==

Yeah and somehow you fail to think that much of anything is the NCP's
responsibility. Daycare isnt, extra utilities arent, nice clothing isnt it
must be salvation army, food isnt included because somehow the same amount
of food for one person is supposed to feed extra people, on and on. Lets
just face it your cheap.

==
Where did I say this?
==

Its implied in all you stupid posts about how you think CP's should get the
VERY minimal amount of support for kids they didnt make alone.

==
Where did I say this? You seem to confuse child support with "lifestyle
support."
The child support should go to the kids' needs. Lifestyle support is
alimony
and should be labeled as such.
We *loved* paying child support. We hated paying "lifestyle support."
==

Lifestyle support..this really cracks me up. Most families dont get enough
support to have any other lifestyle than squeaking by. Give me a fricking
break.
Oh I bet you "loved" paying child support, from all your posts thats just
money that was taken away from YOUR children.

==
I hit a tender spot there, didn't I?

No actually you didnt. Its just a comment.

This drivel has nothing to do with
anything I said.

Yes it does. Because here you go with your lines of she didnt do this, and
didnt do that..she should have gotten a job..blah blah

She *didn't* have to get another job. Get a grip.
She got that 48k net income from child support and working part time as a
college instructor (and
has summers off). She hardly needed another job or even a fulltime job.
(Maybe she does now.)
==

==
So, what you are saying is that it's OK to load up the ex with all manner
of
material things regardless of the cost to anyone else, including the
children of the order?

No what im saying is that the children should come first and they should
have what they need to have a nice life. Not what some new wife thinks is
acceptable. If that means one parent paying more so be it. I dont know if
you are that person whos husband was unknowning of his child, if you are
then get over it. At least you didnt have to support the child for the
first 11 years of her life financially.

That's an admirable attitude. I am glad that all CPs
are not like you. You give them a bad name.

give me a break lady. I dont give anyone a bad name. Im fighting against
deadbeats and second wives who think they come before children. If anyone
gives anyone a bad name its you. I support my children 75% my self
financially, the rest is from their father. Whoppee..who is 20,000 behind
on his support and not of any fault of mine, the court, or anyone elses but
his own. HE didnt pay for 2 years, and then jumps jobs so much that CSE
hardly ever gets a payment from him.

Did you not read the part that says we no longer pay support and the ex
never paid us support for my stepchild in our
custody? For a while you began to sound intelligent. Now, you've totally
lost it.

For what, a year?? While she supported the child by herself for 13 years
before asking you for help. I dont feel sorry for you. The only reason you
think that ive totally lost it is because I dont agree with you.


You are
are going off on tangents that are unrelated to what I (or anyone else)
said.

Ok, and some of you here calling me names like Bozo and loser etc is ok and
intelligent and related??

I will carry on an intelligent conversation
and debate but will not indulge your refusal to reason and your
self-consumed gibberish.

Right back at you. You and your fellow cronies make no sense. Take daycare
expenses out, take CP support out, utilities arent included, food sholdnt be
included. What kind of crap is that? CP support is something completely
different, not related. The fact is that you guys are cheap and dont want
to pay to take care of your children. Ive heard every excuse here about why
you shouldnt have to pay for this that and the other..


You need to pull yourself together--You obviously
have issues unrelated to child support.

No sorry. IM just sick of people who think they dont need to support their
children in a decent manner. They try and justify things by saying "this
child doesnt need anything but the lowest grade clothing, no extra ciricular
activies, etc so you can lower you support . If anyone has unrealted
problems to child support its you.

My guess is that there is a lot more
concerning your ex's refusal to be involved in your child's life than you
are revealing.

Um no there isnt. I wish to hell there was, but there isnt. Do you think I
take pleasure in the fact that my ex left becuase he couldnt love his son
for who he is? Get real lady. I dont lie about **** like that. Thats
very serious and for you to imply that im lying?? What does that say about
you?

BTW, how much are you getting from the government for your
son?

I GET NOTHING!!! ZERO, ZIP, NADA. Not a cent!!!! SSD payments are ONLY
available for a disabled child if the parent is receiving retirement
benefits or disability benefits for themselves. I assume that you are
talking about SSI??? I make too much.

You do realize that SSD payments for disabled dependents are deductable
from the NCP's CS obligation, don't you?

I dont really care beacuse I dont get them. And for your information its not
taken out of the NCP's CS obligation, the SSA takes them out of the check
they send. The NCP is still responsible for the ENTIRE amount of support.

What do you do for a living?

Im an advocate.

Gawd,
I'd hate to think a dime of that 12k+/- in federal taxes we paid last year
went to supporting your ass. (No, cross that last line out. That wasn't
nice.)

Actually none of you filthy money went to supporting me at all last year.
Thank you very much. I wouldnt want you stinky money anyway. Im a self
supporting single mother of TWO children. I also dont rely on some stupid
deadbeat father to pay my way or the way for my kids, and my kids dont shop
at goodwill or salvation army either (oh that was awful of me to say..shame
on me)!!!!


==
==

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

OK, look at it this way. Let's say it really does cost $800 per month to
raise a child. Figure that $100 per week is child care costs. That means
that it really only costs $400 per month to raise a child. THAT is a much
more likely figure.


Yeah but you still have to help pay for child care costs, they are no
different than education costs, tuition costs, and other expenses related to
caring for a child. Even as the child gets older, I dont want my son or
daughter out wanderng around unattended while I work, maybe when they are
15-16 years old and in the case of my son that age goes up he will need
supervision for the rest of his life. WHY shouldnt the NCP pay for a
portion of child care expenses??? You just cant get rid of them because you
think they shouldnt be included or that you shouldnt have to pay for them.
Those costs are what allow both parents to work.

T.J. wrote:
The source you have cited shows of the 6,133,000 CP mothers who were
supposed to received CS, 4,578,000 reported receiving some portion
of that amount. That means nearly 75% of mothers received CS. So
please explain how you conclude 97% of fathers are deadbeats.

Well it sure doesnt support the orginal posters notion that 97% of
fathers arent deadbeats. Furthermore it says specifically that its a
collection of ANY AMOUNT OWED. With the collection amount only at 58%
for all cases, that doesnt leave very much for those 75% that made
SOME payment now does it. Overall they probably have less than a 30%
pay rate when you figure it all out. So yes a LOT of NCP's are
deadbeats.

So, are you admitting that you made up the "97%"?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


You didn't answer my question. Why should only the CP get to claim the
child as a dependent on her taxes and get the break that goes with that,
and
get the child tax credit on her taxes. Why shouldn't the NCP get the tax
breaks when he files his taxes in proportion to the percentage of
financial
support he provides?

NO I DONT, NOT in all cases.. Because like ive said before, there is more
to raising a child than just monetary support. Even if they could, whos
income would it be based on? What about cases where the NCP doesnt pay
support regularly and doenst see the children? What about when there is
arrearage?? I think its easier for NCP to request a split of these funds
through the court than trying to get the IRS to sort it all out (the IRS
trying to figure out how much goes here and how much goes there.. now that
would be a disaster). What do you propose, like a Child Support Statement,
much like your W-2's.

In my case why should my ex get any child credit when he hardly pays
support, has a huge arrears balance (and its not becuse of the system, its
because he didnt pay support for two years, then paid 3 out of 12 months for
the rest), and never see's his children??

Maybe some type of bonus for paying support should be given. As a matter of
fact ive seen something about that recently..cant remember the exact
details..but it was something along those lines.

What a fun question. Would you support a system that uses 50/50 custody
as
the default position for the children in a divorce? Then each parent
would
experience the joys you describe 50% of the time. Let's say that in every
divorce, custody is automatically split 50/50, unless there is a provable
history of abuse. The custody percentages only change at the request of a
parent who wants *less* parenting time, and a $$ support is attached to
the
time he/she gives over to the other parent. So if mom only wants 40%
parenting time, she pays $$ to dad for the extra 10% he will have to
provide
for his children. Would you go along with that?

Actually some states are already doing that and they are finding that more
often the 50/50 split doesnt work. One parent usually ends up with the
children more time, regardless of whether they want less or more parenting
time, it just happens.. I cant go along with that becuase its impossible to
split a child 50/50, lol. IN a perfect utopia maybe, but in a perfect
utopia parents would never get divorced either, and children wouldnt be born
out of wedlock, etc.

Would most people be willing to give up their jobs, move to a closer
location to be near the child, what if one parent makes less than the other
and cant move would the other parent be willing to move into a lower class
area so they could accomdate this 50/50 split? What if the child wanted
to take dance lessons, one parent can afford it and the other cant, who
pays, who makes the decison as to whether or not the child goes?? There are
many more questions that arise like these above in my mind. In theory a
50/50 split would be the best for the child, but in reality it probably
wouldnt really be a 50/50 split no matter what one does. It may seem like im
the one nitpicking now, but really how could parents overcome those
boundaries? How could the system really make a 50/50 split?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
TJ, my husband is considered to be a deadbeat, and he has never missed a
payment. He has those instant arrearages to deal with--and that makes him
a
deadbeat.
When a modification upward is awarded to the CP, retroactive to the date
of
the filing, and the NCP finds himself saddled with arrearages for the
retroactive CS, he becomes a "deadbeat". It isn't hard to be labeled a
deadbeat even if you are doing everything right! You need to do a bit
more
looking into the whole CS scenario, and not rely on one set statistics
that
can be interpreted many different ways. Are you truly saying that,
between
my husband and myself we should be paying $1760 per month to support our
2
daughters? Does that sound realistic to you? What on earth would all
that
money be spent on?


This is your case. I agree that your husband is not a deadbeat if he didnt
know that the child exsisted. Ive never said he is a deadbeat. But most
cases arent like your husbands. Most fathers KNOW their children exsist. In
our case we were sepearated and there was no retroactive support to any
date, even though he didnt pay for his childrens support for almost 6 months
by the time we actually got any support order at all. So not all fathers
are given retroactive support orders.

In reference to the amount of support you should pay based on what I posted,
read the other post. There are different calcuations for subsequent
children. The amounts as I said and emphasized are for ONE child, not two,
three, etc.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


#1 We had children even before he knew aboutthe other child.

In most cases that is not true. The father knows damn well that he has
other children.

#2 Why should the subsequent children get less support simply because dad
had a previous family.

Because, its not the first childrens fault daddy (or mommy) went out and
decided to have more children. WHY should those children pay for his
choices.

#3 In an intact family, all members of the family tighten their belts a
bit
when new members arrive. There is no guaranteed lifestyle amount.

Yeah, but in that intact family would there have been another child?
Probably not. New wife, new life, new kids.. it all goes together.


#4 Why should mom be able to keep bringing children into the world
without
regard to the fact that she has no means to support them, and be able to
depend on the court ordering each subsequent man to be responsible for the
child that he helped create. If dad shouldn't have subsequent children,
shouldn't mom be held to the same standard?

I never said she shouldnt. I think women degrade themselves when they have
children by mulitple dads, its makes other single mothers look bad. Men are
the same way, they degrade themselves and make others look bad. It always
amazes me when women have 3 kids by different dads they are sluts, whores,
and abuse men to get money. When a man has 3 kids by different wives they
are somehow placed in a different category and its "OK" for them to do such
things.

I am NOT one of those mothers though and it makes me mad as hell when I see
Mary Jo down the street not working, has three kids by three different
fathers and is barefoot and pregnant again. It gives all hard working,
honest single mothers a bad name.
It makes me mad as hell when I see Jose Mo driving around like he is the
****, while he has three different kids by three different mothers, doesnt p
ay a fricken dime to any of them for anything, and gets away with it. He
gives all hard working, honest men a bad name too.

"T.J." wrote in message
...
I dont know any employer that gets something in the mail saying this
person
owes $20,000 in arrears. Most employers get a garnishment of wages notice
for certain amount, like $100.00 per month. How would GM know that they
were behind in support payments ?? They just were acting on the side of
caution since the transaction happened so fast, to ensure that "IF" these
people where behind they wouldnt be in violation of any laws.

Every enforcement/garnishment notice that is sent by the FRO (Ontario,
Canada), for example, includes the current arrears as well as the amount to
garnish. As TeacherMama was saying, YOUR experience is not THE experience,
there are many different systems and many different scenarios. When
discussing how things are and how things should be one must listen then
speak and hopefully understand the ehole picture not just the picture they
live within.

This does not mean others do not appreciate the portrait of your life you
have.

Cameron

"T.J." wrote in message
...
GOOD FOR GM!!!!!

They should take deadbeat's bonuses away from them if they arent current
on
their child support!!!!

TJ

I can appreciate GM wanting to ensure that children are not abandon. I can
appreciate that their public relations department probably drooled at the
publicity of this move. families of Deadbeat Dads everywhere are in begging
for their new GM car as we read all of this (my ex has 2 of them).

What is most concerning is that they make this Corporate Good-Guy gesture,
maybe even with some laws supporting them, those who have run themselves
ragged to ensure they can simply live while paying the child support are now
short a piece of the rainbow, possibly resentful, and building those cars!
For those that truely deserve to be labelled deadbeats, I have no issue with
what GM did. The fact remains that many of us in the system are not
deadbeats, just persecuted for being the NCP.

Papa

And even more mothers, toejam.

Mel Gamble

"T.J." wrote:

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Listen dick head, it that makes no sense to punish 97% of all fathers for
the actions of the dead beat 3%, who mind you if they want to be dead
beats
and evade no matter what laws are on the books these guys will find away
out
it.

Um actually there are WAY more than 97% of fathers who are deadbeats, lol.

Go back and read my post to try an understand what so called today's child
support is all about.

Coming from you Dave with your wonderful langauge no thanks.

I never cease to be amazed by the number of people...

"T.J." wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
What would you say about a man earning $48,000 per year who pays $650 per
month for one child, faithfully. He loses his job due to layoff, and
can't
find another in his field. So he takes a job for $30,000 and petitions
for
a modification in support. The judge says "No. Get a job at your previous
rate."

** Not if he was laid off and couldnt find anything else, no I dont.
However, im sure that many of these judges get sick and tired of all the men
who come in and claim the have a lower paying job as an excuse for lowering
their support. In my state they use an average of the last three years of
earnings to determine the amount. Not what the highest paying job is.**

....who claim to believe a man would short himself by a total of $18,000
per year to try to REDUCE - not eliminat, just REDUCE - a payment that
TOTALS less than half that amount. Even if he could get it halved, he'd
be giving up nearly 5 times what he was avoiding paying. How spiteful
must a person be in their own lives to believe somebody else would be so
STUPIDLY SPITEFUL???? Simply mind-boggling, isn't it?

Mel Gamble

Even with a second job, he can only get up to $40,000. He falls
behind in his support because he just can't keep bills paid on this new
salary.

**How can someone who makes $40,000 not be able to make ONE payment of
650.00 for one child??? Dont get defensive im just asking. **

Is he an asswipe? A deadbeat?


Now, add to it that mom doesn't work. She lives with hubby #2, who
supports
her on his $60,000 per year job. She's not hurting because he isn't
sending
his usual amount. But she fights modification anyway. Who would you
scold
if you could talk to both of them? And why?

**Her new hubbies income doesnt make any difference.**