I just had a great idea on how to screw the CS system!!!

I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together, and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished. Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!

--


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!


.....so if I follow your logic to the end, that would mean that my first
child would have the "benefit" of 40% of my income, meanwhile my second
child would only "benefit" from 10%?!?
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

--


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!


.....so if I follow your logic to the end, that would mean that my first
child would have the "benefit" of 40% of my income, meanwhile my second
child would only "benefit" from 10%?!?
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

--


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!


.....so if I follow your logic to the end, that would mean that my first
child would have the "benefit" of 40% of my income, meanwhile my second
child would only "benefit" from 10%?!?
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

Actually, Beast, neither you nor the state gets to be officially
concerned over what happens to that 40% after the state writes a check
to your ex, so you can guarantee the benefit of the 10% to your second
child but nobody is going to guarantee a damn thing to your first.

As Dusty said "dem's da breaks"...which seems to be the state's attitude
to kids who have to wear rags while mommy spends the CS on booze.

Mel Gamble

The Beast wrote:

--

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!


....so if I follow your logic to the end, that would mean that my first
child would have the "benefit" of 40% of my income, meanwhile my second
child would only "benefit" from 10%?!?
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

Actually, Beast, neither you nor the state gets to be officially
concerned over what happens to that 40% after the state writes a check
to your ex, so you can guarantee the benefit of the 10% to your second
child but nobody is going to guarantee a damn thing to your first.

As Dusty said "dem's da breaks"...which seems to be the state's attitude
to kids who have to wear rags while mommy spends the CS on booze.

Mel Gamble

The Beast wrote:

--

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!


....so if I follow your logic to the end, that would mean that my first
child would have the "benefit" of 40% of my income, meanwhile my second
child would only "benefit" from 10%?!?
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

Actually, Beast, neither you nor the state gets to be officially
concerned over what happens to that 40% after the state writes a check
to your ex, so you can guarantee the benefit of the 10% to your second
child but nobody is going to guarantee a damn thing to your first.

As Dusty said "dem's da breaks"...which seems to be the state's attitude
to kids who have to wear rags while mommy spends the CS on booze.

Mel Gamble

The Beast wrote:

--

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
m...
I am divorced from my first wife to which I pay a measly 40% of my
income to.
I am also remarried and together we have another child. With that being
said, why not legally divorce my second wife, continue to live together,
and
have her collect child support from me thereby reducing the
ex-wife,er,child
support I pay to my first wife. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Federal law
says a NCP can only have 50% of their income stolen...er....garnished.
Where
is the flaw?

--
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis

The "flaw" in this ointment is that there'll be little (if any) change in
the first order. Sorry, dem's da breaks. You're stuck with 40% of your
available cash flowing into her pocket, not yours.

But it was a good idea. Keep thinking, they (CSE) hate that!


....so if I follow your logic to the end, that would mean that my first
child would have the "benefit" of 40% of my income, meanwhile my second
child would only "benefit" from 10%?!?
"Never be haughty to the humble,
never be humble to the haughty."
- Jefferson Davis