If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 $70 per month in CS instead of paying my various expenses to care for him half the time. How sad, I wonder how many fathers in my state end up realizing this and then following through on it. As always, in the end it's the kids who suffer. - Ron ^*^ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:i8G7e.1719$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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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% ($334/1000) more than what my state would access as CS. Then if you add in the 20% visitation my state will not give an NCP credit for, you get 53.4%. That means a father is paying a 53.4% premium for the right to have 50/50 shared custody. There was a thread here last week about the PA legislature considering a groundbreaking change in the law to start with a presumption of 50/50 shared custody. I posted there were lots of flaws in the bill including questions about how PA calculates shared custody CS awards. But now, knowing how PA calculates shared custody CS awards, I feel even stronger against its passage. As long as a father has to pay a premium to get shared custody not many will go for it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:i8G7e.1719$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 ^*^ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Mother's Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Case | TrashBBRT | Child Support | 8 | May 21st 04 05:52 PM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |