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
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
wrote in message
oups.com... I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? Ah, but there's always another way for the states to get around that issue of the 6% cap.. It's (sometimes) called Penalties and Fees. If a state wants to, they can add up an NCP's Interest, Fees and Penalties and far exceed the 6% cap - and get away with it. The interest is straight up, it's something that the states can't futz with much. they have all sorts of creative fun with the Penalties and Fees bit though.. It's there that the states can charge NCP's for all sorts of really goofy, off-the-wall B.S. I kinda look at it like it's a Credit Card without an expiration date or a max charge amount that you never get to use yourself, you just get the bill. The state holds this CC for you, in your name. They then get to make all sorts of charges on it. They can change the monthly (yearly) interest rates on this CC whenever they so desire (which is usually the maximum amount they can get you for). They can also hit you for untold amounts in late fees that they can make up as they go along and tack on to your bill at any time they like. And if you don't like the way their accountant keeps the books - "Oh, well, it sucks to be you." is about all the response you'll get from the wonderful folks in their Customer Care Center. Because, in the end, you'll never get to have any say in the matter (but they'll let you pretend that you are, so keep dreamin'). And may God have mercy on your soul if you're ever late with a payment... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
wrote in message oups.com... I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._42_00000654-- --000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9% interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and assesses 9% interest. Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where does the interest go? Who gets to keep it? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
Bob Whiteside wrote: wrote in message oups.com... I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._42_00000654-- --000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9% interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and assesses 9% interest. Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where does the interest go? Who gets to keep it? "Eh... It's for the, ah, children, so, ah, we figured we'd, you know, invest it in fixing up our child support collection agency, you know, to, ah, make it more efficient... you know, for the children." - Ron ^*^ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:g_INf.194658$oG.20082@dukeread02... [snip] "Eh... It's for the, ah, children, so, ah, we figured we'd, you know, invest it in fixing up our child support collection agency, you know, to, ah, make it more efficient... you know, for the children." - Ron ^*^ Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
Technically speaking (and I speak as an accountant and not a CP),
interest is an entirely different thing than late fees. The way this is written, states could conceivable charge a late fee (on top of interest) of 3% every time a payment comes due. If payments are due monthly, it could equate to 36% per year. On 2 Mar 2006 09:51:41 -0800, " wrote: I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? Beverly |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:07:50 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com... I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._42_00000654-- --000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9% interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and assesses 9% interest. Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where does the interest go? Who gets to keep it? Depending on the law your state uses to determine the interest, it is may also be possible for a non-TANF case to get interest. My state, for example, uses the interest and the rate applicable to all judgments of money. It is not just child support related. Although interest is automatically computed by child support enforcement, any child support case before a judge can have interest added on arrears. Interest, in any case, goes to the CP in one way or another. In TANF cases, they may keep all child support payments collected up to the amount of support in which they provide the family. Most states, allow a small pass-through, however. The reason the state keeps the interest is because state support provided most often exceeds child support paid. State support includes cash payments, food stamps, medical, housing allowances, and other assistance which varies by state. TECHNICALLY, the CP is getting the interest. In my case, which was not a TANF case nor did it go through child support enforcement, interest was added to the arrears at our last hearing. The entire amount is payable to me. It is not unlike a parent who uses loans or credit to pay for things associated with their child's expenses. If the loan/credit was from a bank, interest would be owed the bank. The courts see non-payment of child support akin to securing a loan from the CP (or state, as the case may be) because money for supporting the children obviously came from somewhere. For what it is worth, I could have earned/saved more in interest by investing my discretionary income or paying down debt had I not had to cover my ex's portion of child expenses with it. It's not like I am making money because interest was applied. Beverly |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
"Beverly" wrote in message ... On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:07:50 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...c_42_00000654- - --000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9% interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and assesses 9% interest. Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where does the interest go? Who gets to keep it? Depending on the law your state uses to determine the interest, it is may also be possible for a non-TANF case to get interest. My state, for example, uses the interest and the rate applicable to all judgments of money. It is not just child support related. Although interest is automatically computed by child support enforcement, any child support case before a judge can have interest added on arrears. Interest, in any case, goes to the CP in one way or another. In TANF cases, they may keep all child support payments collected up to the amount of support in which they provide the family. Most states, allow a small pass-through, however. The reason the state keeps the interest is because state support provided most often exceeds child support paid. State support includes cash payments, food stamps, medical, housing allowances, and other assistance which varies by state. TECHNICALLY, the CP is getting the interest. Using this same logic, TECHNICALLY, the NCP is getting the interest too. After all, the fact he is paying interest keeps the CS guideline awards down and prevents future increases from occuring so he is paying less CS than if he didn't pay interest. Please explain how the welfare benefits are unchanged when interest is accrued but the CP gets the interest from the state before it is paid. BTW - The $50 pass-through was no longer funded by federal money after the welfare reform of 1996. Most states dropped the pass-through when it started coming out of state funds. My state hasn't paid it since 1997. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
Beverly's correct. I spoke with someone in the Region 3 office of the
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement who did advise me that the 3-6% amount is not interest, but is a late fee. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
State-applied interest on child support arrearages.
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Beverly" wrote in message ... On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:07:50 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: wrote in message egroups.com... I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite issue: INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES Here's the sentence: If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a). The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the link (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...c_42_00000654- - --000-.html#21_a) to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says: "at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..." Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on arrearages. I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment interest" is changed -- current it's 6%. Take a look at this site: http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum... Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6% mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try and turn the tables on those states? My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9% interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and assesses 9% interest. Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where does the interest go? Who gets to keep it? Depending on the law your state uses to determine the interest, it is may also be possible for a non-TANF case to get interest. My state, for example, uses the interest and the rate applicable to all judgments of money. It is not just child support related. Although interest is automatically computed by child support enforcement, any child support case before a judge can have interest added on arrears. Interest, in any case, goes to the CP in one way or another. In TANF cases, they may keep all child support payments collected up to the amount of support in which they provide the family. Most states, allow a small pass-through, however. The reason the state keeps the interest is because state support provided most often exceeds child support paid. State support includes cash payments, food stamps, medical, housing allowances, and other assistance which varies by state. TECHNICALLY, the CP is getting the interest. Using this same logic, TECHNICALLY, the NCP is getting the interest too. After all, the fact he is paying interest keeps the CS guideline awards down and prevents future increases from occuring so he is paying less CS than if he didn't pay interest. Please explain how the welfare benefits are unchanged when interest is accrued but the CP gets the interest from the state before it is paid. BTW - The $50 pass-through was no longer funded by federal money after the welfare reform of 1996. Most states dropped the pass-through when it started coming out of state funds. My state hasn't paid it since 1997. True -- and my state dropped it a couple of years ago, amidst much wailing and gnashing of feminist teeth. - Ron ^*^ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
<----------- KANE | nineballgirl | Spanking | 2 | September 30th 04 07:26 PM |
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 |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |