Watch Your Retirement Funds, Dads!

The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for every
dad financially destroyed, isn't content with its treatment of Florida dads
and now urges the US Congress to follow its lead. Why? Why is Florida
concerned about fathers in other states? Have they run out of bodies down
there or something? And, why couldn't they use the term "delinquent
obligors" or some such instead of the D word? Sheesh--What a bunch of
delusional morons! (Link to Florida HB 0975 follows below quoted text)

House Memorial
2 A memorial to the Congress of the United States, urging
3 Congress to explore the feasibility of accessing pension
4 plans and retirement funds, both public and private, for
5 the purpose of collecting child support payments and
6 related costs and fees from moneys that would ordinarily
7 be payable only upon retirement.
8

9 WHEREAS, the collection of child support from deadbeat
10 parents is an expensive, time-consuming, and difficult process,
11 and
12 WHEREAS, past and current income from pension plans and
13 other retirement funds is considered income for purposes of
14 child support, and
15 WHEREAS, the state has the authority to use income
16 deduction orders to access this income, and
17 WHEREAS, many deadbeat parents are eligible to receive
18 income from pension plans and retirement funds, both public and
19 private, upon retirement, and
20 WHEREAS, income from moneys payable only upon retirement is
21 not currently accessible for the purpose of child support
22 payments and related costs and fees, and
23 WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States would be doing a
24 great service to many dependent children in this country by
25 determining the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
26 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
27 collecting child support payments and related costs and fees
28 from moneys that would ordinarily be payable only upon
29 retirement, NOW, THEREFORE,
30

31 Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
32

33 That the Congress of the United States is requested to
34 determine the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
35 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
36 collecting child support obligations, to include all fees and
37 costs associated with such collections, from moneys that would
38 ordinarily be payable only upon retirement.
39 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be
40 dispatched to the President of the United States, to the
41 President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the
42 United States House of Representatives, and to each member of
43 the Florida delegation to the United States Congress.


http://tinyurl.com/2nglk

In the case of married fathers, as far as I know, all states in the U.S.
treat retirement money as marital property. That means that married men who
go through divorce ALREADY are in the situation where their wives get half
of the funds accumulated in retirement accounts.

Is the proposal that, on top of the half that mothers collected at the
time of the divorce from fathers' pension funds, they should also be able to
get more of these retirment funds, if the fathers are unable or unwilling to
make the "child support" payments to the mothers? Apparently so.

That brings up another question that I have wondered about from time to
time. Is there any systematic program for warning young men about to be
married for the first time about what will happen to them if their wives
decide they want a divorce? There should be.

My own little proposal is that all states adopt a Truth in Marriage Act,
requiring that those getting married sign a Truth in Marriage declaration.
This declaration would state that would-be bridegrooms (and brides) certify
that they have been told about:
-- the 50 percent divorce rate,
-- the glass ceiling on paternal custody,
-- the level of "child support" payments,
-- the way in which assets accumulated during the marriage are treated as
jointly owned, regardless of whose efforts created them,
-- and now, apparently, the risks that men will be impoverished during
retirement because their retirement funds have been taken and given to their
ex-wives as "child support."
We have Truth in Lending statements that have to be signed when people are
taking out loans. Why no Truth in Marriage statements?

Of course, a major problem with Truth in Marriage statements is that the
conditions keep changing. The repayment terms for a loan don't change
during the life of the loan. However, state legislatures keep changing the
rules for divorce, and then applying the changes retroactively to existing
marriages, regardless of when or where they took place.



"Gini" wrote in message
...
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for every
dad financially destroyed, isn't content with its treatment of Florida
dads
and now urges the US Congress to follow its lead. Why? Why is Florida
concerned about fathers in other states? Have they run out of bodies down
there or something? And, why couldn't they use the term "delinquent
obligors" or some such instead of the D word? Sheesh--What a bunch of
delusional morons! (Link to Florida HB 0975 follows below quoted text)

House Memorial
2 A memorial to the Congress of the United States, urging
3 Congress to explore the feasibility of accessing pension
4 plans and retirement funds, both public and private, for
5 the purpose of collecting child support payments and
6 related costs and fees from moneys that would ordinarily
7 be payable only upon retirement.
8

9 WHEREAS, the collection of child support from deadbeat
10 parents is an expensive, time-consuming, and difficult process,
11 and
12 WHEREAS, past and current income from pension plans and
13 other retirement funds is considered income for purposes of
14 child support, and
15 WHEREAS, the state has the authority to use income
16 deduction orders to access this income, and
17 WHEREAS, many deadbeat parents are eligible to receive
18 income from pension plans and retirement funds, both public and
19 private, upon retirement, and
20 WHEREAS, income from moneys payable only upon retirement is
21 not currently accessible for the purpose of child support
22 payments and related costs and fees, and
23 WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States would be doing a
24 great service to many dependent children in this country by
25 determining the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
26 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
27 collecting child support payments and related costs and fees
28 from moneys that would ordinarily be payable only upon
29 retirement, NOW, THEREFORE,
30

31 Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
32

33 That the Congress of the United States is requested to
34 determine the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
35 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
36 collecting child support obligations, to include all fees and
37 costs associated with such collections, from moneys that would
38 ordinarily be payable only upon retirement.
39 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be
40 dispatched to the President of the United States, to the
41 President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the
42 United States House of Representatives, and to each member of
43 the Florida delegation to the United States Congress.


http://tinyurl.com/2nglk

In the case of married fathers, as far as I know, all states in the U.S.
treat retirement money as marital property. That means that married men who
go through divorce ALREADY are in the situation where their wives get half
of the funds accumulated in retirement accounts.

Is the proposal that, on top of the half that mothers collected at the
time of the divorce from fathers' pension funds, they should also be able to
get more of these retirment funds, if the fathers are unable or unwilling to
make the "child support" payments to the mothers? Apparently so.

That brings up another question that I have wondered about from time to
time. Is there any systematic program for warning young men about to be
married for the first time about what will happen to them if their wives
decide they want a divorce? There should be.

My own little proposal is that all states adopt a Truth in Marriage Act,
requiring that those getting married sign a Truth in Marriage declaration.
This declaration would state that would-be bridegrooms (and brides) certify
that they have been told about:
-- the 50 percent divorce rate,
-- the glass ceiling on paternal custody,
-- the level of "child support" payments,
-- the way in which assets accumulated during the marriage are treated as
jointly owned, regardless of whose efforts created them,
-- and now, apparently, the risks that men will be impoverished during
retirement because their retirement funds have been taken and given to their
ex-wives as "child support."
We have Truth in Lending statements that have to be signed when people are
taking out loans. Why no Truth in Marriage statements?

Of course, a major problem with Truth in Marriage statements is that the
conditions keep changing. The repayment terms for a loan don't change
during the life of the loan. However, state legislatures keep changing the
rules for divorce, and then applying the changes retroactively to existing
marriages, regardless of when or where they took place.



"Gini" wrote in message
...
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for every
dad financially destroyed, isn't content with its treatment of Florida
dads
and now urges the US Congress to follow its lead. Why? Why is Florida
concerned about fathers in other states? Have they run out of bodies down
there or something? And, why couldn't they use the term "delinquent
obligors" or some such instead of the D word? Sheesh--What a bunch of
delusional morons! (Link to Florida HB 0975 follows below quoted text)

House Memorial
2 A memorial to the Congress of the United States, urging
3 Congress to explore the feasibility of accessing pension
4 plans and retirement funds, both public and private, for
5 the purpose of collecting child support payments and
6 related costs and fees from moneys that would ordinarily
7 be payable only upon retirement.
8

9 WHEREAS, the collection of child support from deadbeat
10 parents is an expensive, time-consuming, and difficult process,
11 and
12 WHEREAS, past and current income from pension plans and
13 other retirement funds is considered income for purposes of
14 child support, and
15 WHEREAS, the state has the authority to use income
16 deduction orders to access this income, and
17 WHEREAS, many deadbeat parents are eligible to receive
18 income from pension plans and retirement funds, both public and
19 private, upon retirement, and
20 WHEREAS, income from moneys payable only upon retirement is
21 not currently accessible for the purpose of child support
22 payments and related costs and fees, and
23 WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States would be doing a
24 great service to many dependent children in this country by
25 determining the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
26 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
27 collecting child support payments and related costs and fees
28 from moneys that would ordinarily be payable only upon
29 retirement, NOW, THEREFORE,
30

31 Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
32

33 That the Congress of the United States is requested to
34 determine the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
35 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
36 collecting child support obligations, to include all fees and
37 costs associated with such collections, from moneys that would
38 ordinarily be payable only upon retirement.
39 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be
40 dispatched to the President of the United States, to the
41 President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the
42 United States House of Representatives, and to each member of
43 the Florida delegation to the United States Congress.


http://tinyurl.com/2nglk

In the case of married fathers, as far as I know, all states in the U.S.
treat retirement money as marital property. That means that married men who
go through divorce ALREADY are in the situation where their wives get half
of the funds accumulated in retirement accounts.

Is the proposal that, on top of the half that mothers collected at the
time of the divorce from fathers' pension funds, they should also be able to
get more of these retirment funds, if the fathers are unable or unwilling to
make the "child support" payments to the mothers? Apparently so.

That brings up another question that I have wondered about from time to
time. Is there any systematic program for warning young men about to be
married for the first time about what will happen to them if their wives
decide they want a divorce? There should be.

My own little proposal is that all states adopt a Truth in Marriage Act,
requiring that those getting married sign a Truth in Marriage declaration.
This declaration would state that would-be bridegrooms (and brides) certify
that they have been told about:
-- the 50 percent divorce rate,
-- the glass ceiling on paternal custody,
-- the level of "child support" payments,
-- the way in which assets accumulated during the marriage are treated as
jointly owned, regardless of whose efforts created them,
-- and now, apparently, the risks that men will be impoverished during
retirement because their retirement funds have been taken and given to their
ex-wives as "child support."
We have Truth in Lending statements that have to be signed when people are
taking out loans. Why no Truth in Marriage statements?

Of course, a major problem with Truth in Marriage statements is that the
conditions keep changing. The repayment terms for a loan don't change
during the life of the loan. However, state legislatures keep changing the
rules for divorce, and then applying the changes retroactively to existing
marriages, regardless of when or where they took place.



"Gini" wrote in message
...
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for every
dad financially destroyed, isn't content with its treatment of Florida
dads
and now urges the US Congress to follow its lead. Why? Why is Florida
concerned about fathers in other states? Have they run out of bodies down
there or something? And, why couldn't they use the term "delinquent
obligors" or some such instead of the D word? Sheesh--What a bunch of
delusional morons! (Link to Florida HB 0975 follows below quoted text)

House Memorial
2 A memorial to the Congress of the United States, urging
3 Congress to explore the feasibility of accessing pension
4 plans and retirement funds, both public and private, for
5 the purpose of collecting child support payments and
6 related costs and fees from moneys that would ordinarily
7 be payable only upon retirement.
8

9 WHEREAS, the collection of child support from deadbeat
10 parents is an expensive, time-consuming, and difficult process,
11 and
12 WHEREAS, past and current income from pension plans and
13 other retirement funds is considered income for purposes of
14 child support, and
15 WHEREAS, the state has the authority to use income
16 deduction orders to access this income, and
17 WHEREAS, many deadbeat parents are eligible to receive
18 income from pension plans and retirement funds, both public and
19 private, upon retirement, and
20 WHEREAS, income from moneys payable only upon retirement is
21 not currently accessible for the purpose of child support
22 payments and related costs and fees, and
23 WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States would be doing a
24 great service to many dependent children in this country by
25 determining the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
26 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
27 collecting child support payments and related costs and fees
28 from moneys that would ordinarily be payable only upon
29 retirement, NOW, THEREFORE,
30

31 Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
32

33 That the Congress of the United States is requested to
34 determine the feasibility of accessing pension plans and
35 retirement funds, both public and private, for the purpose of
36 collecting child support obligations, to include all fees and
37 costs associated with such collections, from moneys that would
38 ordinarily be payable only upon retirement.
39 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be
40 dispatched to the President of the United States, to the
41 President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the
42 United States House of Representatives, and to each member of
43 the Florida delegation to the United States Congress.


http://tinyurl.com/2nglk

"Gini" wrote in message
...
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for every
dad financially destroyed, isn't content with its treatment of Florida
dads
and now urges the US Congress to follow its lead. Why? Why is Florida
concerned about fathers in other states? Have they run out of bodies down
there or something? And, why couldn't they use the term "delinquent
obligors" or some such instead of the D word? Sheesh--What a bunch of
delusional morons! (Link to Florida HB 0975 follows below quoted text)

This is a real danger zone for fathers. There is more to it than seems
apparent at first blush. Garnishing retirement accounts like 401k's
triggers federal and state tax liabilities and penalties on top of the
principle amount withdrawn. Fathers are forced to pay the taxes at their
incremental federal tax rate (28%, 31.5%, etc.) plus their incremental state
tax rate (9% where I live) plus the 10% penalty for pre-mature
distributions. In total that's around a 47% tax and penalties hit. Stated
another way, for every $1,000 garnished from a retirement account the father
could owe another $470 in taxes.

Now for a funny story. My ex filed a garnishment by attorney on the
financial institution that managed two separate retirements for me. One of
the two was awarded to her in the property settlement. She just never got
around to changing the account over to her name. The institution asked me
which account to take the money out of. I told them to take it out of the
account awarded to my ex. Boy was that judge pi**ed when she realized my ex
paid my CS arrearage out of her own account. She didn't like my argument
that my ex failed to change the account into her name and her attorney
garnished the wrong account.

But the point is this stuff can get really complicated and a bunch of
politicians, like those in Florida, who think they have a good idea, may
just be creating a mess for people that makes the problem worse instead of
better. In fact, judges already can force a father to access his retirement
account to pay CS arrearages. Even if garnishing those accounts is
prohibited under state law, the judge simply says: "I don't care where you
get the money from. Pay the arrearage by next Friday or I'll issue a bench
warrant for your arrest."

"Gini" wrote in message
...
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for every
dad financially destroyed, isn't content with its treatment of Florida
dads
and now urges the US Congress to follow its lead. Why? Why is Florida
concerned about fathers in other states? Have they run out of bodies down
there or something? And, why couldn't they use the term "delinquent
obligors" or some such instead of the D word? Sheesh--What a bunch of
delusional morons! (Link to Florida HB 0975 follows below quoted text)

This is a real danger zone for fathers. There is more to it than seems
apparent at first blush. Garnishing retirement accounts like 401k's
triggers federal and state tax liabilities and penalties on top of the
principle amount withdrawn. Fathers are forced to pay the taxes at their
incremental federal tax rate (28%, 31.5%, etc.) plus their incremental state
tax rate (9% where I live) plus the 10% penalty for pre-mature
distributions. In total that's around a 47% tax and penalties hit. Stated
another way, for every $1,000 garnished from a retirement account the father
could owe another $470 in taxes.

Now for a funny story. My ex filed a garnishment by attorney on the
financial institution that managed two separate retirements for me. One of
the two was awarded to her in the property settlement. She just never got
around to changing the account over to her name. The institution asked me
which account to take the money out of. I told them to take it out of the
account awarded to my ex. Boy was that judge pi**ed when she realized my ex
paid my CS arrearage out of her own account. She didn't like my argument
that my ex failed to change the account into her name and her attorney
garnished the wrong account.

But the point is this stuff can get really complicated and a bunch of
politicians, like those in Florida, who think they have a good idea, may
just be creating a mess for people that makes the problem worse instead of
better. In fact, judges already can force a father to access his retirement
account to pay CS arrearages. Even if garnishing those accounts is
prohibited under state law, the judge simply says: "I don't care where you
get the money from. Pay the arrearage by next Friday or I'll issue a bench
warrant for your arrest."

"Gini" wrote in message
...
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for every
dad financially destroyed, isn't content with its treatment of Florida
dads
and now urges the US Congress to follow its lead. Why? Why is Florida
concerned about fathers in other states? Have they run out of bodies down
there or something? And, why couldn't they use the term "delinquent
obligors" or some such instead of the D word? Sheesh--What a bunch of
delusional morons! (Link to Florida HB 0975 follows below quoted text)

This is a real danger zone for fathers. There is more to it than seems
apparent at first blush. Garnishing retirement accounts like 401k's
triggers federal and state tax liabilities and penalties on top of the
principle amount withdrawn. Fathers are forced to pay the taxes at their
incremental federal tax rate (28%, 31.5%, etc.) plus their incremental state
tax rate (9% where I live) plus the 10% penalty for pre-mature
distributions. In total that's around a 47% tax and penalties hit. Stated
another way, for every $1,000 garnished from a retirement account the father
could owe another $470 in taxes.

Now for a funny story. My ex filed a garnishment by attorney on the
financial institution that managed two separate retirements for me. One of
the two was awarded to her in the property settlement. She just never got
around to changing the account over to her name. The institution asked me
which account to take the money out of. I told them to take it out of the
account awarded to my ex. Boy was that judge pi**ed when she realized my ex
paid my CS arrearage out of her own account. She didn't like my argument
that my ex failed to change the account into her name and her attorney
garnished the wrong account.

But the point is this stuff can get really complicated and a bunch of
politicians, like those in Florida, who think they have a good idea, may
just be creating a mess for people that makes the problem worse instead of
better. In fact, judges already can force a father to access his retirement
account to pay CS arrearages. Even if garnishing those accounts is
prohibited under state law, the judge simply says: "I don't care where you
get the money from. Pay the arrearage by next Friday or I'll issue a bench
warrant for your arrest."

Gini wrote:
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for
every dad financially destroyed,

snipped for brevity

So, if an elderly person can no longer afford to care for themselves,
even after decades of hard work and careful planning, it seems a viable
option would be to commit a crime, and let the state take care of you
instead.


--
A 'great idea' is one only when *YOU* think it is.

Gini wrote:
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for
every dad financially destroyed,

snipped for brevity

So, if an elderly person can no longer afford to care for themselves,
even after decades of hard work and careful planning, it seems a viable
option would be to commit a crime, and let the state take care of you
instead.


--
A 'great idea' is one only when *YOU* think it is.

Gini wrote:
The state of Florida, which continually pats itself on the back for
every dad financially destroyed,

snipped for brevity

So, if an elderly person can no longer afford to care for themselves,
even after decades of hard work and careful planning, it seems a viable
option would be to commit a crime, and let the state take care of you
instead.


--
A 'great idea' is one only when *YOU* think it is.