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
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their privacy: http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126 my responses are as pueblonative |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote:
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126 my responses are as pueblonative And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway. Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3 kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately. What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann say that. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
Relayer wrote:
On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote: If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126 my responses are as pueblonative And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway. Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3 kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately. What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann say that. Maybe it is a bunch of bull, but look at it this way: at least the hip waders aren't as heavy. I agree about that, and I don't think you can limit it to custodial parents. Ask some of your married friends: if they really came down and budgeted things, how much do they spend that is directly on the children? Is that a consistent number that stays the same each and every month? We also have a few of the "assumed necessities" that custodial parents talk about. For instance, car insurance. I don't know about you, but my mom didn't buy me a car, and she didn't get car insurance for me either. Same goes with cable, internet, those sorts of things, that seem to work their way into the list of necessities (I know the libraries aren't the things that they used to be because of the wonderful attitude we have towards public education in this country, but they still have the Internet). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
"Relayer" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote: If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126 my responses are as pueblonative And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway. Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3 kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately. What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann say that. The CS guideline income shares model are typically based on what are referred to as the Betson Estimates using the Rothbarth Methodology. The 2006 Betson Estimates for child rearing as a proportion of household expenditures a 1 child - 25% 2 children - 37% 3 children - 44% The problem with the CS system is the NCP fathers pay their share of these child rearing estimates and the CP mothers have no obligation to provide their share. The CP mothers are screwing their own children by not providing what the guidelines "assume" they will need to spend to rear their children. The children suffer and the fathers get blamed for the children not having enough money to provide for all their needs. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
On Mar 16, 8:59�pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote: If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126 my responses are as pueblonative And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway. Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3 kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately. What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann say that. The CS guideline income shares model are typically based on what are referred to as the Betson Estimates using the Rothbarth Methodology. *The 2006 Betson Estimates for child rearing as a proportion of household expenditures a 1 child - 25% 2 children - 37% 3 children - 44% The problem with the CS system is the NCP fathers pay their share of these child rearing estimates and the CP mothers have no obligation to provide their share. *The CP mothers are screwing their own children by not providing what the guidelines "assume" they will need to spend to rear their children. *The children suffer and the fathers get blamed for the children not having enough money to provide for all their needs. Elementary my dear Watson |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
On Mar 16, 8:43�pm, John Meyer wrote:
Relayer wrote: On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote: If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126 my responses are as pueblonative And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway. Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3 kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately. What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann say that. Maybe it is a bunch of bull, but look at it this way: at least the hip waders aren't as heavy. I agree about that, and I don't think you can limit it to custodial parents. *Ask some of your married friends: if they really came down and budgeted things, how much do they spend that is directly on the children? *Is that a consistent number that stays the same each and every month? We also have a few of the "assumed necessities" that custodial parents talk about. *For instance, car insurance. *I don't know about you, but my mom didn't buy me a car, and she didn't get car insurance for me either. *Same goes with cable, internet, those sorts of things, that seem to work their way into the list of necessities (I know the libraries aren't the things that they used to be because of the wonderful attitude we have towards public education in this country, but they still have the Internet).- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dude, I paid my daughters car insurance and it was ordered by the Court because it was a "school expense".... But really, I have been married twice..3 kids by my first wife and 2 by my second. When I divorced my first, my oldest child was 12 and youngest 7. I was the sole breadwinner and provider. During my second divorce, (the kids are younger..4 and 6), my wife (now ex) actually said "YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH IT COST TO RAISE KIDS!"..she forgot I was the sole provider of the first three for 21 years and lived with them for 12 and paid for everything. I was also sole provider for the other two little ones. Evidently, I had no idea where my money was going and how much of it went to the kids and I know nothing about child rearing and the associated cost involved. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
Relayer wrote:
Dude, I paid my daughters car insurance and it was ordered by the Court because it was a "school expense".... Maybe my mother should have gotten on my deadbeat father (who owes approximately 40,000, by the way) a little harder. Ah well; thanks to that, I'm not nearly the butterball that I should be. I have a few pounds around the middle, but I can walk pretty much anywhere I need to. But here are two questions I have to ask: 1. If you were ordered to pay it, was it computed into the total cost of the child support and the monetary payout was lower? 2. Which car insurance were you ordered to pay on? Did you have to pay on one which included the mother? If so, and if the mother wasn't quite that careful of a driver, couldn't you argue that some of the premiums were actually subsidizing her driving habits? But really, I have been married twice..3 kids by my first wife and 2 by my second. When I divorced my first, my oldest child was 12 and youngest 7. I was the sole breadwinner and provider. During my second divorce, (the kids are younger..4 and 6), my wife (now ex) actually said "YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH IT COST TO RAISE KIDS!"..she forgot I was the sole provider of the first three for 21 years and lived with them for 12 and paid for everything. I was also sole provider for the other two little ones. Evidently, I had no idea where my money was going and how much of it went to the kids and I know nothing about child rearing and the associated cost involved. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
On Mar 16, 9:24�pm, John Meyer wrote:
Relayer wrote: But here are two questions I have to ask: 1. *If you were ordered to pay it, was it computed into the total cost of the child support and the monetary payout was lower? That was in addition to the child support order. It was in no way computed in and the payout was raised, not lowered. It was viewed by the court as a valid educational expense since she had to drive to school (although public transportation was readily available). To be honest, I would of paid it anyway, since she is my daughter. But I would of prefered to do it on my own and not be ordered by the court to do so. It makes it look to my daughter like it was forced out of me, which was the intent of the mother anyway. 2. *Which car insurance were you ordered to pay on? *Did you have to pay on one which included the mother? *If so, and if the mother wasn't quite that careful of a driver, couldn't you argue that some of the premiums were actually subsidizing her driving habits? No, she wasn't included. She, thankfully, had to pay her own (which she did out of child support, since she didn't work and didn't stick up any 7-11's or rob any banks that I know of..except me of course) Dude, the mother was such a rip-off artist that I paid in ONE year over $300 for ink jet cartridges for the family printer, because it was needed for school. Problem was, and the kids confirmed this, was "mom" used the printer almost exclusively. Another insane expense was "hot lunches" for school. You know..LUNCH...aka..FOOD....yep..in addition to CS...and the final one..SCHOOL CLOTHES...yep...food and clothes..where exaclty was the CS going? This was in addition to the 41% of my net I was paying her for CS. I'm telling you, Illinois is friggin brutal. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
Relayer wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:24�pm, John Meyer wrote: Relayer wrote: But here are two questions I have to ask: 1. �If you were ordered to pay it, was it computed into the total cost of the child support and the monetary payout was lower? That was in addition to the child support order. It was in no way computed in and the payout was raised, not lowered. It was viewed by the court as a valid educational expense since she had to drive to school (although public transportation was readily available). To be honest, I would of paid it anyway, since she is my daughter. But I would of prefered to do it on my own and not be ordered by the court to do so. It makes it look to my daughter like it was forced out of me, which was the intent of the mother anyway. 2. �Which car insurance were you ordered to pay on? �Did you have to pay on one which included the mother? �If so, and if the mother wasn't quite that careful of a driver, couldn't you argue that some of the premiums were actually subsidizing her driving habits? No, she wasn't included. She, thankfully, had to pay her own (which she did out of child support, since she didn't work and didn't stick up any 7-11's or rob any banks that I know of..except me of course) Dude, the mother was such a rip-off artist that I paid in ONE year over $300 for ink jet cartridges for the family printer, because it was needed for school. Problem was, and the kids confirmed this, was "mom" used the printer almost exclusively. Another insane expense was "hot lunches" for school. You know..LUNCH...aka..FOOD....yep..in addition to CS...and the final one..SCHOOL CLOTHES...yep...food and clothes..where exaclty was the CS going? This was in addition to the 41% of my net I was paying her for CS. I'm telling you, Illinois is friggin brutal. Some places are better, some places are worse. Colorado, for instance: Good: Uses Shared Income. Allows reduction in child support for bona fide reasons to improve yourself. Bad: Allows retroactive child support all the way to the child's birth. No way to stop child support if paternity fraud is proven (currently trying to change that with SR 56). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
You have got to see this to believe it
Relayer wrote:
Dude, the mother was such a rip-off artist that I paid in ONE year over $300 for ink jet cartridges for the family printer, because it was needed for school. Problem was, and the kids confirmed this, was "mom" used the printer almost exclusively. Another insane expense was "hot lunches" for school. You know..LUNCH...aka..FOOD....yep..in addition to CS...and the final one..SCHOOL CLOTHES...yep...food and clothes..where exaclty was the CS going? Another thing, and this is not to mitigate your loss in anyway. One of the best explanations of karma I heard was in college. We all know about the part of "everything you give coming back to you trifold". But there's another face. Part of the punishment of karma is that you are the person you choose to be. In short, one of the biggest karmic punishments for your ex being a lying, thieving degenerate sucking off of productive people. . . is the fact that she is a lying, thieving degenerate sucking off of productive people. Would you like to live like that? Of course, it doesn't help when the people are too stupid to realize that they're being punished, but oh well. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|