things I wonder about...

"whatamess" wrote in message
oups.com...
When I read about "children of a parent" should all share equally
their parent's wealth, I agree to a certain extent. That extent is
the fact that if they must all share equally in their parent's wealth,
they also share the "ups and downs" of it...including, lower
salaries.

It seems that while my husband got laid off and I paid his child
support, the state of Texas, nor the ex, nor the child from his
previous marriage thought it was fair for this child to suffer the
"lower income" of the father. However, it was fair under the law for
OUR son to suffer the lower income of the father. With that said, I
have no problem if she wants to share the "ups and downs"...but it's
not fair one bit that it's my son and I who sacrificed when he lost
his job...the ones who sacrificed putting him through some college
courses to be able to get another job, which of course, turns into
higher expenses for us as a family, less for OUR son to enjoy...yet
once he gets the higher paying job, his daughter gets to reap the
benefits of that. Our son didn't have a choice on whether his dad
lost his job or not, whether he had more things or not or whether we
sacrificed or not...yet his daughter is entitled to a higher standard
of living now, and even with his decrease in income, she's still
entitled to the higher standard of living from her father's income.

With that said, it might be that indeed my son has a nice standard of
living, probably close or maybe higher than his daughter because "I
FULLY SUPPORT HIM"...This higher standard offered by me is not a
"super high rich, extravagant life", no brand name clothes like his
half-sister, no vacations every other month, like his half-sister,
just a nicer home, in a better neighborhood, because that's where I
choose to spend my money...If I were divorced from his dad, he would
be doing really well...sad but true.

Well, only 6 more years of this...geez...it was 6 more years 2 years
ago...but yes, she failed school, so our countdown clock hasn't
moved...

Common tactic. Encourage your kid to be a flunkie and you get that FREE CASH
for another year or so. It's basically an effortless way to keep the
extorted funds rolling in; not to mention, the kid enjoys it too because
they don't have to waste any time studying either. YOOHOO! Not that I
support the sewer system better known as "public school".

"Werebat" wrote in message
...


whatamess wrote:
When I read about "children of a parent" should all share equally
their parent's wealth, I agree to a certain extent. That extent is
the fact that if they must all share equally in their parent's wealth,
they also share the "ups and downs" of it...including, lower
salaries.

It seems that while my husband got laid off and I paid his child
support, the state of Texas, nor the ex, nor the child from his
previous marriage thought it was fair for this child to suffer the
"lower income" of the father. However, it was fair under the law for
OUR son to suffer the lower income of the father. With that said, I
have no problem if she wants to share the "ups and downs"...but it's
not fair one bit that it's my son and I who sacrificed when he lost
his job...the ones who sacrificed putting him through some college
courses to be able to get another job, which of course, turns into
higher expenses for us as a family, less for OUR son to enjoy...yet
once he gets the higher paying job, his daughter gets to reap the
benefits of that. Our son didn't have a choice on whether his dad
lost his job or not, whether he had more things or not or whether we
sacrificed or not...yet his daughter is entitled to a higher standard
of living now, and even with his decrease in income, she's still
entitled to the higher standard of living from her father's income.

With that said, it might be that indeed my son has a nice standard of
living, probably close or maybe higher than his daughter because "I
FULLY SUPPORT HIM"...This higher standard offered by me is not a
"super high rich, extravagant life", no brand name clothes like his
half-sister, no vacations every other month, like his half-sister,
just a nicer home, in a better neighborhood, because that's where I
choose to spend my money...If I were divorced from his dad, he would
be doing really well...sad but true.

Run the numbers, and get "divorced" on paper if that's really
advantageous. This is what this evil system drives people to. One of
the reasons my GF and I will not get married is that we don't want my ex
getting her claws on her money.

I know MANY spiritually married people who will not get "legally" married
for the SOLE reason that the government people will rip them off. What a
joke that government marriage certificate is!


- Ron ^*^

"whatamess" wrote in message
ups.com...
Here are some things I just don't seem to understand.

snip


3. If a CP and child in Texas deserve 20% of NCP income and the NCP
has another child living with him as well, why doesn't he deserve at
least 20% of the NCP income? Why isn't the exact % of income
subtracted from the NCPs earnings before child support is
calculated?


5. In states where an NCP is forced to support an ADULT, why is it
that if they are all about the best interest of a child, they don't
base that support upon full deductions for any minor children living
with the NCP or any other children of the NCP? Aren't children under
18 "entitled" to support? I would think a child under 18 is more
entitled than an ADULT over 18.

6. In states where dental support is also required, how can dental
support be a priority over the basic needs of food/shelter and even
MEDICAL insurance of a child living with an NCP?

7. If the cost of raising a child would be taken from the estate of
an obligor, can someone please tell me if the social security they
would also be receiving would be for the CPs vacation or new car? I
thougt that's what social security for minor children was...Seems the
NCP who has a child living with him is only entitled to social
security, but the one not living with him is entitled to support from
a dead person as well as social security...How lovely.


Everyday I battle these things. If all children are entitled to
support (at outrageous amounts) from both their parents, why is it
that it only applies to the NCP? Can someone please tell me if I
should divorce my husband so that my child has the same rights as his
half-sister?

Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. My husband found out
he had an almost 13 year old daughter when our 2 girls were 7 and 8. He had
apparently become a father during a one night stand, and was never told. We
married and had children not knowing about this child. When he got sued for
support and they proved paternity, they wen after hime big time. He asked
about our children, and was told that they were "irrelevant." I could not
believe my ears. The justice system of the United States of America
considers certain children to be irrelevant! Outrageous! When I asked
someone with Child Support Enforcement about the rights of my children, I
was told that, if I divorced their father, CSE would get $$ from him for
them. IOW, break up the family and you'll get the cash. What a disgusting
attitude! How have these scum gained such power? It makes me ill to think
about it.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"whatamess" wrote in message
ups.com...
Here are some things I just don't seem to understand.

snip


3. If a CP and child in Texas deserve 20% of NCP income and the NCP
has another child living with him as well, why doesn't he deserve at
least 20% of the NCP income? Why isn't the exact % of income
subtracted from the NCPs earnings before child support is
calculated?


5. In states where an NCP is forced to support an ADULT, why is it
that if they are all about the best interest of a child, they don't
base that support upon full deductions for any minor children living
with the NCP or any other children of the NCP? Aren't children under
18 "entitled" to support? I would think a child under 18 is more
entitled than an ADULT over 18.

6. In states where dental support is also required, how can dental
support be a priority over the basic needs of food/shelter and even
MEDICAL insurance of a child living with an NCP?

7. If the cost of raising a child would be taken from the estate of
an obligor, can someone please tell me if the social security they
would also be receiving would be for the CPs vacation or new car? I
thougt that's what social security for minor children was...Seems the
NCP who has a child living with him is only entitled to social
security, but the one not living with him is entitled to support from
a dead person as well as social security...How lovely.


Everyday I battle these things. If all children are entitled to
support (at outrageous amounts) from both their parents, why is it
that it only applies to the NCP? Can someone please tell me if I
should divorce my husband so that my child has the same rights as his
half-sister?

Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. My husband found
out
he had an almost 13 year old daughter when our 2 girls were 7 and 8. He
had
apparently become a father during a one night stand, and was never told.
We
married and had children not knowing about this child. When he got sued
for
support and they proved paternity, they wen after hime big time. He asked
about our children, and was told that they were "irrelevant." I could not
believe my ears. The justice system of the United States of America
considers certain children to be irrelevant! Outrageous! When I asked
someone with Child Support Enforcement about the rights of my children, I
was told that, if I divorced their father, CSE would get $$ from him for
them. IOW, break up the family and you'll get the cash. What a
disgusting
attitude! How have these scum gained such power? It makes me ill to
think
about it.

I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in their policy. Either children are relevant
or they are not. Or are they saying that only children of NOT married
parents are relevant. And if so , why?

To answer your question, it's by using BIGGER guns....... that's how.

On Mar 21, 11:51�am, "Chris" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message

...







"whatamess" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here are some things I just don't seem to understand.

snip

3. *If a CP and child in Texas deserve 20% of NCP income and the NCP
has another child living with him as well, why doesn't he deserve at
least 20% of the NCP income? *Why isn't the exact % of income
subtracted from the NCPs earnings before child support is
calculated?

5. *In states where an NCP is forced to support an ADULT, why is it
that if they are all about the best interest of a child, they don't
base that support upon full deductions for any minor children living
with the NCP or any other children of the NCP? *Aren't children under
18 "entitled" to support? *I would think a child under 18 is more
entitled than an ADULT over 18.

6. *In states where dental support is also required, how can dental
support be a priority over the basic needs of food/shelter and even
MEDICAL insurance of a child living with an NCP?

7. *If the cost of raising a child would be taken from the estate of
an obligor, can someone please tell me if the social security they
would also be receiving would be for the CPs vacation or new car? *I
thougt that's what social security for minor children was...Seems the
NCP who has a child living with him is only entitled to social
security, but the one not living with him is entitled to support from
a dead person as well as social security...How lovely.

Everyday I battle these things. *If all children are entitled to
support (at outrageous amounts) from both their parents, why is it
that it only applies to the NCP? *Can someone please tell me if I
should divorce my husband so that my child has the same rights as his
half-sister?

Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. *My husband found
out
he had an almost 13 year old daughter when our 2 girls were 7 and 8. *He
had
apparently become a father during a one night stand, and was never told.
We
married and had children not knowing about this child. *When he got sued
for
support and they proved paternity, they wen after hime big time. *He asked
about our children, and was told that they were "irrelevant." *I could not
believe my ears. *The justice system of the United States of America
considers certain children to be irrelevant! *Outrageous! *When I asked
someone with Child Support Enforcement about the rights of my children, I
was told that, if I divorced their father, CSE would get $$ from him for
them. *IOW, break up the family and you'll get the cash. *What a
disgusting
attitude! *How have these scum gained such power? *It makes me ill to
think
about it.

I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in their policy. Either children are relevant
or they are not. Or are they saying that only children of NOT married
parents are relevant. And if so , why?

To answer your question, it's by using BIGGER guns....... *that's how.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kids in a second marriage certainly do take a back seat. However, also
look at some on the percentages on the guidelines. In Illinois (and I
know they are different all over) the first child is 20% of net, if
it's two kids, it's 2 kids it's 28%, if it's 3, it's 32%, if it's 4,
it's 40%.

There is no rhyme or reason to the percentages. If it takes 20% for
the first kid, why is it not 60% for the 3rd?

"Relayer"wrote
.......................
Kids in a second marriage certainly do take a back seat. However, also
look at some on the percentages on the guidelines. In Illinois (and I
know they are different all over) the first child is 20% of net, if
it's two kids, it's 2 kids it's 28%, if it's 3, it's 32%, if it's 4,
it's 40%.

There is no rhyme or reason to the percentages. If it takes 20% for
the first kid, why is it not 60% for the 3rd?
==
Because of merged common costs.

On Mar 21, 4:41 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Relayer"wrote
......................
Kids in a second marriage certainly do take a back seat. However, also
look at some on the percentages on the guidelines. In Illinois (and I
know they are different all over) the first child is 20% of net, if
it's two kids, it's 2 kids it's 28%, if it's 3, it's 32%, if it's 4,
it's 40%.

There is no rhyme or reason to the percentages. If it takes 20% for
the first kid, why is it not 60% for the 3rd?
==
Because of merged common costs.

The funny thing about the "merged common costs" is that they only
apply that merged common costs when there are two children in the CP
household for which you pay child support...if one lives with the CP
and the NCP has another child, they also consider the "merged costs"
for both children and award the 20% to the child of the CP, reasoning
that the child that lives with you "merges costs" with the one that
doesn't live with you...go figure...now if two children and two
mothers were actually in question, and neither lived with the NCP,
then there would not be any merged costs or child
support...hmmm...interesting...

As I say, I'll make sure to pay for a vasectomy for my kiddo so that
he doesn't have kids until he's in his 30s-40s and hopefully by then,
he'll make better choices on who to have children with...

Actually, we're in the process of figuring out if it's even worth us
having anything under "dads" name, because were we live inheritance is
automatically given to the children...period. Regardless of what your
will says, you can only give 30% to a non-spouse...other than that, it
goes to the children. So if my husband passes away, god forbid, we
would be forced to keep paying the house so that his daughter and our
son can benefit from the profits "equally"...and if I could not pay
the house, then I would still be liable for giving them "their
share"...period...With a place where the average house is 400K, you
can imagine the mess we're in. Yes, that is average...not the
upper...many out there for over 900K.

On Mar 20, 1:03 pm, "Gini" wrote:

Gallaher v. Elam July 11, 2001 Session

[1] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
[2] No. E2000-02719-COA-R3-CV
[3] 2002.TN.0000129
[4] January 29, 2002
[5] DEE ANN CURTIS GALLAHER v. CURTIS J. ELAM

From one of the dissenting opinions:

"The father has earned an average of approximately $300,000.00 per
year for the past five years, which puts him in the top 1% of income
of all
income tax filers. note2 The three children living with the father
enjoy a
very high standard of living, including private schools at the cost
of
$3,000.00 per month, reside in a home with a monthly mortgage payment
of
$3,800.00, and have access to expensive motor vehicles, thereby
enjoying an
unreasonably high standard of living, while the biological child which
is
subject to the guidelines must exist on a small fraction of such
benefits."

Since when do the type of cars driven by the parent & stepparent have
ANYTHING to do with CS & the standard of living of the child?? When
the CP remarries and her & hubby are driving around in a costly new
SUV while the NCP is driving a clunker cause it's all that he can
afford - who the hell cares? Noone, it sure as hell doesn't effect his
CS and the courts sure as hell don't see it as being unfair to any
children that reside with the NCP.

The best part, though: "... thereby enjoying an unreasonably high
standard of living,..." !!!!!!
But it's perfectly reasonable to order $18,000 per month for one
child, as in the case of Michael Strahan? In my opinion (and for most
others with any sense at all) $18k a month is an "unreasonably high
standard of living" for that child - but since it's going out as CS to
the mother of a child not in the payor's custody, it's apparently ok.
But now you take children in the custody of the NCP, and suddenly
there's such a thing as an "unreasonablely high standard of living"?.
Please.

On Mar 21, 3:41?pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Relayer"wrote
......................
Kids in a second marriage certainly do take a back seat. However, also
look at some on the percentages on the guidelines. In Illinois (and I
know they are different all over) the first child is 20% of net, if
it's two kids, it's 2 kids it's 28%, if it's 3, it's 32%, if it's 4,
it's 40%.

There is no rhyme or reason to the percentages. If it takes 20% for
the first kid, why is it not 60% for the 3rd?
==
Because of merged common costs.

ok, let's look at this. the cost is increased 40% going from one child
to two. Going from 2 children to 3, the cost are increased 14.28%.
Going from 3 kids to 4 the cost is increased 25%. Going from 4 kids to
5 the cost is increased 12.5% going from 5 kids to 6 the cost is
increased 11.11%.

No, mergged costing would remain consistent and never go up, as it
does such as going from 3 to 4 kids.

In addition, yes, there would prehaps be a cost savings as far as kids
sharing a room (assuming 2-3 kids per room). However, grocery stores,
supermarkets, clothing stores, utilities or schools do NOT give
quantity discounts. You cost per item simply does not go down based
upon how much you buy. Or use (in the case of electricity or cable) or
how many kids you have in school.

I'm not saying thhe overall percentage is right or wrong, but the
increases should be flat lined.