GM bonuses cut because of child support

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

There are no consideration for taxes. You pay child support based on
money
you do not receive since it is taxed. What kind of bull**** is that and
you
support this.

So the money that you earn is taxed BEFORE the child support comes out.
The money I earn is taxed BEFORE I spend it on my children to support them
and other needs. Why should the money be taxed twice???

The unfairness, TJ is that the dad pays all the taxes on the money, but gets
absolutely no tax benefits from paying the taxes on the money that he
supplies for child support. Unless otherwise ordered, the CP gets every
penny of tax advantage. Think about doing your taxes every April. There is
a whole lot of benefit to being able to claim your children on your taxes.
Even though the NCP meets his financial obligations, he receives none of
those tax benefits.

"T.J." wrote in message
news
If you can back this up with some kind of statistical data I would agree.
However, I dont see how they can do this when the guidelines for monetary
support are already laid out based on a combined income. But im willing
to
look at something that shows otherwise. Please dont post some personal
link
to a website thats one sided, I really want a reputable source.

This little game gets played here about once per month. Someone like TJ
comes in here making all kinds of wild statements about how they think the
CS system works without any real knowledge or facts to back it up. Then
when they start having their eyes opened to reality, they demand the people
who understand the CS system to provide research and links to prove the
system works the way the system works.

You can find the answer to your question in 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(2)(C) and 42
U.S.C. 658(b)(3) and 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(8). Do your own research and we'll
assume the United States Code is what you would define as a "reputable
source."

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"T.J." wrote in message
news
If you can back this up with some kind of statistical data I would
agree.
However, I dont see how they can do this when the guidelines for
monetary
support are already laid out based on a combined income. But im willing
to
look at something that shows otherwise. Please dont post some personal
link
to a website thats one sided, I really want a reputable source.

This little game gets played here about once per month. Someone like TJ
comes in here making all kinds of wild statements about how they think the
CS system works without any real knowledge or facts to back it up.

I never said the system works. I have said a couple of times that the
system is screwed up.

Then
when they start having their eyes opened to reality, they demand the
people
who understand the CS system to provide research and links to prove the
system works the way the system works.

Im not asking for a link to prove it works. I really want to see where these
statements are coming from.


You can find the answer to your question in 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(2)(C) and 42
U.S.C. 658(b)(3) and 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(8). Do your own research and we'll
assume the United States Code is what you would define as a "reputable
source."

I will take a look at what you posted and if I have any further questions
ill ask the group. Thanks.

"T.J." wrote in message
...
"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Listen dick head, it that makes no sense to punish 97% of all fathers
for
the actions of the dead beat 3%, who mind you if they want to be dead
beats
and evade no matter what laws are on the books these guys will find away
out
it.

Um actually there are WAY more than 97% of fathers who are deadbeats, lol.
==
Statistics?
==
==

" TJ, it is WRONG for a man to be charged a ruinous amount of child
support.

Its wrong to assume that all men have been charged a ruinous amount of child
support. Example. My good friend has two children. Doesnt live with any
boyfriends, works full time. The child support amount is set at 500 per
month for two children. Ex pays child support and can easily support
himself. Ex goes out and gets remarried, at first pays support. Then cries
he cant support his new wife and her previous child because the support
amount is now too much. Ex then goes out and has another child. Cries
again that he cant support his new wife, her previuos child an now his new
child. Ex gets a divorce and now has to pay support for the other child.
Now has TWO support orders totalling 700 a month, for three children. Ex
cries he cant afford to pay support and live. Ex gets married to a THIRD
wife and is expecting another child. Ex cries he cant support his frist two
children, his third child, and now cant support his wife and his new child.

Now where in this long saga did the ex deserve to get his child support
reduced to any of the children? Why should any of these children get less
financial support becuase the ex cant keep his dick in his pants? Who's
fault is it that he cant support himself any longer? Is it wrong that this
man has to have two jobs to support his children and himself? I dont think
so.


It is WRONG to force a man to live in poverty just so he can afford those
child support payments. The children should have their NEEDS met, but the
father should not have to live in a one bedroom hovel just so the
children
can have sports, dance lessons, summer camp, and other luxury items.

It must be nice to have a child support amount that can provide all that!!!
I sure dont know anyone that gets that much child support to pay for all
those things. However I suppose if a child would have had those things if
the two were married then they should have them if the parents arent married
..

If mom
and dad were still married, and dad's financial situation took a downturn,
the children would do without the luxury items, and no judge in the
country
would step in and say "You owe your children the lifestyle they had when
you
were making more money!" Yet it happens to divorced dads every day.

Unfortuneatly you should be going after deadbeats who abuse the system, not
all CP's. The reason the system has certain rules in place is because of
people who have in the past abused the system. The reason judges dont make
changes to the NCP's amount when they hit a downturn is because so many
deadbeats change to lower paying jobs to get thier support lowered then go
out immediately following and get higher paying jobs.

Yes,
the children's needs should be a priority--but the fathers NEEDS should
come
before the children's luxuries.

The average support payment today is around 4500 a year. Thats like 375 per
child. Food, clothing, educational expenses, daycare, etc are basic needs
and unless you are living in another world I dont think that would pay for
such luxury items as you proposed.

NCPs should not be forced to live in
poverty.

Hmm.. and the children should? I believe a HUGE portion of single parents
do live in poverty and most of those dont receive any types of child
support. I guess its ok if those families are in poverty but not the
NCP's???

I don't think Angel is asking her husband to put her needs before
the children's needs. I think she is complaining that the children are
being supported far more than adequately

by someone else, not the childrens father

, and there is not enough left after
child support to adequately meet his needs,

His needs being what exactly??

andyet the mother wants more,
more, more.

She does? Or does she just want him to pay what he should pay by law?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


The unfairness, TJ is that the dad pays all the taxes on the money, but
gets
absolutely no tax benefits from paying the taxes on the money that he
supplies for child support. Unless otherwise ordered, the CP gets every
penny of tax advantage. Think about doing your taxes every April. There
is
a whole lot of benefit to being able to claim your children on your taxes.
Even though the NCP meets his financial obligations, he receives none of
those tax benefits.

The reason those taxes credits were designed (EITC) was to help families
meet needs that have children in the home. Not for a NCP that sees the kids
once a week or even at all to take those credits and use them for their own
benefits.

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

There are no consideration for taxes. You pay child support based on
money
you do not receive since it is taxed. What kind of bull**** is that and
you
support this.

So the money that you earn is taxed BEFORE the child support comes out.
The money I earn is taxed BEFORE I spend it on my children to support them
and other needs. Why should the money be taxed twice???


It should be based on after taxes and you should not be taxed on it (CSA
should not take their cut)..

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...


Men have no rights. My child only has a part time father now because of
assholes like TJ that take advantage and support this ****.

So you just clump all CP's into this huge group of people like your ex??
Sorry I dont do those types of things and I dont keep my ex from seeing
his
children. He chooses to do so. Stop thinking that all CP's are like your
ex, because they arent.


I did not lump all CPs in the category. I people like you in that category
since you defend the atrocities of the system.

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

Due to the 1986 Bradley amendment a Judge cannot eliminate those
arreages
even if the man is disabled or dieing. T.J is one sick **** for
supporting
crimes like this.

Hey you owe the money you should pay it. There are however statute of
limiations on how long a person can collect the arrearages in each state.
SOme have no limiations and others do. So on your theory, if a person is
dying or disabled they should have their past debts erased? SO if you
have
a mortgage on a house and get sick or are dying a judge should eliminate
that debt? Credit cards? Utilities? Food?


They should be able to have enough money to pay for their life saving
prescription medications and medical care, food and roof over their head
before they have to pay lifestyle, no accountability child support to a
mother that is making a decent living.

Divorced families should be treated no different than single or intact
families. When someone is ill or falls on hard times they make exceptions.

If both Mom and Dad are making 60k a year and they are both willing to spend
equal time with the child, then why is it fair that the father pays in
excess of $800 a month. Clearly that figure is lifestyle child support for
which the mother is not held accountable that this money is used for their
childs, clothes, future, etc.

The father is then left with little or no money after taxes to support the
child or put away money for the child future. Then if the father loses his
job how is it fair that he should have to pay arrearages on a lifestyle
child support reward?

Men and women are equal, right? If these women cannot afford to support the
kids 50/50 then they should turn over custody to the man. As far as keeping
it in his pants it works both ways. They should have kept their legs closed
if they cannot afford to support a child 50%.

"T.J." wrote in message
...

" TJ, it is WRONG for a man to be charged a ruinous amount of child
support.

Its wrong to assume that all men have been charged a ruinous amount of
child
support. Example. My good friend has two children. Doesnt live with any
boyfriends, works full time. The child support amount is set at 500 per
month for two children. Ex pays child support and can easily support
himself. Ex goes out and gets remarried, at first pays support. Then
cries
he cant support his new wife and her previous child because the support
amount is now too much. Ex then goes out and has another child. Cries
again that he cant support his new wife, her previuos child an now his new
child. Ex gets a divorce and now has to pay support for the other child.
Now has TWO support orders totalling 700 a month, for three children. Ex
cries he cant afford to pay support and live. Ex gets married to a THIRD
wife and is expecting another child. Ex cries he cant support his frist
two
children, his third child, and now cant support his wife and his new
child.

Now where in this long saga did the ex deserve to get his child support
reduced to any of the children? Why should any of these children get less
financial support becuase the ex cant keep his dick in his pants?

Who's
fault is it that he cant support himself any longer? Is it wrong that
this
man has to have two jobs to support his children and himself? I dont
think
so.


It is WRONG to force a man to live in poverty just so he can afford
those
child support payments. The children should have their NEEDS met, but
the
father should not have to live in a one bedroom hovel just so the
children
can have sports, dance lessons, summer camp, and other luxury items.

It must be nice to have a child support amount that can provide all
that!!!
I sure dont know anyone that gets that much child support to pay for all
those things. However I suppose if a child would have had those things if
the two were married then they should have them if the parents arent
married
.

If mom
and dad were still married, and dad's financial situation took a
downturn,
the children would do without the luxury items, and no judge in the
country
would step in and say "You owe your children the lifestyle they had when
you
were making more money!" Yet it happens to divorced dads every day.

Unfortuneatly you should be going after deadbeats who abuse the system,
not
all CP's. The reason the system has certain rules in place is because of
people who have in the past abused the system. The reason judges dont
make
changes to the NCP's amount when they hit a downturn is because so many
deadbeats change to lower paying jobs to get thier support lowered then go
out immediately following and get higher paying jobs.

Yes,
the children's needs should be a priority--but the fathers NEEDS should
come
before the children's luxuries.

The average support payment today is around 4500 a year. Thats like 375
per
child. Food, clothing, educational expenses, daycare, etc are basic needs
and unless you are living in another world I dont think that would pay for
such luxury items as you proposed.

NCPs should not be forced to live in
poverty.

Hmm.. and the children should? I believe a HUGE portion of single parents
do live in poverty and most of those dont receive any types of child
support. I guess its ok if those families are in poverty but not the
NCP's???

I don't think Angel is asking her husband to put her needs before
the children's needs. I think she is complaining that the children are
being supported far more than adequately

by someone else, not the childrens father

, and there is not enough left after
child support to adequately meet his needs,

His needs being what exactly??

andyet the mother wants more,
more, more.

She does? Or does she just want him to pay what he should pay by law?