Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
Okay I'm going to try this one more time... Before you respond..
please read what I am writing... I am suggesting that the MAX amount of
money a NCP could ever be expected to pay in Child Support is 30% of
their take home income. No matter if he has 6 children that don't live
with him, or just 1. 30% is the MAX!! Most, End all of amounts..

I've read through our posts and some of the responses you received. I agree
with you that there should be a MAX that someone should be paying. What I
don't agree with is the 30% figure. The costs associated with your child
may exist due to his special needs, but speaking on behalf of my household,
we're not spending anything close to 30% of our household income to support
the children remaining in the home. Even if you figure in what we've spent
to help out adult children plus our supporting our minor children, we're not
paying out that kind of cost. Our kids are not neglected in any shape or
form. Two play musical instruments in schools, which cost money. All of
the minor children play sports, which cost a lot of money ($150/child for
the older two and $90 for the younger one). Those cost are for one sport,
not the totals. We eat well in this house. The beef I purchase runs $10-15
per pound, and with two teenage boys plus one adult male we end up
purchasing a lot of meat. I don't purchase garbage foods, but fresh fruits
& vegetables and ensure there is plenty to eat throughout the week. After
the child support we do receive our costs are approximately 8% of our
combined incomes for costs which are directly related to the minor children.
We are spending approximately 10% of our combined incomes on household items
like food, water, gas, electricity, etc. Household items don't include the
mortgage, car payments, insurances, etc. My only concern in what we spend
on our children must exceed the amount we receive as a credit on our taxes.
Once the children are gone we'll end up paying more in taxes. Ideally we
would see a savings when children leave the home. Therefore the increase in
taxes would be offset by the expenses.

I tend to believe the percentage that a person pays to support their
children is dependent on their household income. The less someone makes the
higher the percentage. The more someone makes the lower the percentage.
Sure some people could spend more money on the children, or have an increase
ability to pay more, but the actual percentage of household income may
actual be less for someone making $100k/yr versus someone making $40k/yr
because some costs are fixed and does not vary dependent on ability to pay.
It depends on priorities, standards of living, needs of the child(ren), ages
of the child(ren), plus many other factors. All these factors is the reason
why a one-size-fits-all approach to child support will never work in terms
of being fair.


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

Tracy wrote:


I've read through our posts and some of the responses you received. I agree
with you that there should be a MAX that someone should be paying. What I
don't agree with is the 30% figure. The costs associated with your child
may exist due to his special needs, but speaking on behalf of my household,
we're not spending anything close to 30% of our household income to support
the children remaining in the home. Even if you figure in what we've spent
to help out adult children plus our supporting our minor children, we're not
paying out that kind of cost. Our kids are not neglected in any shape or
form. Two play musical instruments in schools, which cost money. All of
the minor children play sports, which cost a lot of money ($150/child for
the older two and $90 for the younger one). Those cost are for one sport,
not the totals. We eat well in this house. The beef I purchase runs $10-15
per pound, and with two teenage boys plus one adult male we end up
purchasing a lot of meat. I don't purchase garbage foods, but fresh fruits
& vegetables and ensure there is plenty to eat throughout the week. After
the child support we do receive our costs are approximately 8% of our
combined incomes for costs which are directly related to the minor children.
We are spending approximately 10% of our combined incomes on household items
like food, water, gas, electricity, etc. Household items don't include the
mortgage, car payments, insurances, etc. My only concern in what we spend
on our children must exceed the amount we receive as a credit on our taxes.
Once the children are gone we'll end up paying more in taxes. Ideally we
would see a savings when children leave the home. Therefore the increase in
taxes would be offset by the expenses.

I tend to believe the percentage that a person pays to support their
children is dependent on their household income. The less someone makes the
higher the percentage. The more someone makes the lower the percentage.
Sure some people could spend more money on the children, or have an increase
ability to pay more, but the actual percentage of household income may
actual be less for someone making $100k/yr versus someone making $40k/yr
because some costs are fixed and does not vary dependent on ability to pay.
It depends on priorities, standards of living, needs of the child(ren), ages
of the child(ren), plus many other factors. All these factors is the reason
why a one-size-fits-all approach to child support will never work in terms
of being fair.

Fair enough... your right in saying that percentage of income spent,
truely is dependant on income recieved. As costs are fixed.. no matter
if you make 100 per day or 500 per day a pound of beef costs the same.


But at the same time... the 30% figure is ment to be a cap. The
Highest amount that can be expected to be paid by NCP. The 30% I
suppose not something that is truely not set in stone. The reason for
the figure of 30% is because I hear from NCP's in groups such as these,
that they are being forced to pay equvilant of 40-50% of their income
in support, and it seems the Sky's the limit.

And on the same token I seem to also hear from CP's that they are not
getting enough support... So I simply chose a figure somewhere in the
middle. Could be set at a MAX of 20-30% But I think it needs to be
somewhere in that range... Remember now as a MAX amount.

One you set a Max amount that can be awarded, then CS becomes a
sliding set scale. As I stated.. you make X number of dollars.. you
have X number of dependants.. then here is the amount you end up
paying.. Simple math equation.

There would be no mystery in the amounts the courts awarded. Alot of
the time it could be decided out of court. And I suggest it be tied to
the Income of NCP because then if the finicial situation changes, then
so does the CS in accordance...


SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote
........................................

And on the same token I seem to also hear from CP's that they are not
getting enough support... So I simply chose a figure somewhere in the
middle. Could be set at a MAX of 20-30% But I think it needs to be
somewhere in that range... Remember now as a MAX amount.
===
How about a max of one half the actual costs?
===

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Tracy wrote:


I've read through our posts and some of the responses you received. I
agree
with you that there should be a MAX that someone should be paying. What
I
don't agree with is the 30% figure. The costs associated with your child
may exist due to his special needs, but speaking on behalf of my
household,
we're not spending anything close to 30% of our household income to
support
the children remaining in the home. Even if you figure in what we've
spent
to help out adult children plus our supporting our minor children, we're
not
paying out that kind of cost. Our kids are not neglected in any shape or
form. Two play musical instruments in schools, which cost money. All of
the minor children play sports, which cost a lot of money ($150/child for
the older two and $90 for the younger one). Those cost are for one
sport,
not the totals. We eat well in this house. The beef I purchase runs
$10-15
per pound, and with two teenage boys plus one adult male we end up
purchasing a lot of meat. I don't purchase garbage foods, but fresh
fruits
& vegetables and ensure there is plenty to eat throughout the week.
After
the child support we do receive our costs are approximately 8% of our
combined incomes for costs which are directly related to the minor
children.
We are spending approximately 10% of our combined incomes on household
items
like food, water, gas, electricity, etc. Household items don't include
the
mortgage, car payments, insurances, etc. My only concern in what we
spend
on our children must exceed the amount we receive as a credit on our
taxes.
Once the children are gone we'll end up paying more in taxes. Ideally we
would see a savings when children leave the home. Therefore the increase
in
taxes would be offset by the expenses.

I tend to believe the percentage that a person pays to support their
children is dependent on their household income. The less someone makes
the
higher the percentage. The more someone makes the lower the percentage.
Sure some people could spend more money on the children, or have an
increase
ability to pay more, but the actual percentage of household income may
actual be less for someone making $100k/yr versus someone making $40k/yr
because some costs are fixed and does not vary dependent on ability to
pay.
It depends on priorities, standards of living, needs of the child(ren),
ages
of the child(ren), plus many other factors. All these factors is the
reason
why a one-size-fits-all approach to child support will never work in
terms
of being fair.

Fair enough... your right in saying that percentage of income spent,
truely is dependant on income recieved. As costs are fixed.. no matter
if you make 100 per day or 500 per day a pound of beef costs the same.


But at the same time... the 30% figure is ment to be a cap. The
Highest amount that can be expected to be paid by NCP. The 30% I
suppose not something that is truely not set in stone. The reason for
the figure of 30% is because I hear from NCP's in groups such as these,
that they are being forced to pay equvilant of 40-50% of their income
in support, and it seems the Sky's the limit.

And on the same token I seem to also hear from CP's that they are not
getting enough support...

When you are spending someone e;se's money......there will NEVER be enough.

So I simply chose a figure somewhere in the
middle. Could be set at a MAX of 20-30% But I think it needs to be
somewhere in that range... Remember now as a MAX amount.

One you set a Max amount that can be awarded, then CS becomes a
sliding set scale. As I stated.. you make X number of dollars.. you
have X number of dependants.. then here is the amount you end up
paying.. Simple math equation.

ANd you have been shown the errors in your assumptions too many times, you
just don't want to see it.


There would be no mystery in the amounts the courts awarded. Alot of
the time it could be decided out of court. And I suggest it be tied to
the Income of NCP because then if the finicial situation changes, then
so does the CS in accordance...


SpiderHam77

The only errors in my system that seem to be shown to me are that you
don't seem to fully comprehend what is being said. At what point did I
say you must hand over money to the government... All I said is a
system needs to setup to ensure that legislated child support is in
fact paid.

The current system is based totally on the honor system, that once
asked to pay a specific amount they the payor will pay it. And in
probably 90% of cases out there, that is the case. Most NCP's I know
pay their child support like clock work, and don't dispute it, because
they have an obligation to support their child.

I don't know the exact percentage of people who can affoard to pay,
and then choose simply not to. If someone can provide that stat, and
where they got it from, that would be great. But the fact that a law
of giving the unpaid child support as a Tax Credit, and then taxing the
same amount of money to the NCP tells me there are quite a few who are
trying to neglect their obilgation.

I have had no assumptions in my idea... The whole idea is to take
the assumptions out of it... Here's an assumption. you start paying
child support... Person does not move, but the land develops around
them, as a result home prices go up, and the CP is either forced to pay
more in rent, or move...

What happens there... Do you as the NCP say oh well to bad your
calculations were set at a certain time, without taking into account
stuff like inflation. And they are forced to move into another area
that can affoard, and as result have to deal with less..

There are assumptions in alot of things... I'm trying to say get rid
of them, and simply set the playing feild level. Ensure that no matter
what choices the CP makes, they cannot get more out of you then a
percentage of your Income. End of story. Again 30% is just a figure I
came to based on what I've been reading. The percentage could be set
lower.. but it needs to be tied directly to the NCP's income.

2 reasons for this.

1) it would ensure that the NCP is garenteed a livable income, and
not be taken for every cent they have.
2) It would also garantee that CP's know what level of CS they are
getting, and be able to plan their lives around it.

In other words.. the guess work is taken out of it. No more people
saying well our kids are doing this.. and this... so therefore more
money is needed... anything above the predetermined amount would have
to be discussed between the parents and if the NCP felt he/she could
affoard it, they would contribute...

Let me say again... the % I am talking about.. is a Max amount of
money... nothing more... Where that % sits is up for debate.. but needs
to be tied directly to the NCP's income to ensure that with flux in
their income from year to year CS will flux with it.

SpiderHam77

Gini wrote:
"SpiderHam77" wrote
.......................................

And on the same token I seem to also hear from CP's that they are not
getting enough support... So I simply chose a figure somewhere in the
middle. Could be set at a MAX of 20-30% But I think it needs to be
somewhere in that range... Remember now as a MAX amount.
===
How about a max of one half the actual costs?
===

How do you calculate that though... as pointed out, my Son who is
special needs requires alot more specialized attention, which cost
money, then the average child. Because I spend in excess of 2000 per
month on his Therapy alone.

I can write off some of that money in taxes mind you... but the money
still needs to paid upfront. Just for the record... I am only allowed
to write off 15% of his expenses on my taxes.. the rest I have to eat.

So should I expect my Ex wife to pay 1000 a month in therapy costs
alone when she only makes about 1400 a month... or should I maybe
expect a % of her income to assit in helping me pay for the costs.. If
my Ex was willing to pay 1000 a month, I am more then willing to
transfer 7.5% of the write off to her, as she would be covering half
the cost, and therefore entitled to half the write off.

Reasons like this are why a % tied directly to the NCP's income would
ensure that both the NCP is being treated fairly... Again where that %
sits can be debated. And it would also ensure that I as the CP can
rely on a certain amount of money coming in to help pay for my Son's
direct care.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote
Gini wrote:
"SpiderHam77" wrote
.......................................

And on the same token I seem to also hear from CP's that they are not
getting enough support... So I simply chose a figure somewhere in the
middle. Could be set at a MAX of 20-30% But I think it needs to be
somewhere in that range... Remember now as a MAX amount.
===
How about a max of one half the actual costs?
===

How do you calculate that though... as pointed out, my Son who is
special needs requires alot more specialized attention, which cost
money, then the average child. Because I spend in excess of 2000 per
month on his Therapy alone.
===
Costs can be determined for special needs children just as they can be for
other children. In the US,
payments to foster parents are based on data that determines actual costs.
It seems the only
ones who whine that it can't be done are those who benefit from the excesses
of the current system.
(More Below)
===

I can write off some of that money in taxes mind you... but the money
still needs to paid upfront. Just for the record... I am only allowed
to write off 15% of his expenses on my taxes.. the rest I have to eat.

So should I expect my Ex wife to pay 1000 a month in therapy costs
alone when she only makes about 1400 a month... or should I maybe
expect a % of her income to assit in helping me pay for the costs.. If
my Ex was willing to pay 1000 a month, I am more then willing to
transfer 7.5% of the write off to her, as she would be covering half
the cost, and therefore entitled to half the write off.

Reasons like this are why a % tied directly to the NCP's income would
ensure that both the NCP is being treated fairly...
===
No it wouldn't--unless parents in intact relationships are required by law
to spend a percent
of their income on their children and are subject to license
revocation/imprisonment if they fail to do so.
===
===

"SpiderHam77" wrote in

How do you calculate that though... as pointed out, my Son who is
special needs requires alot more specialized attention, which cost
money, then the average child. Because I spend in excess of 2000 per
month on his Therapy alone.

Ummm, doesn't the Canadian Health Care system cover all of the costs for
it's citizens?

DB wrote:
"SpiderHam77" wrote in

How do you calculate that though... as pointed out, my Son who is
special needs requires alot more specialized attention, which cost
money, then the average child. Because I spend in excess of 2000 per
month on his Therapy alone.

Ummm, doesn't the Canadian Health Care system cover all of the costs for
it's citizens?

Basic health costs yes... but depending on where you live... Extended
stuff like special needs costs are not covered. Which we have been
figthing to have covered more up here.. Only certain special needs are
covered fully... others are not...

As my Son suffers from Autism, I am alloacted a grand total of 6,000
per year for his treatment. But it costs in excess of 30,000 per year
to cost it to a point where it is feasable to even do it.

SpiderHam77

Gini wrote:
Costs can be determined for special needs children just as they can be for
other children. In the US,
payments to foster parents are based on data that determines actual costs.
It seems the only
ones who whine that it can't be done are those who benefit from the excesses
of the current system.
(More Below)
===

Your right... however.. the costs for Special Needs children are
usually way above the average. That in order for the NCP to be able to
affoard to half the costs related He/She would have to ensure that they
have a good paying job, and not lose it.

But if you only make 10 dollars an hour, you can barely affoard to
feed, cloth, and house yourself, and maybe make a modest CS payment.
Nothing even close to the thousands needed to ensure that special needs
therapy is taken care of.

In the result of Foster Families the payments are coming the public
coffers... not the pocket of the NCP. The Gov has a slightly larger
wallet then the regular person.

But if the CS was tied to the NCP's income and it was shown that
he/she is paying all they can in regards to therapy, then there would
also be an argument in place for the Gov to increase funding to such
resources for that child. And who knows if we get lucky, may offest
some of the cost to a point where it's managble.

Right now I know my costs that I allocate to my child have meant that
in the 6 years he has been alive, I have been on a vacation 2 times,
and both them were local, just into the closest major city for 3-4
days. As thats all I can affoard.

I own my own home... 3 bedroom house.. 1 for me.. 1 for him.. and 1
for his Therapy. And I drive a very modest midsized car. In my
profession I could make alot more money if I could travel, but due to
the unique needs of my child it pretty much dicates that I am going to
have to stay in town to deal with problems as they arise every day.
....
===
No it wouldn't--unless parents in intact relationships are required by law
to spend a percent
of their income on their children and are subject to license
revocation/imprisonment if they fail to do so.
===

But parents by virtue of being in the same home do spend a percentage
of their income on their children. Unless I misunderstand the whole
parenting thing. Because my son benefits from my income...

As I make more money... so does he recieve more perks in life, and I
as lose money, he loses out on certain things I just can't afford. If
I'm wrong about this persumption please correct me and tell me what I'm
doing different then the millions of other parents out there.

The reason CS exsists is to ensure that a child of your bearing is
looked after finicially by you... and not everyone else. So to me
logic would dictate that in order to do this you would have to spend a
certain percentage of your income on this. Unless you've found the
magic money tree in your yard.. if so I could use a few extra 100's.
Or pass along the seeds so I can grow one.

SpiderHam77