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

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

Tracy wrote:

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.

Point noted.

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.

I disagree on the range for most middle+ classes.

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...

See this is where I disagree the most. CS should not be tied to income but
costs of raising the child, and then split based on the percentages between
the combined incomes. I'll add to this that the actual costs of raising the
child should not exceed a certain limit for either party. An example is a
wealthy NCP paying child support for a child living with a CP who doesn't
work. The NCP should not be paying 100% of the costs, nor should those
costs exceed a certain percentage. For one child, and assuming middle
class, that percentage should be something like 5% of gross income. At 5%
for a NCP making $60k/yr, the NCP is paying $250/month in support. At your
suggested 20% figure, the NCP would be paying $1,000/month for one child.
At 30% the NCP would be paying $1,500/month for one child. Since having
more than one child does not increase the actual costs of raising all the
children by an equal amount, the percentage should decrease for each
sequential child. Even a MAX of 20% for a NCP making $60k/yr would leave
them with about $2,500/month to live on after taxes and child support in the
US.

Most important I support equal parenting time with no child support
exchanging hands. Only when equal parenting time is not feasible should
child support enter into the picture. I highly support the concept that
actual costs should be exchanged by both parents, because the NCP has direct
costs associated with the child(ren). It is my personal opinion that the
courts fail to recognize the fact that the NCP has costs too. When costs
start exceeding acceptable limits, then those costs should be agreed on. An
example of what I'm talking about is private education versus public
education. Neither parent shouldn't be forced into financially supporting
something which they can't afford. Both parents deserve the right to a
living, and neither one should be expected to work over-time to support some
decision they didn't agree to.

I would say a cap of about 11-12% is more acceptable then 20-30%.

Look at it this way... in the US the average earner is paying out about 28%
in taxes. Debt-to-income shouldn't exceed 42%, which covers mortgage/rent,
car payment, credit cards, loans, etc. Between debt & taxes it is 70% of
gross income. This leaves a person with 30% of their income for raising
their kids, saving for retirement, vacationing, eating, etc. Both parents
deserve to have the ability to fit into the norm, which is 30% of income
left for expenses not relating to debts and taxes.

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

Tracy 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.

I disagree on the range for most middle+ classes.

Fair enough... as I said the actual % is up for debate.. I was just
doing some rough number crunching. Very rough mind you.


See this is where I disagree the most. CS should not be tied to income but
costs of raising the child, and then split based on the percentages between
the combined incomes. I'll add to this that the actual costs of raising the
child should not exceed a certain limit for either party. An example is a
wealthy NCP paying child support for a child living with a CP who doesn't
work. The NCP should not be paying 100% of the costs, nor should those
costs exceed a certain percentage. For one child, and assuming middle
class, that percentage should be something like 5% of gross income. At 5%
for a NCP making $60k/yr, the NCP is paying $250/month in support. At your
suggested 20% figure, the NCP would be paying $1,000/month for one child.
At 30% the NCP would be paying $1,500/month for one child. Since having
more than one child does not increase the actual costs of raising all the
children by an equal amount, the percentage should decrease for each
sequential child. Even a MAX of 20% for a NCP making $60k/yr would leave
them with about $2,500/month to live on after taxes and child support in the
US.

Okay I was suggesting money mad after Taxes.. If make 60K a year
before taxes.. at a tax rate of roughly 20-25%, we'll pick 23 for
arguments sake, your actual take home for that year is roughly 46,000.
That is the number your CS payments would be calculated from. Your
actual take home earnings.

So if you took home 46,000 at 20% given to the CP would equal a
monthly instalment of roughly 760 per month. Again maybe some people
would find that high.. but I also know some people would find that low.


Most important I support equal parenting time with no child support
exchanging hands. Only when equal parenting time is not feasible should
child support enter into the picture. I highly support the concept that
actual costs should be exchanged by both parents, because the NCP has direct
costs associated with the child(ren). It is my personal opinion that the
courts fail to recognize the fact that the NCP has costs too. When costs
start exceeding acceptable limits, then those costs should be agreed on. An
example of what I'm talking about is private education versus public
education. Neither parent shouldn't be forced into financially supporting
something which they can't afford. Both parents deserve the right to a
living, and neither one should be expected to work over-time to support some
decision they didn't agree to.

See now I totally support that same idea.. Equal access to the
children, and the elimination of CS as the costs of raising the
children are split equally between the 2 parents. I have seen a slight
movment to this kind of arrangment.. and I totally support it.

I would say a cap of about 11-12% is more acceptable then 20-30%.

Look at it this way... in the US the average earner is paying out
about 28%
in taxes. Debt-to-income shouldn't exceed 42%, which covers mortgage/rent,
car payment, credit cards, loans, etc. Between debt & taxes it is 70% of
gross income. This leaves a person with 30% of their income for raising
their kids, saving for retirement, vacationing, eating, etc. Both parents
deserve to have the ability to fit into the norm, which is 30% of income
left for expenses not relating to debts and taxes.

Again the cap is up for debate.. but has to be tied to the Income of
the NCP to ensure that they are given enough to live on.


SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in

Again the cap is up for debate.. but has to be tied to the Income of
the NCP to ensure that they are given enough to live on.

You are assuming CSE judges actually care about NCPs?