60% of child support in Pennsylvania is hidden alimony!

As long as a father has to pay a premium to get shared custody not many will
go for it.

I will.
A man can be no richer than with his family.
Plus I am gaining a little weight.........hoping poverty will cure that.

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

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...
I stand corrected so then is 34% hidden alimony? 17% x 2... and why
does
money change hands with shared custody?

I'm hesitant to call any CS hidden alimony because I believe the science
behind establishing the CS guidelines is sound. But, as you have
experienced, the calculation methodology created and used within
individual
states can undo all the good social data behind the CS guidelines.

I'm more inclined to call the way shared custody CS awards are calculated
what it really is - BS manipulations of numbers that produce mommie
subsidies at the father's expense!

But if you really want to call it hidden alimony, here is some help with
the
math. You cited the numbers a little off for getting at what could be
called hidden alimony. The difference between PA's calculation result,
i.e.
$400 due after running the example numbers, and my state's calculation
result, i.e. $114 due after running the numbers is $334. That extra $334
represents 33.4% ($334/1000) more than what my state would access as CS.
Then if you add in the 20% visitation my state will not give an NCP credit
for, you get 53.4%. That means a father is paying a 53.4% premium for the
right to have 50/50 shared custody.

There was a thread here last week about the PA legislature considering a
groundbreaking change in the law to start with a presumption of 50/50
shared
custody. I posted there were lots of flaws in the bill including
questions
about how PA calculates shared custody CS awards. But now, knowing how PA
calculates shared custody CS awards, I feel even stronger against its
passage. As long as a father has to pay a premium to get shared custody
not
many will go for it.

I believe the science behind establishing the CS guidelines is sound.

Huh?
I don't know the model but I see discussions/arguments/debates on this
newsgroup constantly. I personally do not understand how one can consider
heat/housing/car etc. when both parents need to provide them.
Is child support supposed to cover saving for college too?
I can't save for college but my ex. wife is getting a hell of a lot of money
from me that she should be putting away.

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

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...
I stand corrected so then is 34% hidden alimony? 17% x 2... and why
does
money change hands with shared custody?

I'm hesitant to call any CS hidden alimony because I believe the science
behind establishing the CS guidelines is sound. But, as you have
experienced, the calculation methodology created and used within
individual
states can undo all the good social data behind the CS guidelines.

I'm more inclined to call the way shared custody CS awards are calculated
what it really is - BS manipulations of numbers that produce mommie
subsidies at the father's expense!

But if you really want to call it hidden alimony, here is some help with
the
math. You cited the numbers a little off for getting at what could be
called hidden alimony. The difference between PA's calculation result,
i.e.
$400 due after running the example numbers, and my state's calculation
result, i.e. $114 due after running the numbers is $334. That extra $334
represents 33.4% ($334/1000) more than what my state would access as CS.
Then if you add in the 20% visitation my state will not give an NCP credit
for, you get 53.4%. That means a father is paying a 53.4% premium for the
right to have 50/50 shared custody.

There was a thread here last week about the PA legislature considering a
groundbreaking change in the law to start with a presumption of 50/50
shared
custody. I posted there were lots of flaws in the bill including
questions
about how PA calculates shared custody CS awards. But now, knowing how PA
calculates shared custody CS awards, I feel even stronger against its
passage. As long as a father has to pay a premium to get shared custody
not
many will go for it.

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZDX7e.2136$H53.2001@lakeread05...


Bob, Math is not my strong suit. I must be having a mental block, but
try as I may I cannot break down the mechanical difference you are
talking about into chunks small enough for my mind to hold. Is there
any way you can repeat it, slowly and with examples and diagrams, for
this English teacher? :^)

I'd like to know specifically what it is I should be lobbying for in my
state. I checks out the statutes recently and what they actually say is
something along the lines of "since every shared custody case is
different, it's up to the court to decide how to award CS in these
cases". Which means that Welfare/CSE's lawyer *may* have been being...
ahem... "Less than honest" when explaining to my ex and I what "the
formula" was that the judge would use. Although for that to be true, my
own lawyer would have had to have been either asleep at the wheel or in
on the deal.

I'll try to break down what I am saying. Most of my prior comments have
been based on how shared custody CS awards are determined in my state versus
the formula "Father of the Year" posted for PA. I've been assuming the RI
formula must be similar to the PA formula since the results come out the
same.

When I talk about an "above the line" adjustment I mean reducing the top
line number that is the starting point from the guidelines.
Anything other than that is "below the line" and will have a different
impact on the mathematical outcome since it comes later in the calculation
process. I've used those terms since they are common on P&L statements
where shared, corporate expenses (above the line costs) are shown prior to
local operation expense variances (below the line). I hope that didn't
confuse you more.

So back to shared custody CS awards. If the top line CS guideline number of
$1000 gets split 60/40 the NCP would have a basic obligation of $600. In my
state the next step is to apply an NCP percentage factor (48.6%) to the
$1000 total basic award which results in a $486 credit which is then
subtracted from the NCP's $600 basic obligation leaving an adjusted
obligation of $114. The state has pre-determined each of the percentage
factors to always have the result work out to not give the NCP credit for
20% of the visitation time. What I showed in my example was the $114 adjust
amount was 81% of $600. And the reciprocal of 81% is 19%, or just about
dead-on the 20% "no credit" factor built-in. The factors are based on
ranges of parenting time, so an actual calculation for 48% parenting time
would result in something like a 21-22% "no credit" result.

In PA they leave the top line number the same, i.e. $1000 and then make the
adjustment to the NCP's percentage owed. What that does is force all
calculations later in the process to be driven by that top line number. And
they have a 30% "no credit" factor. The PA adjustment is done to the NCP
percentage instead of to the dollars. So a 50% parenting time factor is
reduced by the 30% "no credit" factor down to 20%. Then the 20% is applied
against the dollars to come up with a $200 credit. The $200 is then
subtracted from the $600 basic obligation and the NCP is ordered to pay
$400.

So my point has been, when and where the parenting time adjustment gets made
has a LOT to do with the outcome of the math. There is a huge difference
between $114 in my state and $400 in PA given the same circumstances. My
advice was to lobby your legislature to change the rules to adjust the
dollars rather than adjust the percentages.

One of the basic rules of math is to always ask when discussing percentages,
"A percent of what?" The problem you guys have is the percentages being
used in the shared custody calculations are percentages of different base
amounts so they are totally unrelated. But the state is pretending they are
related. In the PA example, 50% is a percentage of the parenting time and
the subtraction of the 30% "no credit" factor brings the parenting time
percentage down to 20%. But this 20% parenting time percent is then
subtracted from the 60% of income leaving 40%. That's faulty math because
the 20% is a percent of one factor (parenting time) and the 60% is a percent
of a different factor (income earned).

I know my custody BATTLE was fought because the ex. wanted the money and not
necessarily the kids. Thats why I see them 7 out of 14 days but my
overnights are not 50%. She was a cunning runt. I can only imagine how bad
the battles must be in your state with much more for the "woman" to lose and
the man to gain. No offense meant to the real women.
OJ is probably finishing up a round of golf, sipping pina coladas with a
couple of bimbos half his age and then going home to tuck his kids in to
bed. Smart guy.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZDX7e.2136$H53.2001@lakeread05...


Bob, Math is not my strong suit. I must be having a mental block, but
try as I may I cannot break down the mechanical difference you are
talking about into chunks small enough for my mind to hold. Is there
any way you can repeat it, slowly and with examples and diagrams, for
this English teacher? :^)

I'd like to know specifically what it is I should be lobbying for in my
state. I checks out the statutes recently and what they actually say is
something along the lines of "since every shared custody case is
different, it's up to the court to decide how to award CS in these
cases". Which means that Welfare/CSE's lawyer *may* have been being...
ahem... "Less than honest" when explaining to my ex and I what "the
formula" was that the judge would use. Although for that to be true, my
own lawyer would have had to have been either asleep at the wheel or in
on the deal.

I'll try to break down what I am saying. Most of my prior comments have
been based on how shared custody CS awards are determined in my state
versus
the formula "Father of the Year" posted for PA. I've been assuming the RI
formula must be similar to the PA formula since the results come out the
same.

When I talk about an "above the line" adjustment I mean reducing the top
line number that is the starting point from the guidelines.
Anything other than that is "below the line" and will have a different
impact on the mathematical outcome since it comes later in the calculation
process. I've used those terms since they are common on P&L statements
where shared, corporate expenses (above the line costs) are shown prior to
local operation expense variances (below the line). I hope that didn't
confuse you more.

So back to shared custody CS awards. If the top line CS guideline number
of
$1000 gets split 60/40 the NCP would have a basic obligation of $600. In
my
state the next step is to apply an NCP percentage factor (48.6%) to the
$1000 total basic award which results in a $486 credit which is then
subtracted from the NCP's $600 basic obligation leaving an adjusted
obligation of $114. The state has pre-determined each of the percentage
factors to always have the result work out to not give the NCP credit for
20% of the visitation time. What I showed in my example was the $114
adjust
amount was 81% of $600. And the reciprocal of 81% is 19%, or just about
dead-on the 20% "no credit" factor built-in. The factors are based on
ranges of parenting time, so an actual calculation for 48% parenting time
would result in something like a 21-22% "no credit" result.

In PA they leave the top line number the same, i.e. $1000 and then make
the
adjustment to the NCP's percentage owed. What that does is force all
calculations later in the process to be driven by that top line number.
And
they have a 30% "no credit" factor. The PA adjustment is done to the NCP
percentage instead of to the dollars. So a 50% parenting time factor is
reduced by the 30% "no credit" factor down to 20%. Then the 20% is
applied
against the dollars to come up with a $200 credit. The $200 is then
subtracted from the $600 basic obligation and the NCP is ordered to pay
$400.

So my point has been, when and where the parenting time adjustment gets
made
has a LOT to do with the outcome of the math. There is a huge difference
between $114 in my state and $400 in PA given the same circumstances. My
advice was to lobby your legislature to change the rules to adjust the
dollars rather than adjust the percentages.

One of the basic rules of math is to always ask when discussing
percentages,
"A percent of what?" The problem you guys have is the percentages being
used in the shared custody calculations are percentages of different base
amounts so they are totally unrelated. But the state is pretending they
are
related. In the PA example, 50% is a percentage of the parenting time and
the subtraction of the 30% "no credit" factor brings the parenting time
percentage down to 20%. But this 20% parenting time percent is then
subtracted from the 60% of income leaving 40%. That's faulty math because
the 20% is a percent of one factor (parenting time) and the 60% is a
percent
of a different factor (income earned).

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
...
I believe the science behind establishing the CS guidelines is sound.

Huh?
I don't know the model but I see discussions/arguments/debates on this
newsgroup constantly. I personally do not understand how one can consider
heat/housing/car etc. when both parents need to provide them.
Is child support supposed to cover saving for college too?
I can't save for college but my ex. wife is getting a hell of a lot of
money
from me that she should be putting away.

I am referring to the extensive studies and analysis that back up the
Betson-Rothbarth estimates for child rearing expenses used to create CS
guidelines. That report is reasonable and actually the lowest of all the
child rearing estimates. Where the amounts start getting out of hand is
when PSI makes behind the scenes changes to the basic data for things like
taxes and then give no consideration to visitation costs, etc. All of that
stuff is done with smoke and mirrors to develop CS guidelines. Then the
states get involved and mess with their versions of calculation
methodologies.

IMO - The CS guideline problems are the result of all the adjustments and
additions to the basic data. If you look at your state's child support web
site search for PSI. I have saved a 126 page report from my state's last CS
review that I refer to remind me of how the CS guidelines are put together
and what the assumptions are for various technical adjustments.
Unfortunately, PSI does not explain what they do to make some of the
adjustments. It takes a major leap of faith to buy some of their
explanations for stuff they claim they do behind the scenes.

"Father of the Year" wrote in message
news
I know my custody BATTLE was fought because the ex. wanted the money and
not
necessarily the kids. Thats why I see them 7 out of 14 days but my
overnights are not 50%. She was a cunning runt. I can only imagine how
bad
the battles must be in your state with much more for the "woman" to lose
and
the man to gain. No offense meant to the real women.
OJ is probably finishing up a round of golf, sipping pina coladas with a
couple of bimbos half his age and then going home to tuck his kids in to
bed. Smart guy.

Just a suggestion - Keep a close eye on the progress of the shared parenting
law in your state. Pay particular attention to the rules they set up for
doing parenting plans and/or suggestions they make on what are reasonable
approaches for parents to take in agreeing on a parenting plan.

In my state they call them parenting plan guidelines. My state suggests
that parents give consideration to time spent with the parent rather than
going strictly by number of overnights.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Father of the Year" wrote in message
news
I know my custody BATTLE was fought because the ex. wanted the money and

not

necessarily the kids. Thats why I see them 7 out of 14 days but my
overnights are not 50%. She was a cunning runt. I can only imagine how

bad

the battles must be in your state with much more for the "woman" to lose

and

the man to gain. No offense meant to the real women.
OJ is probably finishing up a round of golf, sipping pina coladas with a
couple of bimbos half his age and then going home to tuck his kids in to
bed. Smart guy.


Just a suggestion - Keep a close eye on the progress of the shared parenting
law in your state. Pay particular attention to the rules they set up for
doing parenting plans and/or suggestions they make on what are reasonable
approaches for parents to take in agreeing on a parenting plan.

In my state they call them parenting plan guidelines. My state suggests
that parents give consideration to time spent with the parent rather than
going strictly by number of overnights.

I *wish* they'd go strictly by number of overnights here! I have my son
4 nights out of 7!

My suspicion is they play semantic games to make the numbers always
"show" that Mommy gets paid More. I think the reality, based on reading
the legal guidelines, is that judges get to decide what happens, and we
all know what THAT means.

- Ron ^*^

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:ZDX7e.2136$H53.2001@lakeread05...


Bob, Math is not my strong suit. I must be having a mental block, but
try as I may I cannot break down the mechanical difference you are
talking about into chunks small enough for my mind to hold. Is there
any way you can repeat it, slowly and with examples and diagrams, for
this English teacher? :^)

I'd like to know specifically what it is I should be lobbying for in my
state. I checks out the statutes recently and what they actually say is
something along the lines of "since every shared custody case is
different, it's up to the court to decide how to award CS in these
cases". Which means that Welfare/CSE's lawyer *may* have been being...
ahem... "Less than honest" when explaining to my ex and I what "the
formula" was that the judge would use. Although for that to be true, my
own lawyer would have had to have been either asleep at the wheel or in
on the deal.


I'll try to break down what I am saying. Most of my prior comments have
been based on how shared custody CS awards are determined in my state versus
the formula "Father of the Year" posted for PA. I've been assuming the RI
formula must be similar to the PA formula since the results come out the
same.

When I talk about an "above the line" adjustment I mean reducing the top
line number that is the starting point from the guidelines.
Anything other than that is "below the line" and will have a different
impact on the mathematical outcome since it comes later in the calculation
process. I've used those terms since they are common on P&L statements
where shared, corporate expenses (above the line costs) are shown prior to
local operation expense variances (below the line). I hope that didn't
confuse you more.

So back to shared custody CS awards. If the top line CS guideline number of
$1000 gets split 60/40 the NCP would have a basic obligation of $600. In my
state the next step is to apply an NCP percentage factor (48.6%) to the
$1000 total basic award which results in a $486 credit which is then
subtracted from the NCP's $600 basic obligation leaving an adjusted
obligation of $114. The state has pre-determined each of the percentage
factors to always have the result work out to not give the NCP credit for
20% of the visitation time. What I showed in my example was the $114 adjust
amount was 81% of $600. And the reciprocal of 81% is 19%, or just about
dead-on the 20% "no credit" factor built-in. The factors are based on
ranges of parenting time, so an actual calculation for 48% parenting time
would result in something like a 21-22% "no credit" result.

In PA they leave the top line number the same, i.e. $1000 and then make the
adjustment to the NCP's percentage owed. What that does is force all
calculations later in the process to be driven by that top line number. And
they have a 30% "no credit" factor. The PA adjustment is done to the NCP
percentage instead of to the dollars. So a 50% parenting time factor is
reduced by the 30% "no credit" factor down to 20%. Then the 20% is applied
against the dollars to come up with a $200 credit. The $200 is then
subtracted from the $600 basic obligation and the NCP is ordered to pay
$400.

So my point has been, when and where the parenting time adjustment gets made
has a LOT to do with the outcome of the math. There is a huge difference
between $114 in my state and $400 in PA given the same circumstances. My
advice was to lobby your legislature to change the rules to adjust the
dollars rather than adjust the percentages.

One of the basic rules of math is to always ask when discussing percentages,
"A percent of what?" The problem you guys have is the percentages being
used in the shared custody calculations are percentages of different base
amounts so they are totally unrelated. But the state is pretending they are
related. In the PA example, 50% is a percentage of the parenting time and
the subtraction of the 30% "no credit" factor brings the parenting time
percentage down to 20%. But this 20% parenting time percent is then
subtracted from the 60% of income leaving 40%. That's faulty math because
the 20% is a percent of one factor (parenting time) and the 60% is a percent
of a different factor (income earned).

Thanks, Bob. I'm going to try to digest all of that. I think I see
your major point is that the percentage is taken off the smaller number
(NCP obligation) rather than the larger number (the "pooled number"
based on both parents' incomes).

What about this 20% off the top thing anyway? Is that actually part of
the guidelines? I thought I heard some state (Georgia?) recently
figured out that the guidelines they were using assumed the CP had the
child 100% of the time, so that 20% jobbie was totally bogus.

It sure ****es me off that I have to fork over almost the same amount
that I would if I were to zip off to Los Angeles and never see my kid
again. It's like I'm getting screwed over because I've made a conscious
decision to do the right thing.

- Ron ^*^

Good info from Bob.

PSI is constantly involved in the guidelines "review" boards for CS in
many states. The obvious conflict of interest is never brought to the
forefront. We must fight back against biased panels such as the one in
Virginia. Left-wing womens organizations, a company (PSI) that makes
money off of higher awards, CSE directors (who have an interest in
higher awards to bring home more federal dollars), and numerous other
people and/or groups with conflicts of interest are almost all the
people that sit on the review panels. This is a travesty. There are
almost no true economists on the review boards. There are few studies,
if any, done on the actual costs of raising a child. It is all simply
special interest groups making the rules they stand to benefit from.
The conflicts of interest are huge, and must be exposed. I wonder how
much PSI has made by 1. making many of the original guidelines 2.
getting paid to collect the inflated awards that are not paid in a
timely manner and 3. raising the child support rates every chance they
get. It is time for real economists to look at an economic problem and
come up with an equitable solution.

If one believes that a simple percent of income goes to raising a
child, or that "income shares" is a valid methodology for all
situations, I would invite you to enroll in higher education courses.
CS awards of 3000 dollars or more per month are unjustifiable. Add-ons
for expenses already in the guidelines are unjustifiable. Not
accounting for shared parenting time is unjustifiable. Not accounting
for how CS is spent is unjustifiable.

Some of my suggestions:

1. Review guidelines independantly, base the guidelines on cost
studies, do the studies if neccessary.

2. Set up debit accounts that the NCP deposits to, and the CP can use
to buy things for the child(ren). Allow a certain amount of cash
withdrawal for housing, water, electricity, etc. Allow the NCP access
to the spending records.

3. Any money left in the account (above a certain par level of $50 or
so) at the end of the month rolls over to a trust fund for the child
that they can get at age 18, for college, first house, etc. Allow this
money to be drawn out beforehand only with authorization of NCP (maybe
for braces, first vehicle, etc.)

All the technology is available at the local bank. It is easy to do.
Banks would welcome the business. No charge debit accounts are common.
In fact, you can deposit to an account that you cannot withdraw from
already. All the courts has to do is order this to happen. It is that
easy. The childs name and CPs name goes on the account. Statements sent
to NCP and CP at the end of the month.

Oh yeah, with my idea, compliance to CS orders goes up too, because of
1. more economic awards that will almost always be lower 2.
accountability would encourage men to pay.

Enough ranting, sorry bout that.