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

Dear (representative's name here),

I am writing because I am concerned about the bill you support called
The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005 (H.R. 4233). As a custodial
parent whom has had to support my children fully at times due to
unpaid child support, I urge you to read said bill (again) thoroughly
and consider the potential complications and injustice this bill would
cause if it becomes a law.

As I understand the bill, the following are true:
1) The unpaid portion of court ordered child support, on an
annual basis, would be considered taxable income to the non-custodial
parent without regard for taxes already paid on those same dollars.
2) The custodial parent would receive a credit (versus an
adjustment of income) for the total amount of the difference.
3) Unpaid child support must be equal to 50% or more of the
annual award to be considered for this credit.
4) There is no adjustment if child support is subsequently paid,
either for the non-custodial parent or to the custodial parent.

Although I suspect the "target" in this pursuit are the truly
despicable, those with ample ability to pay who don't, "throwing a
net" this wide is bound to cause consequences which are quite
expensive, unintended, and unjust.

Let's first take a look at how this will increase government spending
dramatically and, perhaps, unnecessarily.

Since our tax structure "tops out" at 35%, we can assume that any
taxes collected will be between 0% and 35% of the unpaid child
support; however, the custodial parent would be claiming a credit
(versus an adjustment to income) for 100% of the unpaid support. This
will result in between 65% to 100% of qualified unpaid child support
to be borne by the taxpayers for which would never be recouped, even
if the child support is paid later. As a taxpayer, I object.
Furthermore, as a taxpayer who is a custodial parent who has
experienced delinquent child support, but just shy of the 50% mark
which would qualify for a credit, I object to any taxation that causes
me to subsidize yet another non-custodial parent's nonpayment. I
already subsidize my ex's nonpayment as well as any welfare programs
currently in place.

Although delinquent child support has varying reasons behind it, it is
most often the result of an inability for the non-custodial parent to
comply given that child support is a) not adjusted regularly to allow
for a change in circumstances, b) often derived from an income figure
(imputed income) which does not allow for any changes in the economy,
and c) does not take into account any pre-existing children (to
include those younger, but known about before knowledge of the older
child exists) and their needs. Taxing such an individual on an
inability to pay would only compound the problem. The non-custodial
parent may even send less in order to ensure there is enough to cover
taxes.

Those who actively evade responsibility, which I suspect is the
"target group," often hide income and may have no reported earnings
except the child support delinquency. In this case, exemptions and
deductions can exceed the child support obligation, making none of it
taxable. If they do have income on which taxes are paid, there are
already methods in place (wage withholding, income tax refund
interception, bank account/asset seizure) which serve the purpose of
collecting delinquent child support.

On the surface, it appears as though the bill is an attempt to ensure
that every child has adequate support; however, those with less than
adequate support come from families which most likely qualify for at
least some welfare benefits. This bill can essentially cause one who
is ineligible for welfare benefits become eligible for government
benefits… just under the guise of a credit on taxes. In fact, those
who make more can receive more.

There also exists the potential for collusion in order to receive
government money. If the parents agree, the non-custodial parent can
pay nothing in child support and then be held liable for as little as
10% of it at tax time while the custodial parent may receive the full
amount of child support ordered as a credit on a tax return. Because
collections on arrearages in child support need a complaining
custodial parent, who will force the custodial parent to complain?

It is my opinion that, while the intent of the bill may be good, it is
quite badly written and has no checks and balances. It has no
provision that subsequently received arrearages be paid back and
causes a non-custodial parent who is temporarily suffering financial
problems to also suffer being taxed on the same money twice.

There are so many other things which could better help the problem
and, if we involve the IRS at all, it should be in the form of
adjusting the ability of parents to claim partial dependents based
upon level of support (i.e. the more a non-custodial parent
contributes the better the tax situation). Accountability showing
child support actually being spent on the child would go a long way
toward making those who actively evade responsibility to reconsider.
Immediate adjustments based upon change in circumstances would
eliminate the potential for an inability to pay based upon orders
which took a higher income into account that can no longer be earned
in the given economy. Children of both parents, if knowledge of
existence precedes child support orders, should be given a credit
which allows for the care of these children (in my own circumstances,
my eldest son, whom I supported myself, was never a consideration when
establishing what I had in order to support my subsequent two
children).

The system, as it stands, is broken and this bill, if enacted into
law, can cause something that is broken to become completely
demolished. "Broken" can be fixed, but one needs to be willing to put
forth the effort to fix it. I'd find it much more appealing to take
the millions of dollars this will cost the taxpayers to establish a
better system. One in which both parents can feel is just.

Beverly

Okay in reading the first bit of the statement I'm having trouble
understanding why this is an unfair law. To me it makes sense...
Created in an effort to have NCP pay the child support owed, there
needs to be a better system of collection.

Jailing people for not paying support makes little sense as while
they are in jail, they are not capable of earning income, and therefore
will go further into debt. Seems the honor system for some people is
not working, or laws like this would not be created in the first place.

People who pay their child support like they are supposed to, will
never have need to have this law enforced. As it sounds like there is
a grace period in place in the law to allow parties to make up the
difference.

I think what you need to target is the amount of actual support a
person is responsible in paying. There needs to be 1 uniform system in
place that everyone will fall under. No more of this just because you
make 100,000 a year you gotta pay alot more % wise then somone who only
makes 40,000 a year.

My suggestion, and I've had yet to hear any real arguments against
it, is set 1 uniform percentage that all pay. I suggest an amount of
about 30% of the NCP's take home income as calculated by his/her last
tax return.

And on the lower end of the income scale the 30% idea won't work I
know. There would have to be a min income before then 30% could be
applied.. where that line is drawn is up for debate, but I'm sure if
people put their heads together they would be able to figure something
out.

The method in which Child Support is collected needs to be changed,
and this idea of making it a Tax Credit for the CP makes alot of sense,
as it would take alot of the guess work out of when they are going to
get the money...

And then if the NCP refuses to pay the taxes owed they can deal with
the Gov directly.

SpiderHam77

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
Dear (representative's name here),

I am writing because I am concerned about the bill you support called
The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005 (H.R. 4233). As a custodial
parent whom has had to support my children fully at times due to
unpaid child support, I urge you to read said bill (again) thoroughly
and consider the potential complications and injustice this bill would
cause if it becomes a law.

As I understand the bill, the following are true:
1) The unpaid portion of court ordered child support, on an
annual basis, would be considered taxable income to the non-custodial
parent without regard for taxes already paid on those same dollars.
2) The custodial parent would receive a credit (versus an
adjustment of income) for the total amount of the difference.
3) Unpaid child support must be equal to 50% or more of the
annual award to be considered for this credit.
4) There is no adjustment if child support is subsequently paid,
either for the non-custodial parent or to the custodial parent.

Although I suspect the "target" in this pursuit are the truly
despicable, those with ample ability to pay who don't, "throwing a
net" this wide is bound to cause consequences which are quite
expensive, unintended, and unjust.

Let's first take a look at how this will increase government spending
dramatically and, perhaps, unnecessarily.

Since our tax structure "tops out" at 35%, we can assume that any
taxes collected will be between 0% and 35% of the unpaid child
support; however, the custodial parent would be claiming a credit
(versus an adjustment to income) for 100% of the unpaid support. This
will result in between 65% to 100% of qualified unpaid child support
to be borne by the taxpayers for which would never be recouped, even
if the child support is paid later. As a taxpayer, I object.
Furthermore, as a taxpayer who is a custodial parent who has
experienced delinquent child support, but just shy of the 50% mark
which would qualify for a credit, I object to any taxation that causes
me to subsidize yet another non-custodial parent's nonpayment. I
already subsidize my ex's nonpayment as well as any welfare programs
currently in place.

Although delinquent child support has varying reasons behind it, it is
most often the result of an inability for the non-custodial parent to
comply given that child support is a) not adjusted regularly to allow
for a change in circumstances, b) often derived from an income figure
(imputed income) which does not allow for any changes in the economy,
and c) does not take into account any pre-existing children (to
include those younger, but known about before knowledge of the older
child exists) and their needs. Taxing such an individual on an
inability to pay would only compound the problem. The non-custodial
parent may even send less in order to ensure there is enough to cover
taxes.

Those who actively evade responsibility, which I suspect is the
"target group," often hide income and may have no reported earnings
except the child support delinquency. In this case, exemptions and
deductions can exceed the child support obligation, making none of it
taxable. If they do have income on which taxes are paid, there are
already methods in place (wage withholding, income tax refund
interception, bank account/asset seizure) which serve the purpose of
collecting delinquent child support.

On the surface, it appears as though the bill is an attempt to ensure
that every child has adequate support; however, those with less than
adequate support come from families which most likely qualify for at
least some welfare benefits. This bill can essentially cause one who
is ineligible for welfare benefits become eligible for government
benefits. just under the guise of a credit on taxes. In fact, those
who make more can receive more.

There also exists the potential for collusion in order to receive
government money. If the parents agree, the non-custodial parent can
pay nothing in child support and then be held liable for as little as
10% of it at tax time while the custodial parent may receive the full
amount of child support ordered as a credit on a tax return. Because
collections on arrearages in child support need a complaining
custodial parent, who will force the custodial parent to complain?

It is my opinion that, while the intent of the bill may be good, it is
quite badly written and has no checks and balances. It has no
provision that subsequently received arrearages be paid back and
causes a non-custodial parent who is temporarily suffering financial
problems to also suffer being taxed on the same money twice.

There are so many other things which could better help the problem
and, if we involve the IRS at all, it should be in the form of
adjusting the ability of parents to claim partial dependents based
upon level of support (i.e. the more a non-custodial parent
contributes the better the tax situation). Accountability showing
child support actually being spent on the child would go a long way
toward making those who actively evade responsibility to reconsider.
Immediate adjustments based upon change in circumstances would
eliminate the potential for an inability to pay based upon orders
which took a higher income into account that can no longer be earned
in the given economy. Children of both parents, if knowledge of
existence precedes child support orders, should be given a credit
which allows for the care of these children (in my own circumstances,
my eldest son, whom I supported myself, was never a consideration when
establishing what I had in order to support my subsequent two
children).

The system, as it stands, is broken and this bill, if enacted into
law, can cause something that is broken to become completely
demolished. "Broken" can be fixed, but one needs to be willing to put
forth the effort to fix it. I'd find it much more appealing to take
the millions of dollars this will cost the taxpayers to establish a
better system. One in which both parents can feel is just.

Why not keep it simple? Tell them family law is a state's right issue and
the federal government needs to butt out. The IRS trampling all over any
state's discretionary decisions makes the problem worse, not better.

On 24 Dec 2005 13:22:34 -0800, "SpiderHam77"
wrote:

Okay in reading the first bit of the statement I'm having trouble
understanding why this is an unfair law. To me it makes sense...
Created in an effort to have NCP pay the child support owed, there
needs to be a better system of collection.

Jailing people for not paying support makes little sense as while
they are in jail, they are not capable of earning income, and therefore
will go further into debt. Seems the honor system for some people is
not working, or laws like this would not be created in the first place.

People who pay their child support like they are supposed to, will
never have need to have this law enforced. As it sounds like there is
a grace period in place in the law to allow parties to make up the
difference.

Some people pay as much as they possibly can and survive on ramen
noodles and can still fall short, depending on the circumstances.


I think what you need to target is the amount of actual support a
person is responsible in paying. There needs to be 1 uniform system in
place that everyone will fall under. No more of this just because you
make 100,000 a year you gotta pay alot more % wise then somone who only
makes 40,000 a year.

My suggestion, and I've had yet to hear any real arguments against
it, is set 1 uniform percentage that all pay. I suggest an amount of
about 30% of the NCP's take home income as calculated by his/her last
tax return.

Okay, so a non-custodial parent who worked much overtime is laid off
at the end of the year. The parent may not even receive 30% of what
was made last year, let alone be able to pay it.


And on the lower end of the income scale the 30% idea won't work I
know. There would have to be a min income before then 30% could be
applied.. where that line is drawn is up for debate, but I'm sure if
people put their heads together they would be able to figure something
out.

The method in which Child Support is collected needs to be changed,
and this idea of making it a Tax Credit for the CP makes alot of sense,
as it would take alot of the guess work out of when they are going to
get the money...

And then if the NCP refuses to pay the taxes owed they can deal with
the Gov directly.

SpiderHam77

Beverly

Understood, Bob, but these are politicians and they need to see how it
can affect them at the next election. I am going on a presumption
that no one wants tax dollars going to, say, a woman who makes $50,000
per year but can't rape her ex, who makes $15,000 a year (but imputed
at $30,000 a year), in the name of collecting child support.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:44:47 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
Dear (representative's name here),

I am writing because I am concerned about the bill you support called
The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005 (H.R. 4233). As a custodial
parent whom has had to support my children fully at times due to
unpaid child support, I urge you to read said bill (again) thoroughly
and consider the potential complications and injustice this bill would
cause if it becomes a law.

As I understand the bill, the following are true:
1) The unpaid portion of court ordered child support, on an
annual basis, would be considered taxable income to the non-custodial
parent without regard for taxes already paid on those same dollars.
2) The custodial parent would receive a credit (versus an
adjustment of income) for the total amount of the difference.
3) Unpaid child support must be equal to 50% or more of the
annual award to be considered for this credit.
4) There is no adjustment if child support is subsequently paid,
either for the non-custodial parent or to the custodial parent.

Although I suspect the "target" in this pursuit are the truly
despicable, those with ample ability to pay who don't, "throwing a
net" this wide is bound to cause consequences which are quite
expensive, unintended, and unjust.

Let's first take a look at how this will increase government spending
dramatically and, perhaps, unnecessarily.

Since our tax structure "tops out" at 35%, we can assume that any
taxes collected will be between 0% and 35% of the unpaid child
support; however, the custodial parent would be claiming a credit
(versus an adjustment to income) for 100% of the unpaid support. This
will result in between 65% to 100% of qualified unpaid child support
to be borne by the taxpayers for which would never be recouped, even
if the child support is paid later. As a taxpayer, I object.
Furthermore, as a taxpayer who is a custodial parent who has
experienced delinquent child support, but just shy of the 50% mark
which would qualify for a credit, I object to any taxation that causes
me to subsidize yet another non-custodial parent's nonpayment. I
already subsidize my ex's nonpayment as well as any welfare programs
currently in place.

Although delinquent child support has varying reasons behind it, it is
most often the result of an inability for the non-custodial parent to
comply given that child support is a) not adjusted regularly to allow
for a change in circumstances, b) often derived from an income figure
(imputed income) which does not allow for any changes in the economy,
and c) does not take into account any pre-existing children (to
include those younger, but known about before knowledge of the older
child exists) and their needs. Taxing such an individual on an
inability to pay would only compound the problem. The non-custodial
parent may even send less in order to ensure there is enough to cover
taxes.

Those who actively evade responsibility, which I suspect is the
"target group," often hide income and may have no reported earnings
except the child support delinquency. In this case, exemptions and
deductions can exceed the child support obligation, making none of it
taxable. If they do have income on which taxes are paid, there are
already methods in place (wage withholding, income tax refund
interception, bank account/asset seizure) which serve the purpose of
collecting delinquent child support.

On the surface, it appears as though the bill is an attempt to ensure
that every child has adequate support; however, those with less than
adequate support come from families which most likely qualify for at
least some welfare benefits. This bill can essentially cause one who
is ineligible for welfare benefits become eligible for government
benefits. just under the guise of a credit on taxes. In fact, those
who make more can receive more.

There also exists the potential for collusion in order to receive
government money. If the parents agree, the non-custodial parent can
pay nothing in child support and then be held liable for as little as
10% of it at tax time while the custodial parent may receive the full
amount of child support ordered as a credit on a tax return. Because
collections on arrearages in child support need a complaining
custodial parent, who will force the custodial parent to complain?

It is my opinion that, while the intent of the bill may be good, it is
quite badly written and has no checks and balances. It has no
provision that subsequently received arrearages be paid back and
causes a non-custodial parent who is temporarily suffering financial
problems to also suffer being taxed on the same money twice.

There are so many other things which could better help the problem
and, if we involve the IRS at all, it should be in the form of
adjusting the ability of parents to claim partial dependents based
upon level of support (i.e. the more a non-custodial parent
contributes the better the tax situation). Accountability showing
child support actually being spent on the child would go a long way
toward making those who actively evade responsibility to reconsider.
Immediate adjustments based upon change in circumstances would
eliminate the potential for an inability to pay based upon orders
which took a higher income into account that can no longer be earned
in the given economy. Children of both parents, if knowledge of
existence precedes child support orders, should be given a credit
which allows for the care of these children (in my own circumstances,
my eldest son, whom I supported myself, was never a consideration when
establishing what I had in order to support my subsequent two
children).

The system, as it stands, is broken and this bill, if enacted into
law, can cause something that is broken to become completely
demolished. "Broken" can be fixed, but one needs to be willing to put
forth the effort to fix it. I'd find it much more appealing to take
the millions of dollars this will cost the taxpayers to establish a
better system. One in which both parents can feel is just.

Why not keep it simple? Tell them family law is a state's right issue and
the federal government needs to butt out. The IRS trampling all over any
state's discretionary decisions makes the problem worse, not better.


Beverly

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
Okay in reading the first bit of the statement I'm having trouble
understanding why this is an unfair law. To me it makes sense...
Created in an effort to have NCP pay the child support owed, there
needs to be a better system of collection.

Jailing people for not paying support makes little sense as while
they are in jail, they are not capable of earning income, and therefore
will go further into debt. Seems the honor system for some people is
not working, or laws like this would not be created in the first place.

People who pay their child support like they are supposed to, will
never have need to have this law enforced. As it sounds like there is
a grace period in place in the law to allow parties to make up the
difference.

I think what you need to target is the amount of actual support a
person is responsible in paying. There needs to be 1 uniform system in
place that everyone will fall under. No more of this just because you
make 100,000 a year you gotta pay alot more % wise then somone who only
makes 40,000 a year.

My suggestion, and I've had yet to hear any real arguments against
it, is set 1 uniform percentage that all pay. I suggest an amount of
about 30% of the NCP's take home income as calculated by his/her last
tax return.

And on the lower end of the income scale the 30% idea won't work I
know. There would have to be a min income before then 30% could be
applied.. where that line is drawn is up for debate, but I'm sure if
people put their heads together they would be able to figure something
out.

The method in which Child Support is collected needs to be changed,
and this idea of making it a Tax Credit for the CP makes alot of sense,
as it would take alot of the guess work out of when they are going to
get the money...

And then if the NCP refuses to pay the taxes owed they can deal with
the Gov directly.

SpiderHam77

30% of take home? Why? That's a big chunk of money!! We have 2 children
at home. Are you saying that nearly 1/3 of my husaband's check should go to
support 1 child (who lives with her mother)--while the 4 of us live on the
rest? Why on earth do you think that is fair? It's hard enough to get by
with 20% of his pay + arrearages being taken.

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
Okay in reading the first bit of the statement I'm having trouble
understanding why this is an unfair law. To me it makes sense...
Created in an effort to have NCP pay the child support owed, there
needs to be a better system of collection.

Jailing people for not paying support makes little sense as while
they are in jail, they are not capable of earning income, and therefore
will go further into debt. Seems the honor system for some people is
not working, or laws like this would not be created in the first place.

People who pay their child support like they are supposed to, will
never have need to have this law enforced. As it sounds like there is
a grace period in place in the law to allow parties to make up the
difference.

I think what you need to target is the amount of actual support a
person is responsible in paying. There needs to be 1 uniform system in
place that everyone will fall under. No more of this just because you
make 100,000 a year you gotta pay alot more % wise then somone who only
makes 40,000 a year.

My suggestion, and I've had yet to hear any real arguments against
it, is set 1 uniform percentage that all pay. I suggest an amount of
about 30% of the NCP's take home income as calculated by his/her last
tax return.

And on the lower end of the income scale the 30% idea won't work I
know. There would have to be a min income before then 30% could be
applied.. where that line is drawn is up for debate, but I'm sure if
people put their heads together they would be able to figure something
out.

The method in which Child Support is collected needs to be changed,
and this idea of making it a Tax Credit for the CP makes alot of sense,
as it would take alot of the guess work out of when they are going to
get the money...

And then if the NCP refuses to pay the taxes owed they can deal with
the Gov directly.

SpiderHam77

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
30% of take home? Why? That's a big chunk of money!! We have 2 children
at home. Are you saying that nearly 1/3 of my husaband's check should go
to support 1 child (who lives with her mother)--while the 4 of us live on
the rest? Why on earth do you think that is fair? It's hard enough to
get by with 20% of his pay + arrearages being taken.
===
"He's" a custodial parent?
===

"Gini" wrote in message news:6Vkrf.113$L53.34@trndny07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
30% of take home? Why? That's a big chunk of money!! We have 2
children at home. Are you saying that nearly 1/3 of my husaband's check
should go to support 1 child (who lives with her mother)--while the 4 of
us live on the rest? Why on earth do you think that is fair? It's hard
enough to get by with 20% of his pay + arrearages being taken.
===
"He's" a custodial parent?
===

He certainly is arrogant! And I don't think he has ever caught on to the
fact that his situation is far, far from the norm!! Geesh!!

teachrmama wrote:
30% of take home? Why? That's a big chunk of money!! We have 2 children
at home. Are you saying that nearly 1/3 of my husaband's check should go to
support 1 child (who lives with her mother)--while the 4 of us live on the
rest? Why on earth do you think that is fair? It's hard enough to get by
with 20% of his pay + arrearages being taken.


Okay let me clarify something. 30% should be the cap... Not the min.
Every Case does need to be judge on it's own merrits. My suggestion
to emlinate the problem of hearing about people having next to no money
to live on because all of it is being paid in child support.

If you bring home (After Taxes - And Only Taxes) say 50,000 a year,
you would be expected to pay a Max of 15,000 a year in child support.
Not to say you would, but your ex could never go after more then that
from you.

All cases can still be decided the way they are now, going to court,
explaining your circumstances.. and then allow the courts to make a
ruling. But take the Sky's the Limit idea off the table.

SpiderHam77