If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
So..
Trying to keep the sex of the parents out of this... Parent A and Parent B are divorced. They have one minor child. If Parent A has sole custody of the child, Parent A will collect Child Support at the standard rate from Parent B. Reverse this if the situations are reversed (Parent A pays Parent B the standard amount). If 50/50 Joint Physical and Legal custody is shared between Parent A and Parent B, however... Whichever parent makes the most money, has to pay half of the standard CS payments to the other parent. It gets weirder. If the joint physical custody agreement is not 50/50, but, say, 20/80, then the parent with the most income has to pay the parent with the least income a percentage of CS equal to the percentage of time the child is with the other parent. If Parent A makes more money than Parent B, and Parent B has the child 20% of the time, then Parent A pays Parent B 20% of the standard CS payment every month. The wealthier parent will ALWAYS pay the less wealthy parent a percentage of CS, right down to joint physical custody where the wealthier parent has the child 95% of the time and the less wealthy parent has the child 5% of the time. This stops the SECOND the wealthier parent has full custody! At that point, the less wealthy parent is suddenly obligated to pay FULL child support to the wealthier parent! Not sure why, this just strikes me as very odd. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
I've never seen these particular guidelines for child support, what
state are you quoting them from? Werebat wrote in message ... So.. Trying to keep the sex of the parents out of this... Parent A and Parent B are divorced. They have one minor child. If Parent A has sole custody of the child, Parent A will collect Child Support at the standard rate from Parent B. Reverse this if the situations are reversed (Parent A pays Parent B the standard amount). If 50/50 Joint Physical and Legal custody is shared between Parent A and Parent B, however... Whichever parent makes the most money, has to pay half of the standard CS payments to the other parent. It gets weirder. If the joint physical custody agreement is not 50/50, but, say, 20/80, then the parent with the most income has to pay the parent with the least income a percentage of CS equal to the percentage of time the child is with the other parent. If Parent A makes more money than Parent B, and Parent B has the child 20% of the time, then Parent A pays Parent B 20% of the standard CS payment every month. The wealthier parent will ALWAYS pay the less wealthy parent a percentage of CS, right down to joint physical custody where the wealthier parent has the child 95% of the time and the less wealthy parent has the child 5% of the time. This stops the SECOND the wealthier parent has full custody! At that point, the less wealthy parent is suddenly obligated to pay FULL child support to the wealthier parent! Not sure why, this just strikes me as very odd. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
I've never seen these particular guidelines for child support, what
state are you quoting them from? Werebat wrote in message ... So.. Trying to keep the sex of the parents out of this... Parent A and Parent B are divorced. They have one minor child. If Parent A has sole custody of the child, Parent A will collect Child Support at the standard rate from Parent B. Reverse this if the situations are reversed (Parent A pays Parent B the standard amount). If 50/50 Joint Physical and Legal custody is shared between Parent A and Parent B, however... Whichever parent makes the most money, has to pay half of the standard CS payments to the other parent. It gets weirder. If the joint physical custody agreement is not 50/50, but, say, 20/80, then the parent with the most income has to pay the parent with the least income a percentage of CS equal to the percentage of time the child is with the other parent. If Parent A makes more money than Parent B, and Parent B has the child 20% of the time, then Parent A pays Parent B 20% of the standard CS payment every month. The wealthier parent will ALWAYS pay the less wealthy parent a percentage of CS, right down to joint physical custody where the wealthier parent has the child 95% of the time and the less wealthy parent has the child 5% of the time. This stops the SECOND the wealthier parent has full custody! At that point, the less wealthy parent is suddenly obligated to pay FULL child support to the wealthier parent! Not sure why, this just strikes me as very odd. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
Nebraska and Colorado are very similar to those.
"Leslie" wrote in message om... I've never seen these particular guidelines for child support, what state are you quoting them from? Werebat wrote in message ... So.. Trying to keep the sex of the parents out of this... Parent A and Parent B are divorced. They have one minor child. If Parent A has sole custody of the child, Parent A will collect Child Support at the standard rate from Parent B. Reverse this if the situations are reversed (Parent A pays Parent B the standard amount). If 50/50 Joint Physical and Legal custody is shared between Parent A and Parent B, however... Whichever parent makes the most money, has to pay half of the standard CS payments to the other parent. It gets weirder. If the joint physical custody agreement is not 50/50, but, say, 20/80, then the parent with the most income has to pay the parent with the least income a percentage of CS equal to the percentage of time the child is with the other parent. If Parent A makes more money than Parent B, and Parent B has the child 20% of the time, then Parent A pays Parent B 20% of the standard CS payment every month. The wealthier parent will ALWAYS pay the less wealthy parent a percentage of CS, right down to joint physical custody where the wealthier parent has the child 95% of the time and the less wealthy parent has the child 5% of the time. This stops the SECOND the wealthier parent has full custody! At that point, the less wealthy parent is suddenly obligated to pay FULL child support to the wealthier parent! Not sure why, this just strikes me as very odd. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
Nebraska and Colorado are very similar to those.
"Leslie" wrote in message om... I've never seen these particular guidelines for child support, what state are you quoting them from? Werebat wrote in message ... So.. Trying to keep the sex of the parents out of this... Parent A and Parent B are divorced. They have one minor child. If Parent A has sole custody of the child, Parent A will collect Child Support at the standard rate from Parent B. Reverse this if the situations are reversed (Parent A pays Parent B the standard amount). If 50/50 Joint Physical and Legal custody is shared between Parent A and Parent B, however... Whichever parent makes the most money, has to pay half of the standard CS payments to the other parent. It gets weirder. If the joint physical custody agreement is not 50/50, but, say, 20/80, then the parent with the most income has to pay the parent with the least income a percentage of CS equal to the percentage of time the child is with the other parent. If Parent A makes more money than Parent B, and Parent B has the child 20% of the time, then Parent A pays Parent B 20% of the standard CS payment every month. The wealthier parent will ALWAYS pay the less wealthy parent a percentage of CS, right down to joint physical custody where the wealthier parent has the child 95% of the time and the less wealthy parent has the child 5% of the time. This stops the SECOND the wealthier parent has full custody! At that point, the less wealthy parent is suddenly obligated to pay FULL child support to the wealthier parent! Not sure why, this just strikes me as very odd. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
In Canada it is even worse and more bizarre! Parent A and Parent B split the child 70/30. So A gets 100% support from B and most extra expenses paid for (daycare, etc) by B. A also gets huge tax breaks, etc. since the child is a dependent of A (I know weird, eh, since B is actually paying for the child). Child support in Canada does not take into any factors like property settlements, tax breaks, extra costs above support, and on and on. So A is probably 'making' more than B even though B has the child 30% of the time and must provide almost the same food, clothing, housing, transportation, life insurance, and so on. In Canada you must cross 40% to get a CS break. Now... it gets better... So after a year A and B moved to 50/50.First B must prove to a court that they have the child 50% of the time ($$'s). After that is proved, B must prove that there is new additional costs to raising the child when in B's care (more $$'s). Well since B was basically paying for housing, transportation, food, clothing, and more at 70/30 there was probably not too much increase in costs when now at 50/50. Not taking in any factors like tax breaks, or other factors into A's operating costs, B will always have to pay A CS even at 50/50. That is not bad but wait, there's more... Since B will be hard pressed to prove there was an 'increase' in cost, at best they could claim something like $60 a month. Why should this matter you ask? Well because A also gets to claim their expenses to raise the child. The amount of support paid by B does not offset this amount. A claims the entire thing 100% amount of day-to-day expenses, like $300 per month. B's 'increased' costs are only $60 and A's full costs are $300, B must pay A about $200 more per month to cover these costs. So on top of B paying A CS (although slightly reduced since they are at 50/50), B must pay for A's 'higher' day-to-day costs. So if B paid A $500 per month at 70/30. They would be reduced to $100 per month at 50/50 then topped up to $300 per month to cover A's cost of raising the child. And on and on... BTW, B cannot get a tax break since A receives CS..... So I ask: - why property settlements are not factored in to any of this - why tax breaks and other financial gains by A or B not used in any calculations (this can be in the $1000's of $$'s) - why does A get a tax break at all at 50/50 - why does B have to prove so much - why does B not get 100% on B's day-to-day costs but A does - why include day-to-day at all since I thought that it is what CS was for (to cover day-to-day) - extra costs (e.g. daycare) are not a factor And on and on... In article , Werebat wrote: So.. Trying to keep the sex of the parents out of this... Parent A and Parent B are divorced. They have one minor child. If Parent A has sole custody of the child, Parent A will collect Child Support at the standard rate from Parent B. Reverse this if the situations are reversed (Parent A pays Parent B the standard amount). If 50/50 Joint Physical and Legal custody is shared between Parent A and Parent B, however... Whichever parent makes the most money, has to pay half of the standard CS payments to the other parent. It gets weirder. If the joint physical custody agreement is not 50/50, but, say, 20/80, then the parent with the most income has to pay the parent with the least income a percentage of CS equal to the percentage of time the child is with the other parent. If Parent A makes more money than Parent B, and Parent B has the child 20% of the time, then Parent A pays Parent B 20% of the standard CS payment every month. The wealthier parent will ALWAYS pay the less wealthy parent a percentage of CS, right down to joint physical custody where the wealthier parent has the child 95% of the time and the less wealthy parent has the child 5% of the time. This stops the SECOND the wealthier parent has full custody! At that point, the less wealthy parent is suddenly obligated to pay FULL child support to the wealthier parent! Not sure why, this just strikes me as very odd. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
In Canada it is even worse and more bizarre! Parent A and Parent B split the child 70/30. So A gets 100% support from B and most extra expenses paid for (daycare, etc) by B. A also gets huge tax breaks, etc. since the child is a dependent of A (I know weird, eh, since B is actually paying for the child). Child support in Canada does not take into any factors like property settlements, tax breaks, extra costs above support, and on and on. So A is probably 'making' more than B even though B has the child 30% of the time and must provide almost the same food, clothing, housing, transportation, life insurance, and so on. In Canada you must cross 40% to get a CS break. Now... it gets better... So after a year A and B moved to 50/50.First B must prove to a court that they have the child 50% of the time ($$'s). After that is proved, B must prove that there is new additional costs to raising the child when in B's care (more $$'s). Well since B was basically paying for housing, transportation, food, clothing, and more at 70/30 there was probably not too much increase in costs when now at 50/50. Not taking in any factors like tax breaks, or other factors into A's operating costs, B will always have to pay A CS even at 50/50. That is not bad but wait, there's more... Since B will be hard pressed to prove there was an 'increase' in cost, at best they could claim something like $60 a month. Why should this matter you ask? Well because A also gets to claim their expenses to raise the child. The amount of support paid by B does not offset this amount. A claims the entire thing 100% amount of day-to-day expenses, like $300 per month. B's 'increased' costs are only $60 and A's full costs are $300, B must pay A about $200 more per month to cover these costs. So on top of B paying A CS (although slightly reduced since they are at 50/50), B must pay for A's 'higher' day-to-day costs. So if B paid A $500 per month at 70/30. They would be reduced to $100 per month at 50/50 then topped up to $300 per month to cover A's cost of raising the child. And on and on... BTW, B cannot get a tax break since A receives CS..... So I ask: - why property settlements are not factored in to any of this - why tax breaks and other financial gains by A or B not used in any calculations (this can be in the $1000's of $$'s) - why does A get a tax break at all at 50/50 - why does B have to prove so much - why does B not get 100% on B's day-to-day costs but A does - why include day-to-day at all since I thought that it is what CS was for (to cover day-to-day) - extra costs (e.g. daycare) are not a factor And on and on... In article , Werebat wrote: So.. Trying to keep the sex of the parents out of this... Parent A and Parent B are divorced. They have one minor child. If Parent A has sole custody of the child, Parent A will collect Child Support at the standard rate from Parent B. Reverse this if the situations are reversed (Parent A pays Parent B the standard amount). If 50/50 Joint Physical and Legal custody is shared between Parent A and Parent B, however... Whichever parent makes the most money, has to pay half of the standard CS payments to the other parent. It gets weirder. If the joint physical custody agreement is not 50/50, but, say, 20/80, then the parent with the most income has to pay the parent with the least income a percentage of CS equal to the percentage of time the child is with the other parent. If Parent A makes more money than Parent B, and Parent B has the child 20% of the time, then Parent A pays Parent B 20% of the standard CS payment every month. The wealthier parent will ALWAYS pay the less wealthy parent a percentage of CS, right down to joint physical custody where the wealthier parent has the child 95% of the time and the less wealthy parent has the child 5% of the time. This stops the SECOND the wealthier parent has full custody! At that point, the less wealthy parent is suddenly obligated to pay FULL child support to the wealthier parent! Not sure why, this just strikes me as very odd. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
"B" wrote in message e.rogers.com... In Canada it is even worse and more bizarre! Parent A and Parent B split the child 70/30. So A gets 100% support from B and most extra expenses paid for (daycare, etc) by B. A also gets huge tax breaks, etc. since the child is a dependent of A (I know weird, eh, since B is actually paying for the child). Actually, to clarify... The daycare, and other expenses, are split based on earning. if A makes 25000 and B makes 50000, B paid 2/3rds (66%) of the daycare. The inverse is also true. Child support in Canada does not take into any factors like property settlements, tax breaks, extra costs above support, and on and on. So A is probably 'making' more than B even though B has the child 30% of the time and must provide almost the same food, clothing, housing, transportation, life insurance, and so on. In Canada you must cross 40% to get a CS break. Now... it gets better... So after a year A and B moved to 50/50.First B must prove to a court that they have the child 50% of the time ($$'s). After that is proved, B must prove that there is new additional costs to raising the child when in B's care (more $$'s). Well since B was basically paying for housing, transportation, food, clothing, and more at 70/30 there was probably not too much increase in costs when now at 50/50. Not taking in any factors like tax breaks, or other factors into A's operating costs, B will always have to pay A CS even at 50/50. That is not bad but wait, there's more... This is changing, especially in Ontario where the liar, er, DOLTon McGuinty is promising to make the over 60/40-50/50-40/60 scenario easier to get to. Since B will be hard pressed to prove there was an 'increase' in cost, at best they could claim something like $60 a month. Why should this matter you ask? Well because A also gets to claim their expenses to raise the child. The amount of support paid by B does not offset this amount. A claims the entire thing 100% amount of day-to-day expenses, like $300 per month. B's 'increased' costs are only $60 and A's full costs are $300, B must pay A about $200 more per month to cover these costs. So on top of B paying A CS (although slightly reduced since they are at 50/50), B must pay for A's 'higher' day-to-day costs. This is a truely sickening scenario. So if B paid A $500 per month at 70/30. They would be reduced to $100 per month at 50/50 then topped up to $300 per month to cover A's cost of raising the child. And on and on... BTW, B cannot get a tax break since A receives CS..... So I ask: - why property settlements are not factored in to any of this Because division of assets has nothing to do with child support. Divorce has nothing to do with Child Support. - why tax breaks and other financial gains by A or B not used in any calculations (this can be in the $1000's of $$'s) Hmmm. - why does A get a tax break at all at 50/50 They shouldn't, the reality is that B isn't paying CS at that point, but is rather paying expenses. - why does B have to prove so much Because men cannot be trusted (in the eyes of the courts) - why does B not get 100% on B's day-to-day costs but A does Because men make more money and B is suppoed to be a man! DUH! (If he's not making enough, they'll impute his income at the amount he should be making). - why include day-to-day at all since I thought that it is what CS was for (to cover day-to-day) because day-to-day doesn't cover the cost-of -living for A who doesn't want to actually work anyway. - extra costs (e.g. daycare) are not a factor They are, but only for A, not B. And on and on... I know, Cameron |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Weird...
"B" wrote in message e.rogers.com... In Canada it is even worse and more bizarre! Parent A and Parent B split the child 70/30. So A gets 100% support from B and most extra expenses paid for (daycare, etc) by B. A also gets huge tax breaks, etc. since the child is a dependent of A (I know weird, eh, since B is actually paying for the child). Actually, to clarify... The daycare, and other expenses, are split based on earning. if A makes 25000 and B makes 50000, B paid 2/3rds (66%) of the daycare. The inverse is also true. Child support in Canada does not take into any factors like property settlements, tax breaks, extra costs above support, and on and on. So A is probably 'making' more than B even though B has the child 30% of the time and must provide almost the same food, clothing, housing, transportation, life insurance, and so on. In Canada you must cross 40% to get a CS break. Now... it gets better... So after a year A and B moved to 50/50.First B must prove to a court that they have the child 50% of the time ($$'s). After that is proved, B must prove that there is new additional costs to raising the child when in B's care (more $$'s). Well since B was basically paying for housing, transportation, food, clothing, and more at 70/30 there was probably not too much increase in costs when now at 50/50. Not taking in any factors like tax breaks, or other factors into A's operating costs, B will always have to pay A CS even at 50/50. That is not bad but wait, there's more... This is changing, especially in Ontario where the liar, er, DOLTon McGuinty is promising to make the over 60/40-50/50-40/60 scenario easier to get to. Since B will be hard pressed to prove there was an 'increase' in cost, at best they could claim something like $60 a month. Why should this matter you ask? Well because A also gets to claim their expenses to raise the child. The amount of support paid by B does not offset this amount. A claims the entire thing 100% amount of day-to-day expenses, like $300 per month. B's 'increased' costs are only $60 and A's full costs are $300, B must pay A about $200 more per month to cover these costs. So on top of B paying A CS (although slightly reduced since they are at 50/50), B must pay for A's 'higher' day-to-day costs. This is a truely sickening scenario. So if B paid A $500 per month at 70/30. They would be reduced to $100 per month at 50/50 then topped up to $300 per month to cover A's cost of raising the child. And on and on... BTW, B cannot get a tax break since A receives CS..... So I ask: - why property settlements are not factored in to any of this Because division of assets has nothing to do with child support. Divorce has nothing to do with Child Support. - why tax breaks and other financial gains by A or B not used in any calculations (this can be in the $1000's of $$'s) Hmmm. - why does A get a tax break at all at 50/50 They shouldn't, the reality is that B isn't paying CS at that point, but is rather paying expenses. - why does B have to prove so much Because men cannot be trusted (in the eyes of the courts) - why does B not get 100% on B's day-to-day costs but A does Because men make more money and B is suppoed to be a man! DUH! (If he's not making enough, they'll impute his income at the amount he should be making). - why include day-to-day at all since I thought that it is what CS was for (to cover day-to-day) because day-to-day doesn't cover the cost-of -living for A who doesn't want to actually work anyway. - extra costs (e.g. daycare) are not a factor They are, but only for A, not B. And on and on... I know, Cameron |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
weird feeling...anyone else? | Christine | Pregnancy | 8 | February 15th 04 12:40 AM |
More weird sudden pain... | Jill | Pregnancy | 3 | November 24th 03 04:42 PM |
another weird nursing habit | K.B. | Breastfeeding | 5 | September 20th 03 04:42 AM |
weird dream last night | Stephanie and Tim | Pregnancy | 3 | August 4th 03 07:59 PM |
Weird Skin question | The Huwe Family | Twins & Triplets | 0 | July 29th 03 03:41 PM |