Child Support Act of 2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109cnRZ3Q::

Does this mean arrears or shortage of child support payments are subject to
income tax?

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:52:39 -0500, "TNK" wrote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109cnRZ3Q::

Does this mean arrears or shortage of child support payments are subject to
income tax?


First, I have to tell you that your link has expired. I got to the
bill by searching under "child support" on the site myself (in case
anyone else is interested in reading it)

This means that it is PROPOSED that yearly shortages on child support
payments be a credit to the recipient and considered taxable income to
the payer. It is just a bill and was only submitted last month. It
has been referred to Ways and Means, but it is not a law.

Personally, I don't think it will pass because it would cause double
taxation on the payer. The NCP has presumably already been taxed on
any real income the NCP has. Making non-payment taxable would be
taxing money that has already been taxed (presumably).

Next, the way it is written will actually cost the government money...
and a lot of it. If there is a credit to the recipient in the amount
short, but the payer only has to pay 10-15% on it (many times NCPs get
behind is because they don't make enough). That means that the
government would be shelling out 85-90%.

On TOP of that, there is no recovery. If the payer subsequently pays,
the NCP cannot deduct the payment (fixing the tax) and the CP owes
back nothing.

But before you get too excited about this, the bill defines a shortage
as being at least half of what was owed for the year. It is designed
to target NON-payers rather than struggling payers.

Aside from the problems mentioned above, if the payers social security
number is known, there are already remedies in place for anyone who
files taxes. There is garnishment as well as income tax interception.
If someone works under the table, they have no other reported income
and the "tax" could very likely be eaten up with exemptions and
deductions.

It sounds to me like a good old try at trying to double your money
only making the government pay. I hope Ways and Means can see through
this. It SHOULD never pass unless rewritten significantly. Thus far,
there are ten supporters. I hope they know what they are doing to
their political career. Yes, there are many CPs out there, but there
are also the same number of NCPs as WELL as taxpayers who are not
parents at all.
Beverly

It's worth keeping an eye on this sort of proposal. However, as Beverly
says, there's very little chance of it getting through. Tens of thousands
of bills are introduced in each session of Congress, and only a few hundred
actually are enacted. I suspect that the sponsors know this very well, and
are doing nothing more than making a gesture that they think will curry
favor with some special interest group. It's the bills that have a strong
push from committee chairmen or the administration that you need to worry
about. Even their chances don't amount to much.


"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:52:39 -0500, "TNK" wrote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109cnRZ3Q::

Does this mean arrears or shortage of child support payments are subject
to
income tax?


First, I have to tell you that your link has expired. I got to the
bill by searching under "child support" on the site myself (in case
anyone else is interested in reading it)

This means that it is PROPOSED that yearly shortages on child support
payments be a credit to the recipient and considered taxable income to
the payer. It is just a bill and was only submitted last month. It
has been referred to Ways and Means, but it is not a law.

Personally, I don't think it will pass because it would cause double
taxation on the payer. The NCP has presumably already been taxed on
any real income the NCP has. Making non-payment taxable would be
taxing money that has already been taxed (presumably).

Next, the way it is written will actually cost the government money...
and a lot of it. If there is a credit to the recipient in the amount
short, but the payer only has to pay 10-15% on it (many times NCPs get
behind is because they don't make enough). That means that the
government would be shelling out 85-90%.

On TOP of that, there is no recovery. If the payer subsequently pays,
the NCP cannot deduct the payment (fixing the tax) and the CP owes
back nothing.

But before you get too excited about this, the bill defines a shortage
as being at least half of what was owed for the year. It is designed
to target NON-payers rather than struggling payers.

Aside from the problems mentioned above, if the payers social security
number is known, there are already remedies in place for anyone who
files taxes. There is garnishment as well as income tax interception.
If someone works under the table, they have no other reported income
and the "tax" could very likely be eaten up with exemptions and
deductions.

It sounds to me like a good old try at trying to double your money
only making the government pay. I hope Ways and Means can see through
this. It SHOULD never pass unless rewritten significantly. Thus far,
there are ten supporters. I hope they know what they are doing to
their political career. Yes, there are many CPs out there, but there
are also the same number of NCPs as WELL as taxpayers who are not
parents at all.
Beverly

"Kenneth S." wrote in

Even their chances don't amount to much.

If anything, there is more than enough on the books to rape fathers without
this bill!

It's a little overkill!

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:52:39 -0500, "TNK" wrote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109cnRZ3Q::

Does this mean arrears or shortage of child support payments are subject
to
income tax?


First, I have to tell you that your link has expired. I got to the
bill by searching under "child support" on the site myself (in case
anyone else is interested in reading it)

This means that it is PROPOSED that yearly shortages on child support
payments be a credit to the recipient and considered taxable income to
the payer. It is just a bill and was only submitted last month. It
has been referred to Ways and Means, but it is not a law.

Personally, I don't think it will pass because it would cause double
taxation on the payer. The NCP has presumably already been taxed on
any real income the NCP has. Making non-payment taxable would be
taxing money that has already been taxed (presumably).

Next, the way it is written will actually cost the government money...
and a lot of it. If there is a credit to the recipient in the amount
short, but the payer only has to pay 10-15% on it (many times NCPs get
behind is because they don't make enough). That means that the
government would be shelling out 85-90%.

On TOP of that, there is no recovery. If the payer subsequently pays,
the NCP cannot deduct the payment (fixing the tax) and the CP owes
back nothing.

But before you get too excited about this, the bill defines a shortage
as being at least half of what was owed for the year. It is designed
to target NON-payers rather than struggling payers.

Aside from the problems mentioned above, if the payers social security
number is known, there are already remedies in place for anyone who
files taxes. There is garnishment as well as income tax interception.
If someone works under the table, they have no other reported income
and the "tax" could very likely be eaten up with exemptions and
deductions.

It sounds to me like a good old try at trying to double your money
only making the government pay. I hope Ways and Means can see through
this. It SHOULD never pass unless rewritten significantly. Thus far,
there are ten supporters. I hope they know what they are doing to
their political career. Yes, there are many CPs out there, but there
are also the same number of NCPs as WELL as taxpayers who are not
parents at all.
Beverly

To me, it sounds more like an attempt at "Double Dipping", since the pay
checks of NCP's are already taxed to begin with. From the remainder of that
"after-tax income" C$ is paid out (even though, in a great many states, the
C$ owed is based on PRE-tax income). To go after a person's remaining take
home pay with another "tax" (after having already paid taxes on the total
amount of his take home pay), for C$ no less, is double dipping in my eyes.

And of course, the CP doesn't have to even raise an eyebrow about paying
this new, proposed "tax" - they get never have to worry about paying taxes
on it, it's tax-free money!! The NCP has already paid the taxes for it!
Now there's this b.s. legislation to hit NCP's for more taxes, specifically
on their C$ payments?!?! This is INSANE!!!!

CP's already enjoy the luxury of getting their C$ as additional, tax free
(!), money. Hell, they don't (by law) even get penalized by the IRS when
they report it as "income"!!!! But should an NCP even consider getting a
higher paying job to off-set this new "tax" (or to even get ahead or save
for retirement (now there's a laugh!!)), they get dragged into court,
ordered to pay even MORE in C$ then ever before and told to live with it?!?

It's political bull **** and a horrid, feminazi sham to defame NCP's even
further then they've already managed to get away with.

I say vote the pinheads who are behind this so-called bill out of office and
try them for treason. Bills like this are nothing less then a very blatant
attempt to create a sub-class out of NCP's and worse, if passed, it WILL
create higher crime rates, higher social problems for our children (drug
use, unwed pregnancies (to name only a few)) and it would certainly create
ever higher suicide rates among men (fathers).

These people should be shot for even considering to thrust this garbage upon
us. My God, WTF where these people thinking when this insane mess was
written down and presented for a vote?!?! Run a drug test on them at
once!!!

To allow a custodial parent a refundable credit for unpaid child
support payments and to require a parent who is chronically delinquent
in child support to include the amount of the unpaid obligation in
gross income.

What? Ok, so if you make 20,000 a year and you don't pay 5,000 in child
support, you are taxed at on 25,000, effectively double taxing the
5,000. WTF.

If you make enough to pay 33% of income in taxes then you are paying
66% tax on the unpaid amount!

http://markkennedy.house.gov/kennedy...s/values.shtml

And this moron supports "family values." Defender of traditional
marriage!! LOL

And he is a Republican!

MILLENDER-MCDONALD is a democrat from the People's Republic of
California. NAACP member. Former (perhaps present) Co-Chair of the
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. Translation: Radical Feminist

Isn't it sad that these two are in bed together...

Oh yeah, makes you wonder what in the **** John Kerry was talking about
when he said he would put the "American legal system back on the side
of women."

But I never understood what the **** he was jabbering about anyway...

Giant Douche, Turd Sandwich.

I don't think it will pass because it would cause double
taxation on the payer.

Duh, that is the whole point. Hey, anyone care to guess how
many more votes this new law will buy (or a least keep)?
How about how many mainstream media reports will present
this as a great idea versus those that indentify it as the
further oppression that it is?


That means that the government would be shelling out 85-90%.

I hope that people's lives don't depend on your work product--
like you're not an airline pilot etc. Let's see, all government funding
comes from taxes, the perception is (reality is unimportant in
vote buying) that while women have more money men make
more money and thus pay the most taxes! Especially those
labeled as the evil rich!


On TOP of that, there is no recovery. If the payer subsequently pays,
the NCP cannot deduct the payment (fixing the tax) and the CP owes
back nothing.

Huh?


It SHOULD never pass unless rewritten significantly.

Wasn't that what they said about the Enabling Act?

When has a group been oppressed not by one step
at a time? This is interesting, just as it took a foreign power to
liberate the oppressed people of Iraq from an all-powerful
government would it take an Islamist victory to free the
oppressed here?

"abdd" wrote in

I don't think it will pass because it would cause double
taxation on the payer.

The Government does not have the authority to use taxation as a fine for a
private civil matter.

"Dusty" wrote in

Personally, I don't think it will pass because it would cause double
taxation on the payer. The NCP has presumably already been taxed on
any real income the NCP has.

It's open season on the NCP again, the government thinks it has a free
license to do what ever the hell they like!
Mostly just Political pigs using the backs of NCP's to stage their
polictical career.

Hmmm, doesn't each NCP have about 6 family votes they influence?