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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
things I wonder about...
"Relayer" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 21, 11:51?am, "Chris" wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "whatamess" wrote in message oups.com... Here are some things I just don't seem to understand. snip 3. If a CP and child in Texas deserve 20% of NCP income and the NCP has another child living with him as well, why doesn't he deserve at least 20% of the NCP income? Why isn't the exact % of income subtracted from the NCPs earnings before child support is calculated? 5. In states where an NCP is forced to support an ADULT, why is it that if they are all about the best interest of a child, they don't base that support upon full deductions for any minor children living with the NCP or any other children of the NCP? Aren't children under 18 "entitled" to support? I would think a child under 18 is more entitled than an ADULT over 18. 6. In states where dental support is also required, how can dental support be a priority over the basic needs of food/shelter and even MEDICAL insurance of a child living with an NCP? 7. If the cost of raising a child would be taken from the estate of an obligor, can someone please tell me if the social security they would also be receiving would be for the CPs vacation or new car? I thougt that's what social security for minor children was...Seems the NCP who has a child living with him is only entitled to social security, but the one not living with him is entitled to support from a dead person as well as social security...How lovely. Everyday I battle these things. If all children are entitled to support (at outrageous amounts) from both their parents, why is it that it only applies to the NCP? Can someone please tell me if I should divorce my husband so that my child has the same rights as his half-sister? Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. My husband found out he had an almost 13 year old daughter when our 2 girls were 7 and 8. He had apparently become a father during a one night stand, and was never told. We married and had children not knowing about this child. When he got sued for support and they proved paternity, they wen after hime big time. He asked about our children, and was told that they were "irrelevant." I could not believe my ears. The justice system of the United States of America considers certain children to be irrelevant! Outrageous! When I asked someone with Child Support Enforcement about the rights of my children, I was told that, if I divorced their father, CSE would get $$ from him for them. IOW, break up the family and you'll get the cash. What a disgusting attitude! How have these scum gained such power? It makes me ill to think about it. I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in their policy. Either children are relevant or they are not. Or are they saying that only children of NOT married parents are relevant. And if so , why? To answer your question, it's by using BIGGER guns....... that's how. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Kids in a second marriage certainly do take a back seat. However, also look at some on the percentages on the guidelines. In Illinois (and I know they are different all over) the first child is 20% of net, if it's two kids, it's 2 kids it's 28%, if it's 3, it's 32%, if it's 4, it's 40%. There is no rhyme or reason to the percentages. If it takes 20% for the first kid, why is it not 60% for the 3rd? ============ The percentages are based on the amount of disposable income intact families report spending on their children. Using your example, that means intact families spend an average of 20% of income on one child and 28% of income on two children. It does not mean the first child costs 20% and the second child only costs an additional 8%. It is more likely one child costs 20% and two children cost 14% each. The CS guideline models take into account a combination of "marginal" and "child only" expenditures. The experts agree some child expenditure models overstate and some understate child rearing expenditures depending on the methodolgy used. And my state selects the understated child rearing costs as the basis for setting the CS guidelines. The basic data behind the CS guidelines is not the problem. The problems occur with all the flim-flam rules that are applied while calculating the amount to be paid. And problems occur because the assumptions behind the guidelines are either hidden or not disclosed in detail preventing anyone from rebutting the guideline amounts based on how their situation varies from the assumptions. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
things I wonder about...
"Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "whatamess" wrote in message ups.com... Here are some things I just don't seem to understand. snip 3. If a CP and child in Texas deserve 20% of NCP income and the NCP has another child living with him as well, why doesn't he deserve at least 20% of the NCP income? Why isn't the exact % of income subtracted from the NCPs earnings before child support is calculated? 5. In states where an NCP is forced to support an ADULT, why is it that if they are all about the best interest of a child, they don't base that support upon full deductions for any minor children living with the NCP or any other children of the NCP? Aren't children under 18 "entitled" to support? I would think a child under 18 is more entitled than an ADULT over 18. 6. In states where dental support is also required, how can dental support be a priority over the basic needs of food/shelter and even MEDICAL insurance of a child living with an NCP? 7. If the cost of raising a child would be taken from the estate of an obligor, can someone please tell me if the social security they would also be receiving would be for the CPs vacation or new car? I thougt that's what social security for minor children was...Seems the NCP who has a child living with him is only entitled to social security, but the one not living with him is entitled to support from a dead person as well as social security...How lovely. Everyday I battle these things. If all children are entitled to support (at outrageous amounts) from both their parents, why is it that it only applies to the NCP? Can someone please tell me if I should divorce my husband so that my child has the same rights as his half-sister? Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. My husband found out he had an almost 13 year old daughter when our 2 girls were 7 and 8. He had apparently become a father during a one night stand, and was never told. We married and had children not knowing about this child. When he got sued for support and they proved paternity, they wen after hime big time. He asked about our children, and was told that they were "irrelevant." I could not believe my ears. The justice system of the United States of America considers certain children to be irrelevant! Outrageous! When I asked someone with Child Support Enforcement about the rights of my children, I was told that, if I divorced their father, CSE would get $$ from him for them. IOW, break up the family and you'll get the cash. What a disgusting attitude! How have these scum gained such power? It makes me ill to think about it. I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in their policy. Either children are relevant or they are not. Or are they saying that only children of NOT married parents are relevant. And if so , why? Because children only become relevant when they are cut loose from their fathers, of course. Then they can go after dad with a bigger club--right? BTW, IF I had take the advice and divorced, I would have gotten less that 1/3 the amount paid for the older child to support my 2 children. Disgusting! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
things I wonder about (Long)
Chris wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message ... whatamess wrote: When I read about "children of a parent" should all share equally their parent's wealth, I agree to a certain extent. That extent is the fact that if they must all share equally in their parent's wealth, they also share the "ups and downs" of it...including, lower salaries. It seems that while my husband got laid off and I paid his child support, the state of Texas, nor the ex, nor the child from his previous marriage thought it was fair for this child to suffer the "lower income" of the father. However, it was fair under the law for OUR son to suffer the lower income of the father. With that said, I have no problem if she wants to share the "ups and downs"...but it's not fair one bit that it's my son and I who sacrificed when he lost his job...the ones who sacrificed putting him through some college courses to be able to get another job, which of course, turns into higher expenses for us as a family, less for OUR son to enjoy...yet once he gets the higher paying job, his daughter gets to reap the benefits of that. Our son didn't have a choice on whether his dad lost his job or not, whether he had more things or not or whether we sacrificed or not...yet his daughter is entitled to a higher standard of living now, and even with his decrease in income, she's still entitled to the higher standard of living from her father's income. With that said, it might be that indeed my son has a nice standard of living, probably close or maybe higher than his daughter because "I FULLY SUPPORT HIM"...This higher standard offered by me is not a "super high rich, extravagant life", no brand name clothes like his half-sister, no vacations every other month, like his half-sister, just a nicer home, in a better neighborhood, because that's where I choose to spend my money...If I were divorced from his dad, he would be doing really well...sad but true. Run the numbers, and get "divorced" on paper if that's really advantageous. This is what this evil system drives people to. One of the reasons my GF and I will not get married is that we don't want my ex getting her claws on her money. I know MANY spiritually married people who will not get "legally" married for the SOLE reason that the government people will rip them off. What a joke that government marriage certificate is! And the marriage certificate was created for the sole purpose of preventing "miscegenation". It's sad how conservatives, who at least pay a sort of lip service to father's rights when they don't think it will hurt them too much at the polls, are so quick to leap up and down and hoot like apes over homosexuals getting pieces of paper from the government certifying something that the government has no real right to certify -- for ANYONE -- in the first place. Keeps them safe from getting mired in any "tar babies" though, doesn't it? - Ron ^*^ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
things I wonder about (Long)
"whatamess" wrote in message ups.com... Actually, we're in the process of figuring out if it's even worth us having anything under "dads" name, because were we live inheritance is automatically given to the children...period. Regardless of what your will says, you can only give 30% to a non-spouse...other than that, it goes to the children. So if my husband passes away, god forbid, we would be forced to keep paying the house so that his daughter and our son can benefit from the profits "equally"...and if I could not pay the house, then I would still be liable for giving them "their share"...period...With a place where the average house is 400K, you can imagine the mess we're in. Yes, that is average...not the upper...many out there for over 900K. Can you say "revocable living trust"? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
things I wonder about...
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "whatamess" wrote in message ups.com... Here are some things I just don't seem to understand. snip 3. If a CP and child in Texas deserve 20% of NCP income and the NCP has another child living with him as well, why doesn't he deserve at least 20% of the NCP income? Why isn't the exact % of income subtracted from the NCPs earnings before child support is calculated? 5. In states where an NCP is forced to support an ADULT, why is it that if they are all about the best interest of a child, they don't base that support upon full deductions for any minor children living with the NCP or any other children of the NCP? Aren't children under 18 "entitled" to support? I would think a child under 18 is more entitled than an ADULT over 18. 6. In states where dental support is also required, how can dental support be a priority over the basic needs of food/shelter and even MEDICAL insurance of a child living with an NCP? 7. If the cost of raising a child would be taken from the estate of an obligor, can someone please tell me if the social security they would also be receiving would be for the CPs vacation or new car? I thougt that's what social security for minor children was...Seems the NCP who has a child living with him is only entitled to social security, but the one not living with him is entitled to support from a dead person as well as social security...How lovely. Everyday I battle these things. If all children are entitled to support (at outrageous amounts) from both their parents, why is it that it only applies to the NCP? Can someone please tell me if I should divorce my husband so that my child has the same rights as his half-sister? Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. My husband found out he had an almost 13 year old daughter when our 2 girls were 7 and 8. He had apparently become a father during a one night stand, and was never told. We married and had children not knowing about this child. When he got sued for support and they proved paternity, they wen after hime big time. He asked about our children, and was told that they were "irrelevant." I could not believe my ears. The justice system of the United States of America considers certain children to be irrelevant! Outrageous! When I asked someone with Child Support Enforcement about the rights of my children, I was told that, if I divorced their father, CSE would get $$ from him for them. IOW, break up the family and you'll get the cash. What a disgusting attitude! How have these scum gained such power? It makes me ill to think about it. I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in their policy. Either children are relevant or they are not. Or are they saying that only children of NOT married parents are relevant. And if so , why? Because children only become relevant when they are cut loose from their fathers, of course. Then they can go after dad with a bigger club--right? BTW, IF I had take the advice and divorced, I would have gotten less that 1/3 the amount paid for the older child to support my 2 children. Disgusting! Which just goes to show you it is not about women and DEFINITELY NOT about children. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
things I wonder about...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Relayer" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 21, 11:51?am, "Chris" wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "whatamess" wrote in message oups.com... Here are some things I just don't seem to understand. snip 3. If a CP and child in Texas deserve 20% of NCP income and the NCP has another child living with him as well, why doesn't he deserve at least 20% of the NCP income? Why isn't the exact % of income subtracted from the NCPs earnings before child support is calculated? 5. In states where an NCP is forced to support an ADULT, why is it that if they are all about the best interest of a child, they don't base that support upon full deductions for any minor children living with the NCP or any other children of the NCP? Aren't children under 18 "entitled" to support? I would think a child under 18 is more entitled than an ADULT over 18. 6. In states where dental support is also required, how can dental support be a priority over the basic needs of food/shelter and even MEDICAL insurance of a child living with an NCP? 7. If the cost of raising a child would be taken from the estate of an obligor, can someone please tell me if the social security they would also be receiving would be for the CPs vacation or new car? I thougt that's what social security for minor children was...Seems the NCP who has a child living with him is only entitled to social security, but the one not living with him is entitled to support from a dead person as well as social security...How lovely. Everyday I battle these things. If all children are entitled to support (at outrageous amounts) from both their parents, why is it that it only applies to the NCP? Can someone please tell me if I should divorce my husband so that my child has the same rights as his half-sister? Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. My husband found out he had an almost 13 year old daughter when our 2 girls were 7 and 8. He had apparently become a father during a one night stand, and was never told. We married and had children not knowing about this child. When he got sued for support and they proved paternity, they wen after hime big time. He asked about our children, and was told that they were "irrelevant." I could not believe my ears. The justice system of the United States of America considers certain children to be irrelevant! Outrageous! When I asked someone with Child Support Enforcement about the rights of my children, I was told that, if I divorced their father, CSE would get $$ from him for them. IOW, break up the family and you'll get the cash. What a disgusting attitude! How have these scum gained such power? It makes me ill to think about it. I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in their policy. Either children are relevant or they are not. Or are they saying that only children of NOT married parents are relevant. And if so , why? To answer your question, it's by using BIGGER guns....... that's how. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Kids in a second marriage certainly do take a back seat. However, also look at some on the percentages on the guidelines. In Illinois (and I know they are different all over) the first child is 20% of net, if it's two kids, it's 2 kids it's 28%, if it's 3, it's 32%, if it's 4, it's 40%. There is no rhyme or reason to the percentages. If it takes 20% for the first kid, why is it not 60% for the 3rd? ============ The percentages are based on the amount of disposable income intact families report spending on their children. Using your example, that means intact families spend an average of 20% of income on one child and 28% of income on two children. It does not mean the first child costs 20% and the second child only costs an additional 8%. It is more likely one child costs 20% and two children cost 14% each. The CS guideline models take into account a combination of "marginal" and "child only" expenditures. The experts agree some child expenditure models overstate and some understate child rearing expenditures depending on the methodolgy used. And my state selects the understated child rearing costs as the basis for setting the CS guidelines. The basic data behind the CS guidelines is not the problem. The problems occur with all the flim-flam rules that are applied while calculating the amount to be paid. And problems occur because the assumptions behind the guidelines are either hidden or not disclosed in detail preventing anyone from rebutting the guideline amounts based on how their situation varies from the assumptions. Which is all the MORE reason for these government people to keep their noses out of parents' personal financial affairs! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
things I wonder about...
"Relayer" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 21, 3:41?pm, "Gini" wrote: "Relayer"wrote ...................... Kids in a second marriage certainly do take a back seat. However, also look at some on the percentages on the guidelines. In Illinois (and I know they are different all over) the first child is 20% of net, if it's two kids, it's 2 kids it's 28%, if it's 3, it's 32%, if it's 4, it's 40%. There is no rhyme or reason to the percentages. If it takes 20% for the first kid, why is it not 60% for the 3rd? == Because of merged common costs. ok, let's look at this. the cost is increased 40% going from one child to two. Going from 2 children to 3, the cost are increased 14.28%. Going from 3 kids to 4 the cost is increased 25%. Going from 4 kids to 5 the cost is increased 12.5% going from 5 kids to 6 the cost is increased 11.11%. No, mergged costing would remain consistent and never go up, as it does such as going from 3 to 4 kids. In addition, yes, there would prehaps be a cost savings as far as kids sharing a room (assuming 2-3 kids per room). However, grocery stores, supermarkets, clothing stores, utilities or schools do NOT give quantity discounts. You cost per item simply does not go down based upon how much you buy. Or use (in the case of electricity or cable) or how many kids you have in school. I'm not saying thhe overall percentage is right or wrong, but the increases should be flat lined. I've got a better idea. How about if the parents decide for themselves how much, if any, money they want to spend on their children and then the government control freaks can go play marbles on the freeway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I could be (and other things) | Anne Rogers | Pregnancy | 1 | September 27th 04 12:44 AM |
Getting into Things at 4....Help! | Andrea | Twins & Triplets | 5 | August 26th 04 11:59 PM |
What are some things that you | Christine | Pregnancy | 11 | April 16th 04 05:41 PM |
Two things... | Shunaari | Breastfeeding | 17 | September 1st 03 05:59 PM |
When things go too far | Wendy Marsden | General | 11 | July 20th 03 06:08 PM |