Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Jun 17, 2024, 01:23:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Back Child Support

Started by concerned_stepmom, Sep 17, 2007, 02:26:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


>The more money you make, the more CSE you get to pay.  In
>example, if my fiance works an hour of OT, his ex gets 28.9%
>of that money, for CS and alimony...and of course, it gets
>taxed at a higher rate. Keep in mind, this man owes NO
>arrears. If he did, more money would not mean paying off the
>arrears quicker...not a chance. More money would equal more
>base CS and arrears would be paid off at about 20% of the
>total child support order.

Of course. The more money you make, the more CSE takes. No one ever said otherwise.

But CSE does not get to keep ALL the increase in pay. Basically, if you earn $1,000 more, they can't take more than about half of it - so half of your earnings go to support your kid(s) and you keep half.

> If a child lived and was supported on $500 a month, why would
>they need the extra money the poor guy made in OT?  

Maybe because $500 per month might supply the basics, but there are things that you can't afford on $500 per month but you might be able to afford on $600 per month?

>Where did you get the idea that the more you make, the better
>off the kids would be?  Seems absurd.

The concept is simple. The more money there is to support the kids, the better off they are (everything else being equal). If they don't need it for current needs, then the money could be invested for college.

What seems absurd is your inability to understand that kids need to be supported - and if it's possible to support them at above the minimum level, that can be beneficial to them.


giving out a lot of misinformation, as well as passing judgment on people you know little to nothing about.

Kids are not better off because they get more money from the NCP.  Kids are better off when two parents can work together and raise their kids.  Money should be secondary to actual involvement of both parents with their children.

Some NCP's work hard to pay their support orders and some don't.  But suggesting a second job to get them to pay, sets the NCP up for paying a higher base order, that's all.  This is why so many won't work OT or a second job. They are barely making it on what's left after a garnishment order, so unless it's under the table, why bother?

If everything was equal, this board wouldn't have a reason to exist.



EVERYONE who posts here gives out information and comments on people they know nothing about.

And I'm terribly sorry to point it out to you, but why does money interfere with visiting the kids? Is there some rule that if the father pays his debt that he is somehow unable to see the kids?

You have managed to come up with some really strange rationalizations on why someone shouldn't support his kids.