Weird...

[Werebat]

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.

[Leslie]

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.

[Leslie]

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.

[VJ]

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.

[VJ]

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.

[B]

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.

[B]

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.

[Cameron Stevens]

"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

[Cameron Stevens]

"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