Michigan CS 1 Child Reality Math for Poor Folks

Some reality math.

Two parents, mother with child, each parent makes minimum wage. 9,470
each after taxes. Assuming head files head of household she has 9628. I
will not assume this below.

CS=2472

Father gets 6,998 a year, thats 583 bucks a month.

Mother gets 11,942 a year, thats 995 bucks a month.

The difference, assuming mother is not head of household and earned
income credits do not apply etc, is 4,944 a year. I am sure she will
qualify for some welfare programs too.

Guess what, they are both poor. This is where the deadbeats are. Paying
around a quarter of your take home income out in CS is just not
feasible for most low income NCP's.

Supporting one household on two minimum wage jobs is barely possible.
Supporting two househols on two minimum wage jobs is impossible.

Also, it gets insanely stupid when both parents are rich. One guy make
100,000 a year would pay what around 6-7 of these poor guys would. One
celebrity paying 10,000 a month is like 50 of these guys. I wonder if
these rich guys payments go through the system so the federal govt can
pay the states to collect CS from Sean Combs or Tom Cruise or whoever.


Poverty is the problem, not deadbeats. CS collection will not lower
taxes, because the federal government is using your money to pay for
the collection of CS from people who cannot pay. Its silly.

wrote in

Poverty is the problem, not deadbeats.

Mike Cox says, "pay the kids or go to jail!".

Remember, it's all for the best of the child.

Rich people will always have their say over what poor people will do.

G wrote:
wrote in

Poverty is the problem, not deadbeats.

Mike Cox says, "pay the kids or go to jail!".

Remember, it's all for the best of the child.

Rich people will always have their say over what poor people will do.

True, but certain improvements have been made. Indentured servitude was
a form of this type of oppression...

I agree janderson that alot of the time CS not being paid ontime is
due to not having the funds in order to pay it. And that the vast
majority of NCP's out there want to support their children.

And I also agree the system needs to be changed. There needs to be
lines drawn in the sand the courts can follow. Rules that will put
everyone on the same playing feild.

Once again I offer up the idea of paying no more then 30% of your
gross salary (Take Home Pay). Or better suggestion, being forced to
pay no more then 30% by the courts. And before thise 30% is reached,
as all NCP's make different amounts of money there needs to be markers.

Example. If an NCP grosses only 1000 per month expecting them to pay
300 would be outragous as they could not affoard to live. I would say
a max of 50, or 5% at that level.

And if you make a little more then you raise then so does your CS. To
a max of 30% Anything the NCP wishes to spend beyond that is by their
own means. And they can choose to do so, without worry that their ex
will come ofter them for more money. A rule such as this would stops
say a NCP buying their kid an expensive bike because they happen to get
a christmas bonus, and want to share the wealth with their child.

And then the ex figures if they can affoard that 1 month, they can
affoard that every month.

Also upon losing income due to no fault of their own the NCP should
be able to, upon providing proof, be able to apply for short amnesty.
Not sure how long. I randomly said 3 months, but after reading some of
the other post maybe 5 would be better.

If after this amnesty period is up you cannot make the same level of
CS payments you were before you should be allowed to argue your case in
front of judge. A system should be set up to allow the courts to track
your progress in job search to prove the NCP has just not been sitting
on their ass because they didn't want to work.

If you have been honestly been looking for a job, and are only able
to find one that is currently paying 60% of what you were making before
in the same town. Then your CS payments should be ordered lower.

Also when CS are set up they should be legislated for 2 years at a
time. Every 2 years the CP may apply for an increase in CS. And the
NCP should be allowed to provide evidence one way or the other.

I understand fully right now, for the vast majority this is not the
way it works. And I'm sure people on this Newsgroup will be able to
provide example after example of how what I'm saying isn't how it
works.

So before you all start calling me some moron, let me say, these are
just ideas as to how to correct the problem, and benefit both parties.
Everyone gets something. CP get the child support to help raise their
child, and NCP gets to have a decent living while trying to support
their child.

One of the reasons a country like USA, and Canada, Britian, France..
democracies around the world work is because we have Laws. We have
laws that all people no matter race, gender, income level, whatever
must adhere to. And if you draw the line in the sand then everyone is
brought to same level, and are dictated by the same laws.

And when your judge equal to the guy next to you, there really isn't
anything you can bitch about.

SpiderHam77

SpiderHam77 wrote:
I agree janderson that alot of the time CS not being paid ontime is
due to not having the funds in order to pay it. And that the vast
majority of NCP's out there want to support their children.

And I also agree the system needs to be changed. There needs to be
lines drawn in the sand the courts can follow. Rules that will put
everyone on the same playing feild.

Once again I offer up the idea of paying no more then 30% of your
gross salary (Take Home Pay). Or better suggestion, being forced to
pay no more then 30% by the courts. And before thise 30% is reached,
as all NCP's make different amounts of money there needs to be markers.

Example. If an NCP grosses only 1000 per month expecting them to pay
300 would be outragous as they could not affoard to live. I would say
a max of 50, or 5% at that level.

And if you make a little more then you raise then so does your CS. To
a max of 30% Anything the NCP wishes to spend beyond that is by their
own means. And they can choose to do so, without worry that their ex
will come ofter them for more money. A rule such as this would stops
say a NCP buying their kid an expensive bike because they happen to get
a christmas bonus, and want to share the wealth with their child.

And then the ex figures if they can affoard that 1 month, they can
affoard that every month.

Also upon losing income due to no fault of their own the NCP should
be able to, upon providing proof, be able to apply for short amnesty.
Not sure how long. I randomly said 3 months, but after reading some of
the other post maybe 5 would be better.

If after this amnesty period is up you cannot make the same level of
CS payments you were before you should be allowed to argue your case in
front of judge. A system should be set up to allow the courts to track
your progress in job search to prove the NCP has just not been sitting
on their ass because they didn't want to work.

If you have been honestly been looking for a job, and are only able
to find one that is currently paying 60% of what you were making before
in the same town. Then your CS payments should be ordered lower.

Also when CS are set up they should be legislated for 2 years at a
time. Every 2 years the CP may apply for an increase in CS. And the
NCP should be allowed to provide evidence one way or the other.

I understand fully right now, for the vast majority this is not the
way it works. And I'm sure people on this Newsgroup will be able to
provide example after example of how what I'm saying isn't how it
works.

So before you all start calling me some moron, let me say, these are
just ideas as to how to correct the problem, and benefit both parties.
Everyone gets something. CP get the child support to help raise their
child, and NCP gets to have a decent living while trying to support
their child.

One of the reasons a country like USA, and Canada, Britian, France..
democracies around the world work is because we have Laws. We have
laws that all people no matter race, gender, income level, whatever
must adhere to. And if you draw the line in the sand then everyone is
brought to same level, and are dictated by the same laws.

And when your judge equal to the guy next to you, there really isn't
anything you can bitch about.

SpiderHam77

I think people are judged fairly equally now. The problem is the
harshness of the current system. You present some good ideas, I
personally think there should be a living allowance of some amount a
cap on CS of under 1000 a month (at most) no matter what your income.

wrote:

SpiderHam77 wrote:

I agree janderson that alot of the time CS not being paid ontime is
due to not having the funds in order to pay it. And that the vast
majority of NCP's out there want to support their children.

And I also agree the system needs to be changed. There needs to be
lines drawn in the sand the courts can follow. Rules that will put
everyone on the same playing feild.

Once again I offer up the idea of paying no more then 30% of your
gross salary (Take Home Pay). Or better suggestion, being forced to
pay no more then 30% by the courts. And before thise 30% is reached,
as all NCP's make different amounts of money there needs to be markers.

Example. If an NCP grosses only 1000 per month expecting them to pay
300 would be outragous as they could not affoard to live. I would say
a max of 50, or 5% at that level.

And if you make a little more then you raise then so does your CS. To
a max of 30% Anything the NCP wishes to spend beyond that is by their
own means. And they can choose to do so, without worry that their ex
will come ofter them for more money. A rule such as this would stops
say a NCP buying their kid an expensive bike because they happen to get
a christmas bonus, and want to share the wealth with their child.

And then the ex figures if they can affoard that 1 month, they can
affoard that every month.

Also upon losing income due to no fault of their own the NCP should
be able to, upon providing proof, be able to apply for short amnesty.
Not sure how long. I randomly said 3 months, but after reading some of
the other post maybe 5 would be better.

If after this amnesty period is up you cannot make the same level of
CS payments you were before you should be allowed to argue your case in
front of judge. A system should be set up to allow the courts to track
your progress in job search to prove the NCP has just not been sitting
on their ass because they didn't want to work.

If you have been honestly been looking for a job, and are only able
to find one that is currently paying 60% of what you were making before
in the same town. Then your CS payments should be ordered lower.

Also when CS are set up they should be legislated for 2 years at a
time. Every 2 years the CP may apply for an increase in CS. And the
NCP should be allowed to provide evidence one way or the other.

I understand fully right now, for the vast majority this is not the
way it works. And I'm sure people on this Newsgroup will be able to
provide example after example of how what I'm saying isn't how it
works.

So before you all start calling me some moron, let me say, these are
just ideas as to how to correct the problem, and benefit both parties.
Everyone gets something. CP get the child support to help raise their
child, and NCP gets to have a decent living while trying to support
their child.

One of the reasons a country like USA, and Canada, Britian, France..
democracies around the world work is because we have Laws. We have
laws that all people no matter race, gender, income level, whatever
must adhere to. And if you draw the line in the sand then everyone is
brought to same level, and are dictated by the same laws.

And when your judge equal to the guy next to you, there really isn't
anything you can bitch about.

SpiderHam77


I think people are judged fairly equally now. The problem is the
harshness of the current system. You present some good ideas, I
personally think there should be a living allowance of some amount a
cap on CS of under 1000 a month (at most) no matter what your income.

This is where the government and feminists USED to diverge. Government
just wanted to make sure NCPs paid enough to make up for the losses to
government through Welfare programs. Feminists, of course, wanted as
much $$$ to be transferred from men to women as possible.

What happened when the Clinton administration set up federal
"incentives" in the form of money to states for every dollar of CS
collected was that they put the government much more in line with the
feminists in terms of what they wanted. Feminists want to see men pay
women as much money as possible, and the government (because of
financial incentives) now wants to make sure that SOMEONE is paying
SOMEONE ELSE as much money as possible, because they profit from it.

It is a system that is spinning out of control, and in years to come it
will probably correct itself as enough horror stories crop up to the
point where they can't be ignored any longer. As usual, change will
probably come about when the system stupidly and short-sightedly pursues
and abuses people who actually have the power to make real changes
(state governors and/or their immediate families, for example).
Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to have to suffer before things
get righted. As it stands, no one wants to hear that NCP fathers suffer
at all -- they're fatherscum deadbeats, remember?

- Ron ^*^

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree janderson that alot of the time CS not being paid ontime is
due to not having the funds in order to pay it. And that the vast
majority of NCP's out there want to support their children.

And I also agree the system needs to be changed. There needs to be
lines drawn in the sand the courts can follow. Rules that will put
everyone on the same playing feild.

Once again I offer up the idea of paying no more then 30% of your
gross salary (Take Home Pay). Or better suggestion, being forced to
pay no more then 30% by the courts. And before thise 30% is reached,
as all NCP's make different amounts of money there needs to be markers.

Example. If an NCP grosses only 1000 per month expecting them to pay
300 would be outragous as they could not affoard to live. I would say
a max of 50, or 5% at that level.

And how does 50 a month really help pay for anything?? My ex-wife pays 195 a
month for 3 kids and I can tell you that the cost of adding them to my
insurance alone costs me $170 of that. Now you take into account all 3 are
teenagers!! they eat like there is no tomorrow to come back for more. I had
to court actually lower the initial child support from $265 to the 195 with
the understanding that she would help with other expenses - well she hasn't
and I am back taking her to court again! and yeah she quit her 2nd job just
to avoid paying anymore (she was earning around 550 a week at both) - she
was working 36 hrs at one and 25 at the other, and its not that she cant
find a full time job she wont take one as a few have been offered to her.
on top of that she dropped the kids off her court ordered health insurance-
what irritated me was she never told me and I went to use the insurance and
it was declined - had I known I could have got cobra from my prior employer
prior to changing jobs this caused me to incur a bill if I had known about
the insurance no longer be in effect I could have dealt with another way.

my income = 50-52k/yr hers (was) 28-30k/yr
and she never told the court about the 2nd job which was supposed to be
imputed in the child support formula as well.
Our incomes are NOT that far apart and the division of financial
responsibility sucks

We separated 5 yrs ago - divorce was final April of 2005, she has been by to
see the children I believe maybe 7 or 8 times in the span! and not since
July 15th of this year. Some parents are just natural dead beats.

Well I have gotten to the point of telling her either she step up to the
plate and be a responsible parent or SIGN off the kids and allow my wife to
adopt them.
Come next October my wife is going to adopt my oldest any how (on her 18th
bday without having to get consent from my ex she will only get notice that
its been done!!)

just venting
Robert

And if you make a little more then you raise then so does your CS. To
a max of 30% Anything the NCP wishes to spend beyond that is by their
own means. And they can choose to do so, without worry that their ex
will come ofter them for more money. A rule such as this would stops
say a NCP buying their kid an expensive bike because they happen to get
a christmas bonus, and want to share the wealth with their child.

And then the ex figures if they can affoard that 1 month, they can
affoard that every month.

Also upon losing income due to no fault of their own the NCP should
be able to, upon providing proof, be able to apply for short amnesty.
Not sure how long. I randomly said 3 months, but after reading some of
the other post maybe 5 would be better.

If after this amnesty period is up you cannot make the same level of
CS payments you were before you should be allowed to argue your case in
front of judge. A system should be set up to allow the courts to track
your progress in job search to prove the NCP has just not been sitting
on their ass because they didn't want to work.

If you have been honestly been looking for a job, and are only able
to find one that is currently paying 60% of what you were making before
in the same town. Then your CS payments should be ordered lower.

Also when CS are set up they should be legislated for 2 years at a
time. Every 2 years the CP may apply for an increase in CS. And the
NCP should be allowed to provide evidence one way or the other.

I understand fully right now, for the vast majority this is not the
way it works. And I'm sure people on this Newsgroup will be able to
provide example after example of how what I'm saying isn't how it
works.

So before you all start calling me some moron, let me say, these are
just ideas as to how to correct the problem, and benefit both parties.
Everyone gets something. CP get the child support to help raise their
child, and NCP gets to have a decent living while trying to support
their child.

One of the reasons a country like USA, and Canada, Britian, France..
democracies around the world work is because we have Laws. We have
laws that all people no matter race, gender, income level, whatever
must adhere to. And if you draw the line in the sand then everyone is
brought to same level, and are dictated by the same laws.

And when your judge equal to the guy next to you, there really isn't
anything you can bitch about.

SpiderHam77