Divorce? Is this cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[Anonymous]

If he makes $200 and gives her 25%, he now has $150 for himself.

But if he’s making $100 and gives her say, only 5%, he now has only $95 for himself.

If it’s logical and I’m wrong, can anyone explain?

It’s not about the money. Yes, he should be supporting his kids. But cutting a check every month to his exwife is tough if, for instance, she’s out there dating. Subsidize that no good so and so while she’s dating other men? No damn way. It’s that other guy’s job to support her now, not mine. I’d rather rot in jail than be used as her ATM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His expenses at 95 with only a 5% contribution have already been lowered by at least 60% simply because he could go live in a studio if he wanted to.

So no - its financially savvy if a dick move.

How can he go live in a studio when he has kids? Where will they sleep when they are with him?

Millions of American children will sleep tonight in efficiency and one-bedroom apartments. It's very common.

Over a billion children will sleep that way around the world tonight. And some of those children will grow up to be doctors and scientists and leaders.

Seriously. Check your privilege, PP.

These kids are not typically the children of parents with at least one of them making $100,000-$200,000 per year, which were the numbers given. Even in this relatively HCOL area, people provide better for their kids.

Washington DC is a high cost of living area, but tonight in DC, PG County, and Montgomery County there are easily 100,000 children who will be sharing rooms in an apartment. A friend's relatives are immigrants from Latin America and they have three adults and three children sharing a 1-BR in Gaithersburg. In houses not far from me there are a dozen adults and children sharing 3 BRs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s logical and I’m the idiot. A friend’s plan:

Husband makes more than wife. They are divorcing, two kids. He’s in the process of changing jobs. He will be taking a hefty pay cut, his reasoning for doing this is so he won’t have to pay as much in child support.

To me, this seems stupid and like the real loser in this is, not only his kids, but himself!

If he makes $200 and gives her 25%, he now has $150 for himself.

But if he’s making $100 and gives her say, only 5%, he now has only $95 for himself.

If it’s logical and I’m wrong, can anyone explain?

I posted and don’t know what house talking about.

Voluntary impoverishment is not viewed kindly by the courts. This is what it sounds like this is the intent. The spouse who does this can have his income imputed for intentionally earning less. He would then need to pay as if he was making the higher pay and she may get paid the amount he would have paid if his income stayed the same.

You seem to know a lot. Is this the same person who wrote 95% of all divorces are paperwork? This doesn’t sound like “paperwork.”

I posted this and have no idea what you’re talking about. My ex spouses salary dropped from 6 figures to 5, and I have lived this.