Reply to Is one parent remarrying sufficient to trigger "change in circumstance" so as to change custody ?

Forum Index » Parenting -- Special Concerns

Reply to "Is one parent remarrying sufficient to trigger "change in circumstance" so as to change custody ?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes, you would be surprised how many women want custody for child support and in most cases, even 1/2 of it is not used on the kid. This is a known fact based on various different levels of research. Can't deny it. [/quote]

The average child support payment in this country is $430.  So, you are saying that most women receiving child support are spending less than $215 a month on food, housing, clothing, childcare and all of the other expenses you have with a kid?
[/quote]

The average for the country is incorrect way of looking at it. If someone is paying $430 then they would only be making $30-40K and imagine paying CS on that. In DC area, it's pretty common to see $2K+ as CS which is not even deductible in anyway. You also forgot the spousal support some spouses get and according to facts, it's mostly from men to women.

I remember, my poor handyman in a small town in SW VA was $1300 for his 2 kids. He had difficulty making ends meet but his wife with minimum paying job got her 3rd new car in 5th year. I wonder how much of that is going towards the kids. [/quote]

Why should it be deductible? I can’t deduct the expense of raising kids either.[/quote]

The person receiving the money should pay taxes on it.  [/quote]

Why? The taxes have already been paid, presumably at a higher rate, by the payor.[/quote]

Spousal tax deduction is no longer allowed and CS was never included in the taxes anyway. There has to be some accountability on where all the money meant for kids is going though. [/quote]

Yes I know. But that has nothing to do with the claim that the person receiving the money should pay tax on it. I asked why since the taxes have already been paid.

Tax has nothing to do with accountability and [i]recipients are not required to account for how the money is spent[/i][b]. It doesn’t work that way.[/quote]

I will never understand this.

What, exactly, is the reason that recipients don't have to account for the $$? Seems like a system ripe for abuse, to me. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics