What your angle?

It’s 2022.

That is from 2012

You really had to dig

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?

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.”

Not the same person.

But by the way...

It is well documented that only 5% of all divorces ever see a courtroom. I am not making it up.

In fact, the vast majority of all divorce cases (more than 95 percent) reach an out-of-court settlement agreement. “Litigation” is a legal term meaning 'carrying out a lawsuit.'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2012/04/24/the-four-divorce-alternatives/?sh=2be7a02720ae

You can literally see this same stat cited everywhere. My attorney told me as well as almost every divorce statistic article there is. People have a huge misconception about how divorces happen. Most do not see a judge in a courtroom. It is usually signing a lot of paperwork that is agreed upon in some way.

Yeah, “courts don’t look favorably” is code for let’s fight that at a county court hearing.

My lawyer would file the motion then have the phone call. It was for positioning purposes. It led us to court. Nearly every time. A lot more than I would have liked. Results were always the same or similar, with a dash of backlash.

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?

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.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s probably taking the job for other reasons and talking about child support was just to be nasty and deflect from the real reasons.

No one in their right mind would do this. What other reasons would someone go backward in pay on purpose. Ridiculous.

It could be that whatever is making the marriage impossible also caused a problem at work, forcing a less than ideal job switch.

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.

Anonymous wrote:He’s probably taking the job for other reasons and talking about child support was just to be nasty and deflect from the real reasons.

No one in their right mind would do this. What other reasons would someone go backward in pay on purpose. Ridiculous.

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?

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.

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.

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.

He’s probably taking the job for other reasons and talking about child support was just to be nasty and deflect from the real reasons.

I knew someone who gave up his job and went on state benefits to avoid paying child support for his 3 kids. This was 30years ago………

These attorneys offer short-term advice because they may “win” for their client out of the gate— while also prolonging the conflict (and their fees over years). They really don’t care how you do once they leave your sight. Compare this with other services.

Here is a common sense idea: Most people know when things are fair. They fight things are are unfair. They actually dig in. If you would not like it done to you, then don’t do it.