US Child Support system?
Forums:
Just curious as to how the US system works for CS.
Over here in Australia, one things that pisses me off greatly is that the assess child support payable on your gross income (before tx), but you pay out of your net income (after tax)!! They claim ti is to stop self-emolpyed people or people with lots of deductions lowering there income, but bloody hell - we pay astronimical tax and are then expected to pay CS out of the amount left?? So glad we don't pay CS anymore (DH's daughter is over 18 now), but it was always a bugbear of mine.
One good/bad thing in the
One good/bad thing in the U.S. is each state has rights to set their own rules and Child Support is one of those things.
Works same here we pay taxes
Works same here we pay taxes on it and then send to BM it's bs
If the couple supporting the
If the couple supporting the child were still together, the money would still get taxed before being spent on the child. I understand there are issues with who should get to claim the child for the tax deductions, etc. but as far as money spent "on the kid" it is the same either way. The difference is that you don't actually "get to" spend the money...it is handed over to someone who does what they want to with it. I think that is the suckiest part of cs. In my state, the tax benefits of the cp are factored in when determining cs.
While I agree that the money
While I agree that the money would get taxes before being spent on a child if they were still together, the tax deductions/credits, etc. would be for THE FAMILY...not the CP to use as she pleases. In addition, there's a huge difference when you have to pay a specific amount, which is usually much more than you would spend on the child if you were still living together. Also, if the couple was STILL together, the COUPLE would have LESS money than if they are apart. Because CS is not counted towards EIC, the CP usually gets that which they would not qualify for if they were still married.
That's a generalization to
That's a generalization to say that child support is more than you would have spent on the child if the parents were together.
We are on the recieving end of child support (if they ever paid), and neither bm's child support comes anywhere close to half of what it cost us a month to raise these kids. One only owes 220 a month, and the other was ordered to pay 250 a month. When afterschool care alone is 70 dollars a week, then factor in food, clothing, transportation cost to school and back, entertainement SfT.....then account for the extra rent/mortgage because they take up two bedrooms..... The noncustodial makes out like a bandit.
THIS DF only pays $90 a week
THIS
DF only pays $90 a week for 2 kids. As much as I hate BM, it drives me nuts when I hear DF bitch about CS.
Yes, CS figured by the NCP's
Yes, CS figured by the NCP's gross earnings, (includes any overtime as well), and paid from net wages. And in our lovely state, CS is paid through age 21! Imagine that, paying an ADULT a monthly stipend for doing a whole lot of nothing. All SD has to do is maintain part-time school enrollment. Nothing breeds co-dependancy like state enforced entitlement! We also have to provide health insurance, and 1/2 of any out-of-pocket medical expenses. BM is not required to contribute ANYTHING. :jawdrop:
OMG!! I cannot believe that!
OMG!! I cannot believe that! Thank god it stops at 18 here, the custodial parent can apply for it to go longer if the child is still in school, but 21??? :jawdrop:
Omg 21 I will never complain
Omg 21 I will never complain again
My mom and I signed away all
My mom and I signed away all CS as my dad never paid anyways and his 2nd wife was trying to throw him under the bus for it so she could get more out of the divorce....
But in the papers it stated as long as I was a full-time student or developing my life with a degree he had to pay until I was 25. If I wasn't in school it would have stopped at 18.
Yes. Although generally the
Yes. Although generally the NCP is so tired of the BM's involvement in things that they can apply to have the CS sent directly to the child. It counts as income for SD though, so she'll likely get less financial aid because of it. Pretty dumb, all the way around. It truly feels like a life sentence. CS is important for making a child's life equitably provided for by both parents. I'm sure there are exceptions, but in our case, paying "adult" SD, just because her parents aren't together (in this case never even married) is enabling and financing her child-like, tantrum-throwing behavior to go on longer. I so hope that I never hear the words "you've never done anything for me!" out of her mouth again. God knows we won't be able to do more than send CS while she's in college, because frankly, we're not even sure where we're going to find the money to do THAT.
Texas uses NET income, which
Texas uses NET income, which means they must deduct both Federal and STATE income tax from your gross...however, because Texas does NOT have a state income tax, if the NCP lives in a state where there IS STATE INCOME TAX, that NCP needs to make sure that the idiots at Texas CSE actually deduct this from gross...if you don't tell them to deduct it, they normally just use the tax tables for federal income tax ONLY that were supplied to them by the AGs office, which means the NCP gets screwed!
My DH originally had his CS with just the federal income tax deducted from NET and then we moved out of the country...When we went back to court, the idiots wanted to just deduct the FEDERAL income taxes to come up with his Net, but because I had read the law and calculated to the PENNY the state income taxes, DH was ready with the website, calculations, etc. completed for the morons...AND THE LAW printed from the TX legislature...then they actually did it right.