JPC, Rapper "50 Cent" Needs your help...

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by This_person

Because the link was bylined in NY state, I went to the NY state Division of Child Support Enforcement web site. They listed three types of non-custodial parent obligations: Normal, Self-Support Reserve (those with net incomes of $8,981 to $12,123), and Poverty (net income less than $8,981). The guideline for a single child in NY is 17%. They list no other rules, but clearly they refer to the 17% as a "guildeline" for a reason, leaving it up to the parents and courts.

Look at the law, not a training slide.

(3) Where the combined parental income exceeds the dollar amount set forth in subparagraph two of this paragraph, the court shall determine the amount of child support for the amount of the combined parental income in excess of such dollar amount through consideration of the factors set forth in paragraph (f) of this subdivision and/or the child support percentage.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Ponytail

The parents, BOTH parents, are the ones that are SUPPOSED to suffer,

This does get thrown out of whack and used by the bitter half (yes, I said bitter) to make the other one suffer.

, the courts generally attempt to make that individual straighten up and essentially finally take some responsibility and get a job and keep it, hence the seemingly large amount of child support ordered to pay by the said scumbag claiming to be poor.

This is as I have been saying that it is just parenting police.

It is not to provide for children but only to hurt or punish the parents.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by MMDad

Look at the law, not a training slide.

I agree, I should have pulled the law. That's why I made the "guideline" comment.

Once you looked at the law, what does it say in the paragraph referenced?

[Ponytail]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

This is as I have been saying that it is just parenting police.

It is not to provide for children but only to hurt or punish the parents.

No, it is not what you have been saying. For if it were, you would be agreeing with the law.

Good luck in your quest to help Fitty. Your help is not needed or wanted anyplace else, 'cept where you belong...back in jail.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

This is as I have been saying that it is just parenting police.

It is not to provide for children but only to hurt or punish the parents.

Originally Posted by Ponytail

Regardless of what income the parents make, Child support is usually granted such that the child is able to live at the same level of economic comfort post-divorce as they would pre-divorce as to keep the child OUT of the reasons for divorce, and as a pawn after the divorce. ...for it is NOT the childs fault that the marriage did not succeed.

Jimmy, why did you selectively leave this part out of your quoting Ponytail? It seems to contradict what you wrote in response.......

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

How is he being "punished" for paying the same percentage anyone else would have to? Why is it punishment for him to pay even half of the "guideline", which he's not even coming close to? He gets to take more off of his net, because he pays a higher percentage in taxes....why would he not pay at the same percentage rate as the rest of us?

Apparently because he doesn't have to.

If you have a problem with it, take it up with Congress.

[Ponytail]

Originally Posted by This_person

Jimmy, why did you selectively leave this part out of your quoting Ponytail? It seems to contradict what you wrote in response.......

He makes OUR points for us without even realizing it. I'm thankful that he's a STUPID sociopath, otherwise, he'd be dangerous.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Jimmy, why did you selectively leave this part out of your quoting Ponytail? It seems to contradict what you wrote in response.......

If you have some comment on that wording then feel free to do so.

I leave out the parts of little or no value whenever it suits me.

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Ponytail

Regardless of what income the parents make, Child support is usually granted such that the child is able to live at the same level of economic comfort post-divorce as they would pre-divorce as to keep the child OUT of the reasons for divorce, and as a pawn after the divorce. This is the fact that most parents, that are required to pay seemingly enormous amounts of child support, fail to recognize. The parents, BOTH parents, are the ones that are SUPPOSED to suffer, taking a hit in the shorts and a degradation of lifestyle, for the benefit of the child for it is NOT the childs fault that the marriage did not succeed.

This does get thrown out of whack and used by the bitter half (yes, I said bitter) to make the other one suffer. This is where the lawyers can make it ugly normally for both sides.

If the paying parent was a low-life scum bag pre-divorce, the courts generally attempt to make that individual straighten up and essentially finally take some responsibility and get a job and keep it, hence the seemingly large amount of child support ordered to pay by the said scumbag claiming to be poor.

That doesn't cover all low-income/high child support cases, I know. I've seen folks on boths sides of that coin get screwed. But as any lawyer will tell you, paying something is better than paying nothing. Make a case showing that you can't afford to pay it by paying what you can, instead of complaining, running from the law, and paying nothing.

Bingo.

[Poohhunny1605]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

Bingo.

Ok, maybe this is a stupid idea, but the mother claims that $25,000 is not enough to support this child for which the means they live..why not raise it up to like $30,000 or something, let the child live the "life" he is used to living and put an additional per year in an account for the child?

That way the child will always have backup no matter what happens or will have a decent college fund when he decides to go to college and be out on his own. I mean it is "child support" isn't it. Give some of it to the child! Let the child benefit instead of the mother.? Just a thought?