Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-19-2013, 03:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 304
shellshocked22 is on a distinguished road
Default

As usual a well thought out reply. Just to give a different spin...

-for higher wage earners, I would suggest 2 or 3 kids would be typical but let's go with 2 or roughly $3,000 per month TAX FREE to recipient of CS.

-I understand you are comparing cost of CS vs. if no recipient parent. Even in that case, with two kids better, strictly economically speaking, to pay roughly $15K for nanny than $36K in CS.

-in most cases, there WILL be spousal support. So of course that can be significant for high wage earner and "stay at home" parent.

-its certainly happened that a single, high wage earner with not a huge amount of assets can die, and have no life insurance leaving family in rough shape. Why doesn't the government MANDATE big life insurance policies if they're so concerned with "good of the child". Again, arguably discriminate against divorced payors vs married.

-while I appreciate your comments, the thrust of my argument was not that payors (typically male) be "excused" from paying child support per se, merely that for those that pay an LARGE amount monthly (ie. in the thousands) that would it not "benefit the child" if at least SOME of that money was automatically directed to say an RESP for the CHILD"s education rather than the recipient foolishly spending much of it on themselves ? Surely no one can argue that there are not many CS recipients who greedlily/foolishly spend the money on themselves and not the child. I'm not saying every penny be accounted for a few hundred dollars but when a recipient is making more on CS than most people EARN with equally large families something isn't right.

I don't expect anything to change - if anything I suspect the system will get progressively worse and more unfair to the higher wage earner. The only "hope" in my opinion is if younger, single folks who have a potential to be a high wage earner, are brought up to speed on the unfair Family Laws and avoid marriage/common law and having kids like the plague ! Only then might there be pressure on the government to stop destroying financially hard working payors for the crime of marrying the wrong person.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-19-2013, 09:49 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

I very much like the idea of not having CS so dependent upon access, smoothed out instead of having a sudden change at the 40% mark that just make everyone fight over access.

What about if CS was an imaginary kitty? Both parents put into the kitty based on their incomes. Both parents draw from the kitty proportional to their access. Adjust both annually or as needed. 50-50 access means each parent draws equally from the kitty. This results in the higher-income earner paying the lower-income earner half offset CS.
SS would be counted as recipient income, not payer income, and it should impute a minimum wage income to a parent who makes less. There could be a cap that the lower earner cant draw out more than their own income. This would hopefully prevent a lower earner from treating CS as a potential sole income source when their ex is a very high income earner.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 06-19-2013, 10:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 304
shellshocked22 is on a distinguished road
Default

Rioe, GREAT concept - you've got my vote !

Sadly it will never be put in place since it's fair and would reduce expensive litigation and never ending court fights. The lawyers (and their lawyer buddies who are temporary politicians) will NEVER allow such a system to be approved since it would (horror of horrors) help ensure that the kids and parents benefit from a hard earned dollar rather than lawyers and the system at large preying upon a family's livelihood.

Don't you realize how expensive fancy downtown law offices, high end lunches and cars cost these days lol ? We need to keep the "best interests of the lawyers and the system" in mind !!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2013, 12:30 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 353
SingingDad is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm surprised that this thread got resurected...

Quote:
Originally Posted by shellshocked22 View Post
Rioe, GREAT concept - you've got my vote !

Sadly it will never be put in place since it's fair and would reduce expensive litigation and never ending court fights. The lawyers (and their lawyer buddies who are temporary politicians) will NEVER allow such a system to be approved since it would (horror of horrors) help ensure that the kids and parents benefit from a hard earned dollar rather than lawyers and the system at large preying upon a family's livelihood.

Don't you realize how expensive fancy downtown law offices, high end lunches and cars cost these days lol ? We need to keep the "best interests of the lawyers and the system" in mind !!!!!!!
I agree and that is what I was trying to accomplish with this model this is and I will post my most up to date version as soon as I can (not that it means much, but it shows how support could work in an alternate system)....

If you look at Australia (one of the more socially progressive countries in the world in my opinion) they do exactly that. In fact they also respect that older children require more support, children of second families require support, and that even at minimal access a parent requires money to support their children.

To clarify a couple of points about our current support model:

-the equivalence scale (StatsCan 40/30) is arbitrary and while it was developed in part through one of the precursors of StatsCan's Survey on Household Spending (SHS) it is not actually representative of actual economic data. While I won't go into detail the documentation relating to the development of the tables clearly shows that the 40/30 scale is inline with other equivalence scales that include parental spending that is considered special and extraordinary by the guidelines

-While the reference point for the tables in Gross income, the model estimates an after tax amount (only basic deductions assumed) and gives each parent a personal reserve amount (in Ontario it is currently $10,820). So in effect it is not based on Gross income.

-The model has a number of erroneous assumptions, namely:.
1) that the support recipient has an equal income to support the child. Depending on the situation this either overestimates or underestimates the income available to support the children

2) Acknowledges that to increase the standard of life of the children the standard of life of the other parent must also be raised (very true and I'm not debating this point), but but ignores the effect of government transfers received for the children claiming these amounts are "not available" to the recipient. If support payments from a parent increase the standard of living for both children and parent so do government transfers. Unfortunately amounts such as CCTB and UCCB and GST credits are omitted from the calculation.

3) Assumes that a parent paying the full table amount pays $0 directly on their children. No increased housing cost, household maintenance, furniture, transportation, food, clothing etc... not even Birthday or Christmas gifts. It literally assumes that that parent is a single individual with only the expenses of single individual
I could go on, but I need to get to bed....

Last edited by SingingDad; 06-20-2013 at 12:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I may have just stepped on my dick (Amending SA) Gary M Divorce & Family Law 19 03-21-2012 08:19 PM
Who is responsible for Child Support momof3 Divorce & Family Law 16 05-12-2011 11:20 AM
Please allow me to introduce myself... with the usual questions on Custody, CS, SS... samej Introductions 14 04-20-2011 01:43 PM
Spousal Equivalent for CRA Cobourg Divorce & Family Law 21 01-14-2010 07:43 AM
How to find out if there is a Child support order filed against someone? itsmeagain Financial Issues 0 12-17-2009 04:26 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:51 AM.