Joint Effort to Change Table Amounts of CS

[representingself]

Originally Posted by got2bkid

Let's be honest, it is mostly men that pay, and most men pay-up and shut-up. The feminists who engineered the Guidelines relied on men's more passive nature to get away with this for so many years.

More passive nature?

Who are the "feminists" who "engineered the Guidelines"? Are they from any particular group or party... or did you just fabricate this statement?

Originally Posted by got2bkid

If women lost their kids 85% of the time after divorce to the fathers, and then were told to hand over 50% of their pay for the next 18 years (and keep paying dad, if they kids are in college) women would be marching in the streets every day about this. It would change before you could blink.

The Child Support Guidelines are gender neutral... the Custodial Parent gets the guideline amount.....male or female.

Originally Posted by got2bkid

But, unfortunately, men are taught not to "complain" (and ridiculed by women if they do), and women are taught "entitlement". Our society is creating fatherless children and "entitled" single moms, and it doesn't bode well for the future of our children.

Men complain just as much as women do...and to claim that they don't is just silly. If men were as agreeable and passive as you say, there would be no need for Divorce.

Custodial parents are "entitled" to receive financial assistance from non-custodial parents, commensurate with their income, to assist in supporting their children.
This seems like a no-brainer....I don't understand why that is such a controversial issue.

G2BK...You keep saying over and over and over again, that these poor men lose "50%" of their paychecks, due to the child support guidelines...

I am no mathmatician, but I don't see where you get the 50% figure.

For my calculations, I am using median income levels in Ontario in 2006 and CCTB/GST rates in 2008......

According to statistics Canada, in 2006 (the year of the latest 'Guideline' adjustment)....In Ontario:

• 58.9% of the polulation (aged 15 and older) were living married, or common-law;
• 31.2% of households had children;
• Median Household Income was $60,455;
• Median income for males working all year, full time was $50,057;
• Median income for females working all year, full time was $38,914.

source: 2006 Census: Census Trends - Selected trend data for Ontario, 2006, 2001 and 1996 censuses

Male: Single/NCP
$50,057(Gross Income)
Less 25% in taxes(Income, E.I, C.P.P) =$12514.25

= $37,542.75 Net Income
- $463 per month in Child Support ($5556/year)
which is equal to 14.79% of NET Income!
Or 11.09% of gross...which is a far cry from 50%.

Total of: $2665.56 NET INCOME each month

Female: Single/CP
$38,914(Gross Income)
Less 25% in taxes(Income, E.I, C.P.P) =$9728.50

= $29,185.50 Net Income

A "divorced" mother/custodial parent of 1 child, making the Median Gross Income of $38,914.00 per year, would receive:

$209.56 in monthly CCTB;
$100.00 in monthly Universal Child Care Benefit;
$152.75 in quarterly GST rebates;
$463.00 per month in child support.

source: Child and Family Benefits Online Calculator

Total of: $3255.61 NET INCOME each month.

= Difference of $590.05 per month for the Custodial Parent.

"Standard" access for non-custodial parents are EOW, plus one evening visit on alternate weeks... is equal to approximately 6 days per month. The remaining 24 days per month, the custodial parent provides shelter, food, clothing, etc.

It is reasonable to believe that the custodial parent would have much higher cost of living expenses.

[got2bkid]

Ok - I have to make this fast as I just wrote a long reply, then lost it!

So here is the short version:
1) A Professor from Simon Fraser University looked into how the guidelines were written and how changes can be made. It describes how feminist organizations were in control of the writing, and still are in control of any changes.
2)Men are more passive in nature, and are taught to deal with problems more silently than women. Many studies and proof of this.
3)Many payors have more than one child, have special expenses, have access costs (which the CP's often don't contribute to)
4) Again, studies show that at ANY access, NCP's have the same fixed costs as CP's. They do not want their kids sleeping on the floor, they usually have the same no. of bedrooms for their kids which they outfit so they feel at home there too. They have the same size of car are the CP's to cart the same no. of kids around. Utilities cost the same to heat a 3 bedroom empty apartment, or a 3 bedroom full apartment. Food and clothing are paid for in the CS, so CP's do not bear these costs alone. For any CP's that think the ex's should live in a bachelor suite, or have room-mates, think again. Do you want your KIDS sleeping on the floor, or sleeping with strangers in the house?! Most NCP's want a HOME for thier kids too.

5) the math

NCP = 50,000k - 25% federal tax - other deductions (EI, CPP approx. 200) - Special expenses (say 100/month) - access costs (say 50/month) - CS (462/month 1 child, 753/month 2 kids) =

27,756 left for one kid or
24,264 left for two kids

CP = 39,000K - 22% federal tax - other deduction (approx. 160) - special expenses (85/month) + cs (462 one kid, 753 two kids) + UCB (100 to 200, say 150 for argument sake) + GST ($50/month) + CCTB (210 1 kid, 399 2 kids) + claiming a child as a dependent on yearly taxes (= approx. 3000/year at this income)

= 35,400 left for one kid
= 37,688 left for 2 kids

Remember, the NCP started out making 11,000/year MORE than the CP!

So the paying parent is left with approx. 50% of his income
The recieving parent is left with approx. 93% of her income.

And study after study shows THEY HAVE THE SAME COSTS AT ANY AMOUNT OF ACCESS. The devil really is in the details. Untill you live you, you will never understand.

Here's a way to help you.

Assume YOU are the NCP, and you pay your ex-husband......next post
(I am going to start this on another post so I don't lose this one too!)

[got2bkid]

NCP - makes 39,000 - 22% tax - other deductions ($160/mont) - 85 (special expenses) - 50 (access costs) - 358/month (1 kid) or 584/month (2 kids)

= 22584 left for one kid
= 19872 left for 2 kids

CP makes 50,000 - 25% tax - other deduction (200/month) - 100 (special expenses) + CS (1 kid) or CS (2 kids) + 150/month (ave. UUCB) + 98 or 196/month CCTB + (0 gst) + 3000 (help in taxes due to claiming child as dependent)

= 44196 for 1 kid
= 48108 for 2 kids

You would be left with approx. 50% of your income to support yourself AND visit your kids as much as possible (and feed/entertain them when with them).

Your ex-husband would be left with approx. 92% of his income.

It really is ALL in the details and the tax credits and "extras" really do add up. And I wasn't exagerating in any of those expenses, as a matter of fact our true access costs are $300/month!

Like I said, unless you live it, it is so easy to skip over the "details". Being an NCP paying the guideline amounts, plus "extras" leaves many payors struggling to support themselves, let alone providing a decent home FOR THEIR KIDS too.

At the very least give the payor some of the tax credits, benefits or let them claim the children they support on their taxes too. And then the payor is expected to pay for University too?! Please, someone, tell me how in the world they could have saved even 1 dime!

[billiechic]

Got2bkid, can you provide some details on that article? A journal name? date of publication, author, link? I would be interested in reading it.

[got2bkid]

The Anatomy of Canada’s Child Support Guidelines: The Effects, Details, and History of a Feminist Family Policy

Douglas W. Allen
Simon Fraser University

Abstract:
Recent studies have shown that Canada’s Child Support Guidelines, adapted from the U.S. “Wisconsin” model, have serious negative incentive effects on marriage stability. The source of this outcome is found in the design of the guidelines, which consistently transfer net wealth to the custodial parent. This paper examines the details of Canada’s guidelines, and then traces backwards to their source. It argues that the guidelines are the logical implication of family policy based on feminist theories of the family. The paper concludes that an institutional view of the family is a better model to base family law on.
Working Paper Series

Date posted: July 30, 2009 ; Last revised: October 06, 2009
Suggested Citation

Allen, Douglas W., The Anatomy of Canada’s Child Support Guidelines: The Effects, Details, and History of a Feminist Family Policy. Available at SSRN: SSRN-The Anatomy of Canada?s Child Support Guidelines: The Effects, Details, and History of a Feminist Family Policy by Douglas Allen

Export to: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RefWorks Export Citation What's this?
Contact Information
Douglas W. Allen (Contact Author)
Simon Fraser University ( email )
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6 Canada
604-291-3445 (Phone)
604-291-5944 (Fax)

Billiechic,
I have the full paper if you'd like me to send it to your personal e-mail.

Also, you may want to read up on some of Edward Kruk's work, detailing the effects of divorce on men and fathers. I read your other post where you are thinking of discontinuing joint custody with your ex, but you may want to read some of his work first. He is also a University professor and has done great work into WHY fathers behave the way they so often do after divorce. It may help you sort out why your ex is being difficult.

[Banaschar]

I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't go out. I work 2 jobs over 70 hrs a week. I had to cut my second largest expense(after rent) after many years of struggling and that expense was seeing my kids.

[representingself]

Originally Posted by Banaschar

I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't go out. I work 2 jobs over 70 hrs a week. I had to cut my second largest expense(after rent) after many years of struggling and that expense was seeing my kids.

How did you reduce that expense?

[billiechic]

Got2bekid.

I will send you my email via PM. As much as I try to understand my STBX, I can't. I hope the article will help.

[#1StepMom]

Originally Posted by representingself

How did you reduce that expense?

Sadly, you can reduce that expense. You do so by not driving out to see them as often (cuts down on fuel costs and car wear, which means maintenance less often) ...by not having to buy extra groceries (reduced visitation) ... or by not spending money taking the kids to activities (eg. movies, arcade, ice cream store, etc.)

Increased access time is greatly correlated with increased expenses. Though the CS guidelines don't take that into consideration unless it's close to 50/50. Otherwise, a father who sees his child 35-40% of the time and provides a proper living environment and toys and food and clothes for the child pays the same in child support as a father who does not ever see his child or does so very rarely, and as a result does not need to provide the same necessities.

The Family Law Courts claim they want Fathers to have increased access, yet the CS table amounts they set don't allow for this at all. That is why we are all envious of Australia's system which takes into account how often the child is with each parent and how much each parent spends on the child during that time. Not to mention other children in the household too. Their view is that all children should be treated equally and have the same benefits from their parents, no matter of the order in which they were born.

[#1StepMom]

Originally Posted by got2bkid

And I wasn't exagerating in any of those expenses, as a matter of fact our true access costs are $300/month!

Like I said, unless you live it, it is so easy to skip over the "details". Being an NCP paying the guideline amounts, plus "extras" leaves many payors struggling to support themselves, let alone providing a decent home FOR THEIR KIDS too.

We drive almost 400km PER VISIT (there-and-back pick-up, there-and-back drop-off)... averaging $50 in fuel PER VISIT. (That's, on average, $125/month in access fuel costs alone!)

Yet has any judge taken that into account? Nope!

Their answer: "Status Quo" - The only reason it's "status quo" is because the CP did not have a driver's license for the first 3 years of the child's life!