Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 12:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Coming from CanadaCourtWatch it will have an obvious agenda with little factual relevance.

I agree with some of CCW's principles, however, their methodology and "studies" always leave me LOL'ing on the inside.

As for Canadamama's example of $100k vs $20k, the biggest issues I have with your reasonings are:

1. The 100k is grosse, the net would be closer to $65k after taxes and deductions. Then you take the $22k for CS, you have a net of close to $43k.

2. Your logic of "living alone" is fundamentally flawed. The NCP still has to maintain a residence capable of housing the children during their time. So they too will incur similar expenses as the CP.

3. There have been other, more unbiased studies and reports, that have stated that the current guidelines provide for a form of spousal support in them. They were prepared years ago, but no one seemed to have cared.
I think that the assumption is that if the kids are there on Wednesdays and EOW, that the sleeping arrangements do not need to be as established as they are at the primary residence. For instance, when I was a kid, my stepfather's kids came every other weekend. Sometimes we'd all sleep in the basement (6 kids!) and then when we got older I'd share my room with my stepsisters and my brother would share his room with our stepbrother, and the oldest of his daughters would sleep on the couch. Maintaining a house that could accommodate 6 kids, each with their own rooms, was unrealistic, but they had much more standard sleeping arrangements at home with their mom, so it wasn't a big deal. The expectation that two homes can be maintained which are equivalent to the one home the family shared pre-split on the same combined income is crazy, but like I said before, if someone has to suck it up, it should not be the kids. They already have enough to deal with, and they didn't ask for ANY of this malarkey.

Regarding the net income vs. gross income, I think those ARE net - the chart says 'after tax'. I am not going to redo all of their math - this was presented as it stands as an argument for why it is all so unfair. I am using the data presented.

I am all for unbiased studies - if you have links I would be glad to read what is out there.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 12:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 341
winterwolf7 is on a distinguished road
Default

Suicide seems pointless since yes I'm pretty sure I'm worth more dead than alive :P Although I think you're right, a lot of policies won't pay out if the death was a suicide.

Canadamama, the tables were actually designed more with your situation in mind, they are designed with the apparent assumption that the NCP has zero access to his kids, no involvement and no assosiated costs for the kids other than his CS payments. I can see why in your situation you'd consider the tables more fair because they do apply well to your situation.

But my ex can afford a 2 bedroom apartment and a car, and I can't even afford a 1 bedroom or a car. Not fair. When my son is with me approx 25% of the time, I have to borrow cars from friends/family for pickup/drop off and to do anything. We share my bed and he plays in my one room because that's all the space I can afford. I'm not getting 25% of this UCB or CTCB to help me afford enough food, clothes or heaven forbid a big enough place to let him have a room when he's with me. I'm not asking for a 2 bedroom single family home here... just a minimal standard of living so he doesn't hate coming to see me living destitute.

"Daddy, I wanna buy that car, please don't take it away from me."
"I'm sorry honey, Mommy took all the money."
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 12:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,726
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
The numbers I saw in that report (I can't call it a study) do not look to me like they are horribly unfair. You are focusing on how the recipient's income is increasing by 132%... but if that is reframed as the household income of the children's primary residence, and it can be achieved by the payor reducing their own income by 23%, how is that so unreasonable??
Again you are looking at grosse numbers vs net numbers. After taxes a $100k income drops to about $65k. So a payment of $22k is over 33% of the payors net income. And it is an addition of over 110% of untaxable income in the hands of the payee.

Look at me and my ex:

I make a little over $55k a year. I net 40872.
My ex makes $65k a year (before overtime). So approx $49400 net.

I pay $511 per month, so $6132 year.

Therefor, after everything is said and done, I am left with $34740 to live of off, or 63% of my grosse income.

My ex would have approximately $55,532 per year. So what was less then a $10k a year difference in incomes, has jumped to over $20k a year. Our expenses, were similar as I was expected to provide clothing during my parenting time and I require a 2 bedroom residence (food being the only real difference).

Another flaw is that the CP is able to claim 100% of the child(ren) as dependants on their tax returns, when the reality is the NCP (so long as they pay) has paid their proportional share. Effectively, the CP gets to claim what the NCP paid in relation to the costs of child. Thus creating another windfall. In your scenario of the $100k vs $20k incomes, the NCP's contribution would equal 83.3333% of the proportional costs of raising the child. But they NCP gets to claim 0% of that, and the CP claims 100% of child while only having to effectively pay less than 17%. To me, that is the biggest flaw with the guidelines.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 12:50 PM
karmaseeker's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here :)
Posts: 470
karmaseeker is on a distinguished road
Default

Comments on the Child Support Guidelines

What Design Principles are Necessary to Support Fairness
There are, in our opinion, a number of basic design flaws in the current Child Support Guidelines that have resulted in the unfair and economically inappropriate levels contained therein.
First, the principle of equality must be considered. If two separated parents are making identical net incomes, and the children spend identical amounts of time at each house, and all expenses are equally shared, then the child will have the same standard of living at each house and no support payments should be made. Only when income levels are not identical, or where for some reason non-equal access to each parent is agreed upon without duress that some variation from $0 is required. It is inappropriate to ignore the salary of the support-receiving parent's family unit, the presence of other parental support for step-children, and the family situation in the home of the payer.
  1. The Guidelines should use a cost-sharing approach based on the parents' relative ability to pay.
  2. The Guidelines should be based on the marginal cost of children to single parents on a net after-tax basis.
  3. The Guidelines should distinguish between the fixed costs of the children (e.g. shelter) and the costs that change as a function of the time of care with each child. "Time" should be clearly defined to ensure that the costs are properly allocated. Fixed costs and time-related expenses paid by the support-paying parent shall be considered as part of the total cost of the children and credited against the support-paying parent's share of the total costs of the child.
  4. The Guidelines should handle the cost of work-related child care as a fixed cost to the parent paying for such child care and incorporate it on a net cost basis, after accounting for the appropriate offset of some of the "time of care" expenses for each parent utilising child care.
  5. All tax implications, including the ability of a support-paying parent to the claim child deductions, "equivalent to spouse" deductions, child care expense deductions, education deductions, and all tax credits and refunds should be considered to allow calculation of amounts on an after-tax basis.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 12:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Again you are looking at grosse numbers vs net numbers. After taxes a $100k income drops to about $65k. So a payment of $22k is over 33% of the payors net income. And it is an addition of over 110% of untaxable income in the hands of the payee.

Look at me and my ex:

I make a little over $55k a year. I net 40872.
My ex makes $65k a year (before overtime). So approx $49400 net.

I pay $511 per month, so $6132 year.

Therefor, after everything is said and done, I am left with $34740 to live of off, or 63% of my grosse income.

My ex would have approximately $55,532 per year. So what was less then a $10k a year difference in incomes, has jumped to over $20k a year. Our expenses, were similar as I was expected to provide clothing during my parenting time and I require a 2 bedroom residence (food being the only real difference).

Another flaw is that the CP is able to claim 100% of the child(ren) as dependants on their tax returns, when the reality is the NCP (so long as they pay) has paid their proportional share. Effectively, the CP gets to claim what the NCP paid in relation to the costs of child. Thus creating another windfall. In your scenario of the $100k vs $20k incomes, the NCP's contribution would equal 83.3333% of the proportional costs of raising the child. But they NCP gets to claim 0% of that, and the CP claims 100% of child while only having to effectively pay less than 17%. To me, that is the biggest flaw with the guidelines.

That is a much more thoughtful and reasonable approach than, "Does the child result in a financial profit or loss to the parent?" It sounds to me like the 40% rule, and the way that taxation is imposed, is a much bigger issue than the numbers themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 01:00 PM
karmaseeker's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here :)
Posts: 470
karmaseeker is on a distinguished road
Default


Wednesday, September 6, 1995
'True deadbeat dads' are few, Ottawa says

By David Vienneau,
Toronto Star OTTAWA - Only a small percentage of dads who do not make their child support payments are deadbeats, a top justice department official says.

The reality, according to Carolina Giliberti, chief of the department's family law research unit, is that many dads are broke or only unintentionally in arrears.

"The true deadbeat dads are few and far between," Giliberti, co-author of a federal-provincial task force report on child support that was released in January, said in an interview.

"There are some, definitely. I've seen estimates that about 10 per cent are wilful defaulters. The rest just don't have the resources to go back and get their court order varied."

This would appear to defy the oft-repeated public perception that 70 per cent of non-custodial fathers in Canada deliberately refuse to make court-ordered payments to their ex-spouses.

Justice Minister Allan Rock is expected to acknowledge the misperception in the fall when he unveils Ottawa's long-awaited overhaul of Canada's child-support payment system.

The package will include national child-support guidelines for judges to use in determining how much a non-custodial parent should pay for each child.

Draft guidelines released earlier this year were criticized for being too low. Sources say they will be adjusted upwards but only for those parents earning less than $30,000 annually. The government's dilemma is boosting amounts without impoverishing the payer. Rock will also unveil a new strategy to assist the provinces in collecting payments from delinquent non-custodial parents.

A third component will deal with taxation. Currently, parents receiving child-support payments pay income tax on that money, while the payers claim a 100 per cent tax deduction.

Custodial parents say this is unfair but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the system and now the government is being challenged to resolve the simmering dispute.

Rock will also announce the government is planning a major study aimed at determining why some men default on making their payments.

If a man is a seasonal worker or is temporarily laid off he often cannot afford to go back to court to seek a variance to the court-ordered support, Giliberti said. Many continue to pay a small amount and eventually resume full payments when they are back to work.

The problem is that in Ontario, for example, the system sees them as being in arrears and therefore labels them "a deadbeat dad." There is no administrative mechanism to vary the award to reflect their fluctuating income.

"There is a real problem with a number of non-custodial parents who go in and out of employment, seasonal workers or self-employed workers," she explained. "It means they don't have a regular cash flow which means they can't systematically pay their child support either in full or on time."

Copyright © 1995 Toronto Star.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 01:09 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karmaseeker View Post

Wednesday, September 6, 1995
'True deadbeat dads' are few, Ottawa says

By David Vienneau,
Toronto Star OTTAWA - Only a small percentage of dads who do not make their child support payments are deadbeats, a top justice department official says.

The reality, according to Carolina Giliberti, chief of the department's family law research unit, is that many dads are broke or only unintentionally in arrears.

"The true deadbeat dads are few and far between," Giliberti, co-author of a federal-provincial task force report on child support that was released in January, said in an interview.

"There are some, definitely. I've seen estimates that about 10 per cent are wilful defaulters. The rest just don't have the resources to go back and get their court order varied."

This would appear to defy the oft-repeated public perception that 70 per cent of non-custodial fathers in Canada deliberately refuse to make court-ordered payments to their ex-spouses.

Justice Minister Allan Rock is expected to acknowledge the misperception in the fall when he unveils Ottawa's long-awaited overhaul of Canada's child-support payment system.

The package will include national child-support guidelines for judges to use in determining how much a non-custodial parent should pay for each child.

Draft guidelines released earlier this year were criticized for being too low. Sources say they will be adjusted upwards but only for those parents earning less than $30,000 annually. The government's dilemma is boosting amounts without impoverishing the payer. Rock will also unveil a new strategy to assist the provinces in collecting payments from delinquent non-custodial parents.

A third component will deal with taxation. Currently, parents receiving child-support payments pay income tax on that money, while the payers claim a 100 per cent tax deduction.

Custodial parents say this is unfair but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the system and now the government is being challenged to resolve the simmering dispute.

Rock will also announce the government is planning a major study aimed at determining why some men default on making their payments.

If a man is a seasonal worker or is temporarily laid off he often cannot afford to go back to court to seek a variance to the court-ordered support, Giliberti said. Many continue to pay a small amount and eventually resume full payments when they are back to work.

The problem is that in Ontario, for example, the system sees them as being in arrears and therefore labels them "a deadbeat dad." There is no administrative mechanism to vary the award to reflect their fluctuating income.

"There is a real problem with a number of non-custodial parents who go in and out of employment, seasonal workers or self-employed workers," she explained. "It means they don't have a regular cash flow which means they can't systematically pay their child support either in full or on time."

Copyright © 1995 Toronto Star.
What is the point you are trying to make with this article?
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 01:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 205
TLCRN is on a distinguished road
Default

"Actions speak louder than words". why hasn't anyone of you come up with a better calculation for CS? and voice your opinion to the ones in power and not on a forum where what exactly will be done? nothing! There are so many forums, bloggs, complaints and not one has come up with a better solution? I wonder why? I can think of millions of reasonse why, but it won't change the facts now will it? Has anyone looked at other Provinces, Country to see how it works for them?
Karmaseeker: have you ever wondered how many "women" have commited suicide because of this as you say? I personally think the rate of women commiting suicide may be higher.
Every situation is different. In my case, I never asked for SS, or a life insurance in my name,or many other things. DO you know why? to avoid the fight and additional court costs; as how many non cutodial parents will actually VOLUNTARILY agree to pay and do this? knowing if something was to happen to them, the non cutodial parent is left raising the children on their own. This goes both ways!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 01:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,726
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

There have been challenges to this. However, they get little to no press or support from the public as it is not a politically correct subject.

As soon as a person opens their mouth on the subject feminists jump out of the woodwork claiming your a misogynist, and that you are trying to take food out of some poor child mouth by punishing a single mom......

And I have insurance through work....guess who the beneficiary of 50% of my policy is....my daughter....and I did it voluntarily.

There is a huge misconception that there are more deadbeats then payors. The reality is quite the reverse. The only thing is, you only hear about the deadbeats because it is "sensationalist" and politically correct, and you never get to hear about the vast majority of NCP's who are doing their share because, well......that is what they are supposed to be doing.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 01:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterwolf7 View Post
Sorry but no kids cost $46,000 per year in your example, nor should simply having 1 child increase your own income by 110% from 20k to 42k.
$42,000 is the TOTAL household income in that example! In the example I quoted, the TOTAL household income of the custodial parent is $42,000, and the TOTAL household income of the payor was $54,600. If that payor is broke and struggling living ALONE on $54,600, how do you think it is for the kids?

And again, you are getting hung up on looking at this as money for your ex, as opposed to money flowing into the household that supports your kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterwolf7 View Post
The real point is that the tables cause great injustices at both the lower end of income, and lead to unfair enrichment at the higher end of income. If you're in the middle to middle-upper range it works out reasonable well. Your example of 54k and 42k for the two households is still pretty unfair, but does results in a workable situation for both parties to enjoy a good standard of living.
I do not see how that is unfair to the payor at all. I really don't. The CP and the kids have a FAR, FAR LOWER SOL than the non-CP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterwolf7 View Post
How about my situation? I went from 63k net down to 17k per year gross. What kind of standard of living do I get? I didn't choose this divorce, I was kicked out and now 73% of my income has been stolen from me, not even leaving me enough to have an apartment or a compact car.
Obviously I can't speak to your situation, as I have no information about it, but even in this 'study' there is no scenario in which any payor is paying out 73% of their income - and by the information you do provide is would actually be more, since 17 is 27% of 63 and 63 was your net income before, while 17 is your gross now, which honestly seems even more odd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterwolf7 View Post
Like most guys, I love my kids and want to support them, but their mom chose to quit on our partnership and that means she has an equal responsibility to provide for them financially. The table amounts do not provide a realistic measure of what it costs. Produce your receipts, show us where the money goes, and we'll glady pay half (or proportionally) for that. Anything more is simply punitive and greedy.
Again, the issues in your marriage and the reasons for its breakdown are IRRELEVANT, as they should be, and it is unreasonable to force the CP into a role of having to justify every expense, especially in cases where there was abuse. Different people have different earning potential, and kids should always be able to benefit from the financial resources of BOTH parents.
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
Who is responsible for Child Support momof3 Divorce & Family Law 16 05-12-2011 12:20 PM
cs and s7 obligations 06nomad Divorce & Family Law 5 05-11-2011 05:46 PM
Please allow me to introduce myself... with the usual questions on Custody, CS, SS... samej Introductions 14 04-20-2011 02:43 PM
Spousal Equivalent for CRA Cobourg Divorce & Family Law 21 01-14-2010 08:43 AM
child support guidelines Mikesgal Divorce & Family Law 3 05-18-2006 12:42 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 PM.