Why Payors Who Follow THE GUIDELINES Struggle

[got2bkid]

When the government made taxes on CS payable to the payor, and not the recipient, the intent was to lower the amounts by about 30%. Unfortunately, they never did do that, even though they "claim" to. When you look at the numbers, they did not. Then in 2006 they increased the table amounts again, by another 30%. This is why so many payors are in severe financial distress these days and why the Guidelines do need to be modified. The current guidelines are not at all fair.

If you make $50,000 and have 2 kids, you pay $719, which at first glance doesn't seem like too large an amount, which is only what alot of CP's see.

But if you reverse the situation for them, and assume they also make $50K and are now PAYING child support at $719 (assume to the ex-husband for ease of example), they start to see it differently when they are faced with the actual math and details. Assume your at 35% tax bracket, your net pay is now $32,500. You also have additional items taken off your pay stub (as we all do) usually around $200/month (for EI, CPP etc). You would be left with $1789/month. Now, that is before "extra-ordinary" things are added on. Assume another $100/month for this, so now the NCP mom has $1689/month. Because the kids come and visit you alot you keep a home with a room for them, and have a bigger car to transport them around. You don't get to claim the child as a dependent (worth $9K in reducing your taxes) and you cannot collect the CCTB or other credits in relation to the support you provide to your child.

You look at the ex-husband, who now KEEPS the $719/month he WOULD have been paying you (if you had custody) and gets another $719 from you. He gets to claim the child as a dependent, worth 9K, which probably gives him a tax break of 3,000 - 4,000/K per year. He also gets the CCTB (assume $150/month) and maybe other credits etc. So the true "value" of the children for his household is around $1838/month (719 + 719 + (3000/12) + 150) MORE money that STAYS or COMES into his household because the children are there most of the time. And the biggest BONUS, he gets to have his children with him.

You, on the other hand, will be struggling to support yourself and your kids when they visit, based on a seemingly good income of $50k/year.

It is hugely un-balanced and unfair for all CS payors, no matter how small the original CS number "looks" on paper.

[Stargate]

Tell that to the politicians who make these absurd laws which bread resentment and can foster criminal actions.

[MaggieT]

I wonder if anyone has done an actual tally of how much it actually costs to raise a child in a one year time period under "normal" circumstances?
food, clothing, birthday parties, school trips, activities, dentist, medications, toys, education. The proportionate costs of shelter, heat, hydro, internet, cable, telephone, vehicle costs, gasoline...etc.etc.etc.
It would be interesting...if not enlightening...to see what those actual costs would/could be.
Then we could take out the income factor of the parents and base child support costs on the actual raising of the child financially.
I certainly don't agree that if an Ex works harder to increase his standard of lifestyle that the other previous partner should benefit from his hard work.
It is construed and unrealistic that to maintain a child/ren that one of their parents lives in poverty (for most middle income families) and the other benefits financially.
I am surprised to continue to read in these forums on a continual basis the complaints, contradictions and the lack of trust in our government agents, and elected officials when it comes to Child Support, Spousal Support, the Family Law System, Custody, Access, the Family Responsibility Offcie and the many more sub systems covered by the family law act.....yet I find no where ...a concentrated effort to get the laws and guidelines changed!
No area that I have researched can I find a lobby group, petitions, any coellations, agencies, associations that are willing to take on this monsterous injustice.
We are the only people who can demand change....where is the united force to make this happen???

[JPMAC]

I read recently (sorry cannot quote the source) that it costs approx $200K to raise a child to age 18. That works out to about $925 per month. If you split that between 2 parents each would pay about $462.50. It's true that when you have a child move from your home to the other parent you feel double the impact financially as I just experienced this my self. However, when the child is living with you, you still pay to support your child it just isn't as visible. For me, my child is past the age of daycare, but it's the extracurricular stuff, the money for school trips, supplies, clothes (which get more expensive when they're into adult sizes), shoes, the utility bills because they shower more often (thank God laundry, lights, TV...... I agree that when the NCP gets a raise the CP isn't necessarily entitled, but the child is. The argument becomes 'how do you ensure that the child is benefitting as opposed to the ex?' and the NCP who got the increase in income will also argue that the children will benefit directly without filtering that money through the ex. Of course on the other side there are plenty of NCPs who do not pass their good fortune on to their children. It's a matter or trying to legislate morality in a way and each situation is different so it's difficult to create rules that are fair for all. Perhaps that's another place where mediation to set out what is fair would be superior to our current antagonistic system?

[Stargate]

Originally Posted by MaggieT

I wonder if anyone has done an actual tally of how much it actually costs to raise a child in a one year time period under "normal" circumstances?
food, clothing, birthday parties, school trips, activities, dentist, medications, toys, education. The proportionate costs of shelter, heat, hydro, internet, cable, telephone, vehicle costs, gasoline...etc.etc.etc.
It would be interesting...if not enlightening...to see what those actual costs would/could be.
Then we could take out the income factor of the parents and base child support costs on the actual raising of the child financially.
I certainly don't agree that if an Ex works harder to increase his standard of lifestyle that the other previous partner should benefit from his hard work.
It is construed and unrealistic that to maintain a child/ren that one of their parents lives in poverty (for most middle income families) and the other benefits financially.
I am surprised to continue to read in these forums on a continual basis the complaints, contradictions and the lack of trust in our government agents, and elected officials when it comes to Child Support, Spousal Support, the Family Law System, Custody, Access, the Family Responsibility Offcie and the many more sub systems covered by the family law act.....yet I find no where ...a concentrated effort to get the laws and guidelines changed!
No area that I have researched can I find a lobby group, petitions, any coellations, agencies, associations that are willing to take on this monsterous injustice.
We are the only people who can demand change....where is the united force to make this happen???

You can thank the feminist and the "girly-men" politicians who have taken equality of the sexes and swung the pendulum way past the middle mark and the Judges who have carte-blanche to override the CS Guidelines on a whim let alone their ability to award custody almost exclusively to women while men get driven to the poor house with a severely flawed CS system.

And who is doing anything about it you ask??....NO ONE!

[Stargate]

Originally Posted by JPMAC

I read recently (sorry cannot quote the source) that it costs approx $200K to raise a child to age 18. That works out to about $925 per month. If you split that between 2 parents each would pay about $462.50. It's true that when you have a child move from your home to the other parent you feel double the impact financially as I just experienced this my self. However, when the child is living with you, you still pay to support your child it just isn't as visible. For me, my child is past the age of daycare, but it's the extracurricular stuff, the money for school trips, supplies, clothes (which get more expensive when they're into adult sizes), shoes, the utility bills because they shower more often (thank God laundry, lights, TV...... I agree that when the NCP gets a raise the CP isn't necessarily entitled, but the child is. The argument becomes 'how do you ensure that the child is benefitting as opposed to the ex?' and the NCP who got the increase in income will also argue that the children will benefit directly without filtering that money through the ex. Of course on the other side there are plenty of NCPs who do not pass their good fortune on to their children. It's a matter or trying to legislate morality in a way and each situation is different so it's difficult to create rules that are fair for all. Perhaps that's another place where mediation to set out what is fair would be superior to our current antagonistic system?

The current CS Guidelines have little to do with actual child support as they were intended to have. They have an embedded element of spousal support incorporated in them. The notion that if a NCP's income increases that it should be reflected in CS payments is flawed and erroneous. That argument has nothing to do with child support but is intended to benefit the CP solely who now becomes a leech on the NCP.

The current system invites NCP to attempt to hide income and fosters animosity towards the CP and the government.

It's a dismal failure.

[About_Time]

Payors get screwed because it is politically expedient to do so. Allow me to explain:

Let's say I'm a member of parliament. I decide that CS amounts are unfair and need to be lowered (either through tax revision or table revision). I put forth a bill to do this. What will the reaction be?

The reaction from CS recipients will obviously be negative. They are getting less money, who could blame them? As most CS recipents are women and most payors are men, Woman's Rights groups would also be against the bill. Throw in the poverty advocate groups as well, since this would most negatively affect poor single mothers. Children's advocacy groups would declare that this means less money for needy children of divorced families.

In the end, it would be painted as taking money from the hands of needy women and children to help line the pockets of able-bodied men and deadbeat dads. Cue political suicide for the hapless MP.

Sure, the changes would be fair. They'd be reasonable. They'd be just. It doesn't matter though. Few MPs are going to risk looking like being anti-poor-single-mom to win a few votes from the CS payor crowd. The only hope we have is to organize and lobby so that we change public opinion enough to make supporting such initiatives politically viable.

[In_This_Together]

Any revisions that are truly "fair" would address deficiencies on both sides. They would ensure that the payor supports his/her kids yet still has a reasonable income on which to carry on other aspects of his/her life. In this case recipients would not necessarily get less, some would get more in that the guidelines whatever they ended up being would be enforceable. The ones who would get less are those who continually come back to the well in the name of their children.

I'm in a blended family situation so I experience it from both sides. Incoming CS is sporadic at best because my ex is self employed and able to hide much of his income. He says he has no money yet manages to live in a nice house, drive and nice car, eat in restaurants etc. Not that he shouldn't be able to do those things, but he should be able to do them and support his kids. I've agreed to reductions in CS to make it affordable to him yet he can't seem to manage a regular payment of any sort. My husbands ex however uses the system to punish him whenever they have an argument by threatening to go after him for spousal support which she feels quite magmanimous for never having claimed even though she is perfectly capable of supporting herself, threatening to go after him for support for her child who is not from their marriage and I understand there are some who have been successful at that.

So my point is, rather than sitting here slinging arrows back and forth between the sexes based on broad generalizations, why can't we concede that there are individuals on both sides who want to be fair and take responsibility and those who would use the weaknesses in the system to their own advantage. If someone could bring forward recommendations that support fairness on both sides perhaps that could get public support and drive meaningful change.

[got2bkid]

I am refering to payors who FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.

When payors follow the guidelines faithfully, simple math (see first post) exposes that even middle income payors will become impoverished and struggle to support themselves and their children when visiting.

[In_This_Together]

Originally Posted by got2bkid

I am refering to payors who FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.

When payors follow the guidelines faithfully, simple math (see first post) exposes that even middle income payors will become impoverished and struggle to support themselves and their children when visiting.

Understood.

I was really referring more to subsequent posts that seem a little one sided as well as having just come from reading some other threads that definately seem more like rants than true information sharing. Left me shaking my head and wondering why we can't all just get along.

Re your math, you make some good points and I have to admit I'd never thought of it that way. In my case my husband is just paying for one child so the amount is high given his higher income, but affordable. On the incoming side it's just one as well. At the $50K income level it's $462 which lines up pretty well with the $200K to raise a child to 18 number. It's when you get into multiple children that the amount seems to escalate more than what the actual costs likely do. I.e. families economize by sharing bedrooms if appropriate, handing down clothes, adjusting amount spent on extra curriculars. I've always just assumed that the guideline was based on something real. Do we know how they came up with these #s? Also, I was surprised to see the amounts revised up presumably for inflation. That doesn't make sense to me as the wage would also increase with inflation so CS would increase that way, not by revision of the tables. btw, I didn't ask my ex to increase CS when the tables changed, but I've read some case law that implies that I really don't have the right to offer him a 'break' because I'm bargaining with my childs money, not mine.