Why Payors Who Follow THE GUIDELINES Struggle

[got2bkid]

JPMAC said ""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.""

This is also something to consider. Assuming the parents live together, both parents "share" in the costs of their children, but also "benefit" from the money spent on the kids. They live in the same house, share the same food, both are warm when the heat gets turned up in winter etc.

But when the parents split, and the money is transferred to the CP's house, only the CP continues to benefit from the "shared" money both parents contribute to raise the child. The NCP still shares the money, but does not get the additional "benefits" that result from living in the same home as the child. And he/she doesn't share in child tax credits and benefits, which in this country are pretty good.

As well, I've read about the cost of $200/K to raise kids. It includes all manner of things, including day-care and "extras" that NCP are now required to contribute ON TOP of CS when following the guidelines.

In-this-together said ""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.""

The "mathematical formulas" that created the tables are not based on sound principles of what it costs to raise children and actually are based on some pretty faulty logic. First, they assume that the NCP NEVER sees his children and has no additional costs associated with them, that he is a bachelor and has minimal expenses, and that he has no other children in his care to support. There was a lot of secrecy when the guidelines were first introduced, as to how the "formula" worked. They say it is a formula to help with the "cost of the children", but if you research it (even on government documents) the truth is that child support was supposed to "equalize" the households, which is against the "divorce act". Equalizing households is what Spousal Support if for, but since spousal support is less appetizing (and "for the kids" always works), what they have really done is include a "spousal" amount into the child support amounts. I know single parents won't want to hear this, or believe it, but that is the mathematical truth.

You are also correct to question why the tables were increased for "inflation". As inflation goes up, so would an income, and any increases due in CS would have been taken care of that way. It is a "double dip".

Supporting ones children is a duty, but the Guidelines (and recent changes to them) really have put payor in a bind that many people refuse to recognize.

I agree 100% with Stargate that the Guidelines almost force payors to try to hide some income. Looking at the calculations in post #1, how many people could really survive on $1689/month, and continue to support their children when they are with them? And these people do not get any breaks or help from the government, because their income is stated as $50K/year. It almost encourages criminal activity, just for payors to survive.

I also agree 100% with About_Time, no MP wants to touch this with a 10 foot pole, and the outrage by CP's if we did try to ammend the guidelines to be more fair to payors would be immense. There is great resistence to it.

I have tried in my own small way to make a difference, and it is getting depressing. The guidelines don't sound too outrageous, untill you look at it from the other side, from post #1. Having custody means having your kids , your income, some of your spouses income, and all the benefits and credits available in this country. It adds up to a lot more than just the CS recieved.

The GUIDELINES need to take ALL OF THIS into consideration. Giving the payors a break here and there (on tax credits, benefits, putting some value on the contributions they make when with their kids, and adding this to the mathematical equation etc. etc.) would go a LONG way to ensuring MORE CP"S ARE paid, because NCP's wouldn't feel like they do now, that NONE of their contributions are recognized in ANY WAY, and it is leaving them in the poor house.

[Stargate]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep, that about sums it up.

[Stargate]

Originally Posted by In_This_Together

............ 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. ........

It's a fallacy to assume that self employed people can mysteriously hide income. All assets such as houses and vehicles are registered with the government so hiding them is impossible. And the vast majority of self employed people get paid by cheque just like the rest so there is a paper trail at the bank leaving no room to hide anything of any substantial value.

[got2bkid]

But self-employed payors often under-go intnese scrutiny of their expenses and cannot claim many legitimate expenses for the purposes of figuring out CS amounts, expenses that even the CRA accepts as valid costs of doing business!!

[Stargate]

Originally Posted by got2bkid

But self-employed payors often under-go intnese scrutiny of their expenses and cannot claim many legitimate expenses for the purposes of figuring out CS amounts, expenses that even the CRA accepts as valid costs of doing business!!

Yes, that is correct.