Unbelievable.... I nearly threw up!!!

[stripes]

It's kinds fascinating to watch - you get these posters filled with big talk about the rights and wrongs of the world, extremely sure of themselves, who spend hours (I assume) writing out long belligerent manifestos, usually with a "bad guy" clearly in mind (in this case, it seems to be people who either pay or receive CS, can't tell which and can't be bothered to go back and read this thread and try to sort it out). They can judge, blame, rant, and generally puff themselves up to their hearts' content.

It's so easy to do when you use a pseudonym on an anonymous internet forum, and so you will never have to be accountable for anything you say. I would be much more impressed if these individuals were actually trying to help others or do something constructive.

[paco]

Concerned:

If you think this is so important than why don't you and Links and Paco stop crying, get offline and go start a movement.

Personally, I doubt you'll have much luck. Your kind seems to always repel far more than you attract but if you're so angry, stop whining and go do something about it.

I won't be joining you...the only thing I got from this thread was a sense of relief about how glad I am that women in this country have the right to get divorced. It must be pure hell to live in a country where you are forced to stay married to a control-freak.

can you pleaaaase pleaaase stop judging and assuming??? No one is crying here, why you CP are so freaking out when comes on c/s accountability? why do you think this is wrong? Just give us some simple examples so this is simply wrong!
FYI...me personally I don't really care what she's doing with her money, I wish her all the best in this world because if she's okay my kids will be ok too, the issue here is c/s is not her money, are the KIDS money, and these money must be spent diligently, is it that hard to understand???


"It must be pure hell to live in a country where you are forced to stay married to a control-freak." - this phrase says a lot about how much you hate men....no further comment!

[Rioe]

When you guys donate to a charity through payroll deduction, do you demand that the charity be personally accountable to you for how they spend every penny? Or do you just donate, and give them the benefit of the doubt that the money will be used wisely to benefit the particular cause?

[Links17]

You're assuming their main motivation is their children.

The main motivation is that they hate their ex for living their own lives and are infuriated that the money they pay to support their children filters through the ex's hands. Its a factor of seething anger due to the loss of control.

More BS propaganda.
-Yes I prefer to spend MY hard earned money on my kids rather than give it to my ex so she can take 10% off the top for herself. Call me what you like. She is free to spend her money how she like if I can spend mine how I like. I just expect equality.

-If only my ex would live her own life! What I would give for her to live her own life AT HER OWN EXPENSE!!

-The primary motivation is the kids, the secondary motivation is myself. Nothing to hide.

My language is tongue in cheek, my ex is probably more conservative than most of you on this forum. When I communicate with her and with my kids it is pure business unless she starts using my kids against me then I get pissed - I have to admit that. This is an anonymous forum, I can speak how I like as long as I don't insult other members which I haven't done even though "some" people who don't know me have called me plenty of things.

[Links17]

When you guys donate to a charity through payroll deduction, do you demand that the charity be personally accountable to you for how they spend every penny? Or do you just donate, and give them the benefit of the doubt that the money will be used wisely to benefit the particular cause?

First of all - did you miss the recent scams of the charities using all the donations as "administrative" fees and fundraising.
Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research - Canada - CBC News

Figuring this out was only possible due to accountability.

Secondly. charties have VERY stringent accounting requirements so yes they do account for every penny.

A new challenge: Find a single non-restitutional/payment transfer of funds where the recipient doesn't have to account for the money. This might be doable.

[Pursuinghappiness]

lol Paco. I know I'm supposed to be offended by the idea that you think I hate men. I just really don't care about your opinion. ...think what you like.

I don't agree with CS payors trying to control how CS receivers spend the money...period.

However, if you feel that strongly to contrary, get off your computer and go start a grass-roots movement to change things. Like I said, you probably won't be successful but whining on a public forum isn't going to accomplish anything...particularly since not a lot of people here...aside from the usual cast of women-bashing characters...seem to agree with you.

[Links17]

aside from the usual cast of women-bashing characters...seem to agree with you.

I want to understand why this goes unpunished + all her other insults towards me?

[Pursuinghappiness]

I can speak how I like

I wasn't suggesting that you can't say whatever you like.

The material point is that the language that you use and then hostility that you show when talking about the mother of your children reveals a lot more about you than it does about her.

Trash her all you want. lol, I sincerely doubt she cares what you think about her. Just don't assume that it helps you support your argument...its actually quite the opposite.

[Links17]

I wasn't suggesting that you can't say whatever you like.

The material point is that the language that you use and then hostility that you show when talking about the mother of your children reveals a lot more about you than it does about her.

Trash her all you want. lol, I sincerely doubt she cares what you think about her. Just don't assume that it helps you support your argument...its actually quite the opposite.

Whether she is a whore or not is irrelevant, if you get so hung up on that and miss the rest of the point it says a whole lot about you.

I am not speaking liek that about the mother of my children, I was giving a tongue-in-cheek, hypothetical situation and even if I was "imagining" her in my head as I posted that comment. That being said its perfectly possible that some moethers are whores (funny definition: Urban Dictionary: whore fits with your viewpoint!!)

[Pursuinghappiness]

I want to understand why this goes unpunished + all her other insults towards me?

lol..what a whiner.

This is the very definition of women bashing:

My whore ex (yes I said whore) goes and meets soulmate #622 and decides to have 2 kids with him (he is a drug addict deadbeat and hits up his mom for 20$ to buy crack) - surprise surprise deadbeat drug addict runs away......

Now my ex has 4 kids and since she is a loser and refuses to work she gets welfare (which i think gets canx by CS) + my 2500$ child support. What are the chances that the other 2 bastard children aren't going to be paid for with my CS money that was for my kids?

And its hardly the first time you've directed these types of comments towards your ex or women in general. I'm hardly the only person who've called you out for it. At least have the coinpurse to take responsibility for it and quit crying that you've been bullied.

Lets face it...you really have a problem with women who stand up to your nonsense.

[Links17]

lol..what a whiner.

This is the very definition of women bashing:



And its hardly the first time you've directed these types of comments towards your ex or women in general. I'm hardly the only person who've called you out for it. At least have the coinpurse to take responsibility for it and quit crying that you've been bullied.

Lets face it...you really have a problem with women who stand up to your nonsense.

Haha, I could care less; I have much tougher skin than that! I just want to understand/point out why the moderators jump on paco because he insinuated BF's opinion is irrelevant because she isn't a bio parent but you get by saying w/e you want.

If you find a post where I blanket statement women (except where there is a statistic I am citing)- let me know I'll modify it. I'm not sexist and If I said something by accident then excuse me.

ACtually, you are the principle caller outer (and it spans threads too), you're like batwoman....

Do I make fun of my ex on these forums yes, but it doesn't hurt anyone, I am exercising my freedom of speech its like draw satirical comics of politicians. I don't like my ex anyways but I actually make a very specific effort to not let my feelings of her cloud my judgement,

Sexism isn't acceptable so I'd like to be clear I don't engage in it, nor believe in it and if I've offended any women who felt I've insulted the entire gender please accept my apology, it was not my intent.

[blinkandimgone]

I didn't 'jump on paco' about his posts as a moderator, it was a question posed as a member /poster, as most of my posts are. Mods are members, too so let's not make every post made by one an issue of moderating.

[HammerDad]

I want to understand why this goes unpunished + all her other insults towards me?

Because it wasn't directed at you. "Usual Cast" may or may not include you, although it appears you've chosen to include yourself by suggesting it was directed at you.

The Whiner comment I will agree was unnecessary and further insults of that nature won't be tolerated.

[HammerDad]

Jesus... again the same question.... The kid will always be taken care of!!! What the argument here is that she shall not profit from extra CS money... its not her money.... how many times do I have to say it!

The law provides that, the second those funds leave your account, they become the CP's. It is quite clear on that. So it does make it the CP's money, allowing them to do with it as they please.

And who said that just because it is law, it is 100% right?

I did, because, in this instance it is true and there is no better alternative. Spouses are divorced, the need to discuss how each household spends their funds is severed. While you may want to control your ex, through how they spend any and all funds in their house, you can't. And the law won't give you the satisfaction of agreeing with you.

You can try and move forward with such an agenda, and it won't go anywhere because it won't get public support. Why? Because once people realize the invasiveness of what you are suggesting they will likely be equally repulsed as those that are against it here. I am payer, and I don't support your point of view.....

- How much will the ex benefit from >>>> aprox. amount please: $

It isn't about $$ values. It is about the ability to enjoy activities with the child. Unfortunately you don't believe the ex should be able to do such activities with the child unless you get a clear accounting from them. Good thing the courts don't agree with you or all kids of separated families would be screwed.

are we taking loafs of bread and pints of milk and ice cream cones or are we talking hundreds and hundreds of dollars (if not thousands) ?

What does it matter, it isn't your money anymore. It isn't a loan to the ex. This isn't something you give them as a gift for good behaviour. It is monies that the courts have ordered you to transfer to your ex to help raise the kids.

Are you paying for her trips??

Nope, my ex pays for her trips with her money. I pay for my trips with my money.

I wonder if there are any men out there that go on paid vacations from CS money with their kids ? Just curious! that's all!

There are men on this board that are recipients of c/s because they are the CP. Because they are men, does that make it somehow different to you?

Berner_Faith, I don't know if you are man or woman but from the looks of it I think you are a woman. That being said, as much as I admire your generosity, that mom that's spending your CS money on her car payments is an exact example of why I am pro-accountable! Now I don't know that lady, and she may be a wonderful person, but I really question her ethics with money! This infuriates me when people take advantage of such situations. Now, how is it that logically speaking you wouldn't agree with me that she should not be doing that ? huh? I don't know if the mom is capable of working or what not.... but if she is, then she should get a job (if she isn't already working) and make her own car payments. Jeeeezzzze does that piss me off!

Apparently you missed the comment Berner made about not knowing whether or not the Ex used all of their own money the day before on something for the kids, or maybe the day after, or maybe the week after etc etc.

[Concerned]

I am a woman and a step mother for two wonderful children. That car payment she is making with or without the CS, is for the same car she drives the children around in.

Hence he rub..... People people people !!! cars, trips, Disney world, restaurants, 58" TVs, etc... you all obviously don't know the difference between "luxury" and "necessity" ... soon you will be telling me that CS should be able to cover a trip to the moon sponsored and executed by Virgin corp.

A car is NOT and I repeat "NOT" an essentiality ! I don't care if you live in the desert (and if you do, then , move to a city) ! Myself and all the kids I knew always took the bus to school, my mom just like all other moms always walked to the nearby grocery store and if she needed to go some place far, she then used the public train system.

What is it with this new generation of men and women. A car is a luxury. Your mom needs to pay her own car payments.

She gets just under $600 a month for CS, for two kids. This is on top of her salary and any benefits she might receive.

So if the judge ordered 600$/mo, this means she is making good money on her own.

When they split, she took over the mortgage, had no car payment and they lived a simple life.

That's what she is supposed to do... There's nothing wrong with pulling her own weight.

After the split, she had a couple accidents, wrote off 2 vehicles and then went and bought a brand new car. So she has upped her spending on the car payment and her insurance due to the accidents.

I am speechless! Why a new car.... just don't get it! And remember, if you are going to tell me a new car is better for her because it provides better security and accommodation when it comes to repairs and so forth.... then sorry, if you want all those things, then they are luxury! Luxury should not be included in CS money!

Who knows what she spends her money on... we really don't care.

You should care. Honestly, this is why accountability is important. Would you care more if you one day found out she was spending all her money (or what's left from the mortgage payment) on restaurants, jewelry, hair dues or perhaps spending her money on some moneyless artist she may have fallen in love with... not that I have anything against artists... but you get the drift here.

Although it is safe to assume that if it wasn't for the $600/m in CS, she wouldn't afford what she does.

Exactly my point. But 600$/mo is not that big of a payment ...

The kids only know what the parents tell them. We never told the kids we paid the cable bill, all they know is that they had cable back. Whether she did or not is hard to say. I know she talks to the kids about money and how she is broke, because they tell us that all the time. If she chooses to speak about her financial matters with the children that is her choice, we choose not to.

But lets see here a second, you say she makes 50K/y, then that's about 35K net. Plus the CS she receives of 600 x 12 = 7200 making it a grand yearly total of 42,200$

When you divide this by 12 we get 3,516$ per mo. An 80K mortgage at a fixed rate of 15 years with a 3% interest rate is approximately $551.76...

Therefore: 3516$ minus:
- Mortgage 551$/mo
- Food 800$/mo
- Car payment (unless she bought a high end BMW) should cost 350$/mo
- Utilities 300$/mo average
- Misc 200$

So:
3516$ - 2201$(expenses) = 1315 left over. She has plenty of spending money!!! And its her money so she can do whatever she wants with it. If you want my opinion, she doesn't seem broke to me!

You say the CS is 600$/mo, I say to cap it at 1200$ / mo for both parents which comes out to the same thing >>>> 600$ each.

The mom is pulling her weight. She's probably spend the rest of her money on gym member ships, beauty care (which are all luxuries) or she's stacking money in the bank!

Berner_Faith, there is nothing wrong with you helping out this way... we did the math and the mom is paying her fair share of support and so are you. Now, given the math that we did, I am sure the mom can buy clothes and stuff for the kids but then I don't know exactly how everything really goes on in terms of how much YOU feed the kids and buy stuff for them so forth...

HOWEVER,

Your case is not the case that infuriates me. What really gets me mad are those cases where the NCP pays the ex 5, 6, even 8K /mo when moreover the ex has been given a home and car and doesn't work. Here, if we redo the math, the CP ends up with thousands per month in spending money. If the recipient of such CS payments has the slightest investing mindset, then its like he/she won a monthly lottery.

It has nothing to do with being a control freak, it has to do with capping the CS payments.

I often wonder if those who complain about having to pay a lot in CS, were complaining when they were out making their career while their spouse ran the household and raised the kids? It seems that the majority of those who complain about high CS were supported by their spouse while they advanced their career.

Let's not go off topic... I can answer that but in another thread please.

I don't understand how one can honestly say they would be happy their children would have a decreased standard of living at the other parents house.

Well, it based on simple facts that if I am strong, rich and powerful before I get into a marriage, I expect to stay that way after a divorce... whether kids are present or not.... or else think about it, what's in it for me? Huh? Here's the answer:

NOTHING!

So if a Men/women is wealthy coming into a marriage and has to loose most of his financial integrity in divorce, then we should all stay single! And that's that.

The truth of the matter here is that many men and some women got married without knowing the dark laws of divorce and found themselves without a choice tangled in ridiculous monthly payments. And now those very same people have given in by saying that its all okay. Its not all okay, I am trying to raise awareness for future prospects that there is lots of laws that need to be changed. Weather you like it or not, just because men/women in the past got their finger caught in the chopping block doesn't mean that dozens of future generations have to undergo the same lob sided treatment.

Just imagine if divorce laws start changing (As they are already in some states) how pissed off would the individuals be that had to pay ridiculous payments in the past and now no more??? hein?

Concerned:

If you think this is so important than why don't you and Links and Paco stop crying, get offline and go start a movement.

The section this thread resides is called "Political issues" and that's exactly what I am discussing. More precisely we are discussing the rationalization behind these idiotic divorce laws. A subject that you may not be very comfortable in shinning light on.

So perhaps you may abandon this thread if it doesn't appeal to you.

1. look at the money as going into one big pot called the ex's account.

I don't care about the ex's account! Just cap the money GOING INTO her account.

It is like soup, you can't tell who made what broth and at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

Mah you!!!! its like a soup alright... a big one.

If the ex does directly pay their car payment with c/s directly, and does it right in front of you. OK, not the most appropriate. But is it not logical to think that, because the car payment was paid with c/s, there would leave a larger chunk of the ex's money to cover the needs of the child? Thus ultimately everything balancing out in the end?

Yes, but that not what happens. What actually happens is that the ex will pay the car payment ex: 500$ with the CS money and "proportionally" spend 200$ to cover certain needs of the child. You have illustrated the smaller picture, but in reality when looking at it from a bigger scale, the latter is exactly what happens with the totality of the CS payment. And I am not talking about Berner_Faiths case as the mom is making enough money to pay her own things.

HammerDad, you give your son 40$ to go buy you three (3) packs of cigarettes (12$/pack). When he gets back he gives you two (2) packs of cigarettes and no change! Now there is 16$ missing here!!! right. Your son took a 16$ cut. I know that perhaps you wouldn't have an issue if indeed this really happened BUT, transaction wise its wrong. The 40$ he got was supposed to go towards only buying cigarettes. The same can be said for the CS payment where the child support payment should go to support the child and not to use some of that money as free bees ... for example going on a trip!!!

For this reason I strongly agree with the 1200$ cap for CS being 600$ each parent. She makes a billion dollars a year, 1200$ goes to support the child. He makes 1 billion dollars a year, 1200$ goes to support the child. I said it before, one parent may be better than the other.... who cares ... stop using the child's take on this to pull the wool over the non custodial child's eyes.
It is what it is.

The child won't starve, the child won't be cold, the child will get an education, the child will grow up to be a fine young man or women and perhaps even better than yourselves.

Post cont'