Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trying to Find a Better Way (Child support)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
    I believe that the $294 is a much more reasonable value for the "actual costs" associated with having one child. After the cost of having a room for him, I do not believe one 6 year old uses $400 in food/gas/clothes, as the current guidelines would suggest.
    ...but isn't that the crux of the child support debate? That child support is disguised partially as spousal support to maintain a standard of living for the custodial parent and child?

    Should child support not be standardized for what it actually costs to raise a child equally no matter what the income level is of the parent? Of course a low income parent cannot afford RESP or expensive daycare or lots of toys but that doesn't mean their are not benefits out there for them to utilize.

    I was always under the belief that child support should be based on what it costs to raise a child in today's society, not based on what the income is of the parent.

    Why should a high income parent pay more CS to the other parent because they make more money? So the other parent can live in a nicer house? Go on more vacations? Or the fact that CS doesn't even consider household income, where a payor could pay tons of CS when the other parent lives off the new spouse who could be a millionaire for example.

    Comment


    • #17
      With respect to Tayken's very articulate comments with respect to CS....

      -I find it interesting that it's "assumed" that the recipient of CS is financially savvy and would NEVER access CS for their own, arguably poor, financial wants. Yes, I realize if the kids are starving, living in the back yard wearing rags the courts would step in. BUT, especially for those who receive LARGE CS payments monthly, as long as the kids are reasonably looked after the courts wouldn't do anything. So, if the kids get 2nd hand clothing so Mommy can get the latest fashion designs, the courts are fine with that.

      -How would those who "defend" ridiculous CS awards answer this...
      Recipient pisses away 75% of the CS on vacations, bars, frivalous spending. When the kids need to go to university, the CS recipeint has NO money saved and the "payor" is financially drained so that there may not be any money for kids to go to school. As opposed to if the payor - even if court ordered, put a chunk of "big $" CS into a protected university fund. Why is it considered "unthinkable" that CS is actually used for the child's benefit ? I would argue in the above situation draining CS money for poor spending choices by the recipient does NOT help the child.

      -I'm also amazed there has been no "discrimination" law suits. To be fair, shouldn't the government audit ALL parents and INSIST that married couples spend a "minimum" as mandated by law on their kids. Of course there would be a huge protest if such a ridiculous law was passed but of course those that are divorced, or at least the PAYORS of CS have no rights. I believe a federal minister was quoted as saying something to the effect of "Divorced Dad's have NO RIGHTS, only responsibility to PAY PAY PAY. " Why shouldn't the payor, the one who actually WORKS and EARNS the money has some say as to how the hard earned dollars are spent on the child's behalf. Also, I think many people would tend to agree that those who actually WORK for their money tend to be better money managers than those who are "awarded" tax free cash each month for being clever enough not to have worked for a living.

      -I think its criminal that the govt has enabled "some" CS recipients to use kids as a pawn/weapon to extract ridiculous CS from fathers whose only "crime" was to marry the wrong woman.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
        ...
        Why should a high income parent pay more CS to the other parent because they make more money? ...
        Because people who make more spend more on their children in all areas.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by billm View Post
          Because people who make more spend more on their children in all areas.
          I doubt that to be true...I make a lot less than some people and spend more than them on my child then they do. Does that mean my CS should be less? Nope, not according to the law, it means I should pay more.

          Comment


          • #20
            A review of "child support" for the 1%-ers.

            I rely upon this article to define who the 1%-ers are in Canada:

            Who are the richest 1 per cent in Canada? They?re not just CEOs - The Globe and Mail

            Originally posted by Article
            .. who earn at least $230,000 a year to qualify.
            Now this is considering that there is no SS being paid of course...

            Pumping the 1% into MySupportCalculator for majority access situation (anything below the 40% threshold) for one (1) child works out to:

            ... pays Spouse child support of $1,855 per month.
            or $22,260 a year...

            I don't know anyone who can live fully on $1,855 a month ($22,260) a year in the life style that often (and as seen in the message above) of going out to bars and living the High Life...

            Lets adjust to two (2) children as you can't calculate it for a "elemental family" of 1.5 children. (More commonly called a nuclear family. ):

            ... pays Spouse child support of $2,924 per month.
            or $35,088 a year...

            So even if the 1%-er didn't get divorced but the other parent got cancer and died... (Sad situation to have to deal with.) Here is an excellent break-down of what a live-in nanny costs:

            caringnannyagency.com - Can I Afford a Nanny - Example Payroll for 40 Hour

            Therefore, the total cost to employ a Foreign Live-in Caregiver at 40 hours per week, paid monthly would be:

            $1,601.99 minus 369.42 for room and board equal $1,232.57 per month net pay to your Live-in Caregiver, for the months that there is 4 weeks in a month.
            So a live in nanny will cost about $14,790.84. That doesn't include the food and other stuff that has to be provided to the children on top of that etc. Also, it is for a 40 hour work week and doesn't cover vacation pay etc (per the notice on the link.) So you can assume it is actually higher and that this is the minimum cost.

            So the difference between a nanny and child support for a 1%-er is:

            (One child) 22,260 - 14,790.84 = $7,469.16
            (Two children) 35,088 - 14,790.84 = $20,297.16

            So, is it unreasonable? Well, lets see what other statistics say about the cost of raising a child:

            How much does it cost to raise kids in Canada? - Canadian Living

            According to MoneySense.ca, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 is a whopping $243,660. Break down that number, and that’s $12,825 per child, per year -- or $1,070 per month. And that's before you send them off to university.
            Now, I am going to admit, that I am using the $12,825 without consideration if that includes the cost of child care. So, I could be right out to lunch on this calculation. Feel free to adjust the numbers to reflect the actual root calculations that came to this roll up in the article I relied upon.

            So, lets look at it again:

            One child, dead parent (sad situation I know):

            14,790.84 (nanny) + 12,825 (cost of a child) = $27,615.84 (dead parent cost total)

            Child support: $22,260.00

            27,615.84 (dead parent cost total) - 22,260.00 (child support) = $5,355.84

            So, it costs the parent who's partner who died $5,355.84 more than say someone who has to pay child support and the other parent is still living.

            Generally, to those who "wish" the other parent was dead... This may be a situation where you may want to think about that twice. If you are living totally off child support then, well, you wouldn't wish it because you are in poverty and if you are the parent paying full table, you wouldn't possibly wish it because it would cost you more than child support to be a sole parent.

            Children need TWO parents involved in their lives equally not just emotionally but financially as well.

            I am sure there are holes in my calculations here... They are provided as a perspective... I am sure a more comprehensive study can be done outside my 4 web searches and 30 minutes of typing... It is just a perspective...

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #21
              As usual a well thought out reply. Just to give a different spin...

              -for higher wage earners, I would suggest 2 or 3 kids would be typical but let's go with 2 or roughly $3,000 per month TAX FREE to recipient of CS.

              -I understand you are comparing cost of CS vs. if no recipient parent. Even in that case, with two kids better, strictly economically speaking, to pay roughly $15K for nanny than $36K in CS.

              -in most cases, there WILL be spousal support. So of course that can be significant for high wage earner and "stay at home" parent.

              -its certainly happened that a single, high wage earner with not a huge amount of assets can die, and have no life insurance leaving family in rough shape. Why doesn't the government MANDATE big life insurance policies if they're so concerned with "good of the child". Again, arguably discriminate against divorced payors vs married.

              -while I appreciate your comments, the thrust of my argument was not that payors (typically male) be "excused" from paying child support per se, merely that for those that pay an LARGE amount monthly (ie. in the thousands) that would it not "benefit the child" if at least SOME of that money was automatically directed to say an RESP for the CHILD"s education rather than the recipient foolishly spending much of it on themselves ? Surely no one can argue that there are not many CS recipients who greedlily/foolishly spend the money on themselves and not the child. I'm not saying every penny be accounted for a few hundred dollars but when a recipient is making more on CS than most people EARN with equally large families something isn't right.

              I don't expect anything to change - if anything I suspect the system will get progressively worse and more unfair to the higher wage earner. The only "hope" in my opinion is if younger, single folks who have a potential to be a high wage earner, are brought up to speed on the unfair Family Laws and avoid marriage/common law and having kids like the plague ! Only then might there be pressure on the government to stop destroying financially hard working payors for the crime of marrying the wrong person.

              Comment


              • #22
                I very much like the idea of not having CS so dependent upon access, smoothed out instead of having a sudden change at the 40% mark that just make everyone fight over access.

                What about if CS was an imaginary kitty? Both parents put into the kitty based on their incomes. Both parents draw from the kitty proportional to their access. Adjust both annually or as needed. 50-50 access means each parent draws equally from the kitty. This results in the higher-income earner paying the lower-income earner half offset CS.
                SS would be counted as recipient income, not payer income, and it should impute a minimum wage income to a parent who makes less. There could be a cap that the lower earner cant draw out more than their own income. This would hopefully prevent a lower earner from treating CS as a potential sole income source when their ex is a very high income earner.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Rioe, GREAT concept - you've got my vote !

                  Sadly it will never be put in place since it's fair and would reduce expensive litigation and never ending court fights. The lawyers (and their lawyer buddies who are temporary politicians) will NEVER allow such a system to be approved since it would (horror of horrors) help ensure that the kids and parents benefit from a hard earned dollar rather than lawyers and the system at large preying upon a family's livelihood.

                  Don't you realize how expensive fancy downtown law offices, high end lunches and cars cost these days lol ? We need to keep the "best interests of the lawyers and the system" in mind !!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I'm surprised that this thread got resurected...

                    Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                    Rioe, GREAT concept - you've got my vote !

                    Sadly it will never be put in place since it's fair and would reduce expensive litigation and never ending court fights. The lawyers (and their lawyer buddies who are temporary politicians) will NEVER allow such a system to be approved since it would (horror of horrors) help ensure that the kids and parents benefit from a hard earned dollar rather than lawyers and the system at large preying upon a family's livelihood.

                    Don't you realize how expensive fancy downtown law offices, high end lunches and cars cost these days lol ? We need to keep the "best interests of the lawyers and the system" in mind !!!!!!!
                    I agree and that is what I was trying to accomplish with this model this is and I will post my most up to date version as soon as I can (not that it means much, but it shows how support could work in an alternate system)....

                    If you look at Australia (one of the more socially progressive countries in the world in my opinion) they do exactly that. In fact they also respect that older children require more support, children of second families require support, and that even at minimal access a parent requires money to support their children.

                    To clarify a couple of points about our current support model:

                    -the equivalence scale (StatsCan 40/30) is arbitrary and while it was developed in part through one of the precursors of StatsCan's Survey on Household Spending (SHS) it is not actually representative of actual economic data. While I won't go into detail the documentation relating to the development of the tables clearly shows that the 40/30 scale is inline with other equivalence scales that include parental spending that is considered special and extraordinary by the guidelines

                    -While the reference point for the tables in Gross income, the model estimates an after tax amount (only basic deductions assumed) and gives each parent a personal reserve amount (in Ontario it is currently $10,820). So in effect it is not based on Gross income.

                    -The model has a number of erroneous assumptions, namely:.
                    1) that the support recipient has an equal income to support the child. Depending on the situation this either overestimates or underestimates the income available to support the children

                    2) Acknowledges that to increase the standard of life of the children the standard of life of the other parent must also be raised (very true and I'm not debating this point), but but ignores the effect of government transfers received for the children claiming these amounts are "not available" to the recipient. If support payments from a parent increase the standard of living for both children and parent so do government transfers. Unfortunately amounts such as CCTB and UCCB and GST credits are omitted from the calculation.

                    3) Assumes that a parent paying the full table amount pays $0 directly on their children. No increased housing cost, household maintenance, furniture, transportation, food, clothing etc... not even Birthday or Christmas gifts. It literally assumes that that parent is a single individual with only the expenses of single individual

                    I could go on, but I need to get to bed....
                    Last edited by SingingDad; 06-20-2013, 12:40 AM.

                    Comment

                    Our Divorce Forums
                    Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                    Working...
                    X