Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Set-off method is unfair to higher earner?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Sorry to say, if it was incorrect there would be thousands upon thousands of Applications before the court with your complaints. The simple fact of the matter there isn't because most people are much more reasonable than you probably.
    Whoops. You've exposed your lack of understanding of real logic. Just because there aren't "thousands and thousands" of applications before the court doesn't somehow invalidate the argument. You can't say: "If you were right, someone else would have come up with the same argument by now."
    Then, stop wasting time on this message board and bring forward your Application and save everyone from the evils of offset child support.

    How did you "exposed your (my) lack of understanding of real logic"? Please do share you definition of "real logic" then? How is my argument illogical then? Do you have some magical ability to show everyone, every lawyer, every justice and the government how their calculations are wrong?

    I hope you say that to the judge hearing your matter in oral arguments. Please do let us know what the judge says and orders.

    /popcorn

    Good luck with your "logic" on that argument. It will fall on deaf ears and come with a costs award against you as well probably.

    The fact is, this is somehow a weird mathematical oddity. I actually fought against this idea when I first heard it, because the setoff just "seemed" right. But when trying to *actually* find out where the math was wrong, its inherent correctness revealed itself.
    Do you have a PHD in pure math or something? How come no one else has seen the flaw you have seen? Math is pure logic and any error in calculation would bubble up quite easily. You are mixing "feelings" with what you claim are your "math" abilities. Unless you are a PHD in pure math from UoW I don't see how you are going to even communicate and identify to the court what this flaw is you are alledging exists.

    Feel free to provide the formula that demonstrates the flaw.

    I posit that there are not thousands and thousands of applications merely because it's not obvious at first glance. Look at your reaction -- you still haven't suggested a single mathematical counterexample to suggest why the setoff is fair.
    Firstly, you are bringing the evidence forward in your argument that it is. I am simply arguing that it is correct and fair. You are the one identifying the "flaw" in the calculation. I don't have to prove something works when it is ordered every day, thousands of times a day across our country.

    You are the one coming forward with "magical evidence" (read: magical thinking) that you have found some flaw, some problem some "injustice" in how offset calculations are made.

    We would all love to see the error in the calculation. I am no PHD in pure math nor am I going to claim it is "perfect" but, no one, despite the hundreds of people who come here lamenting and claiming they have found some error be it in Divorcemate, the SS guide lines, CS guide lines, etc have provided any cogent and relevant evidence in support of their argument.

    Yet you play the "emotional" card to try to throw me off balance or something. You may be a good "live" debater, using psychological tactics to win, rather than just plain logic; but I'm here trying to find flaws in my logic, and you've contributed nothing so far.
    Actually, I am using Soctratic questioning methods to your argument. No "trick" and most litigation lawyers use the same techniques in breaking apart an argument.

    Socratic questioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I don't have any "magical powers" as you are suggesting to "throw you off" or using "psychological tactics" to "win". I am using Soctractic questioning, the other poster who does this is Mess.

    In fact, you have provided nothing in support of your argument as you can't answer with supporting evidence any of the basic questions brought forward:

    1. Please "clarify your thinking".
    2. I am challenging your assumptions.
    3. Asking you for the evidence in support of your argument.
    4. Providing alternative viewpoints.
    5. Identifying implications and consequences you may face in your argument.
    6. Questioning the question.

    PS: I am not as smart or "magical" as you are trying to project in that last statement. I am just well researched in Family Law and regurgitating information you can find yourself easily through applying Google search and the search on CanLII. So, don't for one second think I am some mind controlling expert or something I am not.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Janus View Post
      The reason is that while the position may be correct, and while it is a position that should be supported with reference to the Contino case, it is in fact not backed up by case law. Judges continue to almost completely ignore 9(c), despite being explicitly told not to. It takes a very rich person to fight the tide, and most of us do not have the financial resources to do so.
      I have no doubt that you are probably well qualified to tackle the problem, have a senior management position and a high income earner. This is just an assumption based on your writing style and the logic applied quite often when you are not hurling personal insults.

      But, you are probably smart enough to know that throwing good money after bad isn't worth the risk nor is it the risk of upsetting a status quo of 50-50 custody and access to dispute 8,400 a year in offset child support payments.

      Ultimately, I would assume that you rather not fight it out in court to win on principal as it doesn't win anything for the children involved in the matter and only results in two parents who are trapped in years litigating over "money" and not really focusing on what truly matters... Their children.

      Also, I kindly ask that you pack up your personal insults towards me and put them in a better wrapped package when delivering them on this forum.

      Good Luck!
      Tayken

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
        But, you are probably smart enough to know that throwing good money after bad isn't worth the risk nor is it the risk of upsetting a status quo of 50-50 custody and access to dispute 8,400 a year in offset child support payments.

        Ultimately, I would assume that you rather not fight it out in court to win on principal as it doesn't win anything for the children involved in the matter and only results in two parents who are trapped in years litigating over "money" and not really focusing on what truly matters... Their children.
        I agree completely. I am sure that thousands of other payors of offset support have made the same calculation. If you are paying offset, then you have shared custody, and the quantum of payments is substantially less than a CP/NCP situation. Both of these factors make the value of litigation substantially less.

        For example, a payor knows that a "fair" CS payment would be $300, and would be arrived at through a proper calculation of 9(b) and 9(c)... but 9(a) determines a value of $500. Going to court and winning would "save" $2400 a year, at a cost of $24,000 (or more) even after costs are awarded.

        But it gets even worse, because of a substantial history of erroneous case law in shared custody situations, the payor is in fact unlikely to win, and in fact might see the error compounded as many judges will in fact increase payments beyond the offset.

        The net result is that nobody in their right mind goes to court to fight offset CS, despite the fact that it is manifestly unfair and is contrary to the directions of both the legislation and the supreme court. It is especially disappointing since the injustice created by the excessively high offset payments hurts the children, who after all spend half their time with the parent who is being financially hurt by these payments.

        I truly believe that if the courts looked towards the best interests of the children, then they would do a complete 9(c) calculation with every single case. Their refusal to do so is baffling, and leads me to have little faith in the system.

        Comment


        • #49
          Hi everyone, ok I'm going to jump into this conversation and would like some feedback.
          I actually was thinking the same thing as the OP was thinking.
          I finished court last June so this june we have to file for the change in offset.
          At that time I was going to file a motion of change, baised on the fact that the Judge in our 14 day trial never heard anything regarding debt. incurded during the relationship (common law). or any of the property issues, (she took off with a car and sold it before Ihad a chance to put a lean on it). So left me with more debt.
          Summary, of our case, two girls, and we are both single parents. No extra children to muddy the waters.
          Mom left relationship debt free, and gone into debt over legal fees.
          I was left with $60,000 in comsumer debt at date of seperation. My ex had bad credit so we had everything on my credit cards.

          This is my sit. I'm really try hard not to be emtional and always look at things from the children's persective.

          Below is my arguement as it is right now.

          Comment


          • #50
            Incomes are hypotheical

            Parent 'A' earned in 2011: $60000.00
            Parent 'B' earned in 2011: $35000.00
            Based on Table amounts and the following calculations:
            Parent 'A' table amount would be:
            $892 (basic amount for 60000)
            =$892
            Parent 'B' table Amount would be:
            $508 (basic amount for 35,000)
            =$508
            Table amounts are government amounts based on what the average family would spend for room, board, clothing, etc.
            Given our incomes and the amounts we should be spending on our children, the children Child A and Child B have a pool of money each month of $1400 spent on them.
            The guidelines state that if the access is between 40% and 60% then each parent pays the other as if each has sole access to the children.
            Given that the current calculation of the Parent 'A' paying the mother $384 dollars a month which is the difference of the two amounts 892 - 508 roughly equals $384 a month
            This means that Parent 'B' actually has $508 + $384 = $892 to spend on the children, or 63% of the pool, and Parent 'A' actually has $892 - $384 = $508 to spend on the children or 36% of the pool.
            Currently the children live equally with both parents; however their pool of money is not balanced between the homes they live in.
            That means that parent 'A' who must house, feed and clothe the children must do so with less money than what Parent 'B' has to spend.
            Now Parent 'A' is trying to maintain the same standard of living for the children as Parent 'B' has in their home. Parent 'A' has to spend $892 on the children to maintain the same standard of living. Using the calculation and the table amounts that is like paying $892 + $384 = $1276 into child support. That would be an imposed imputed income of $88,600 when Parent 'A's income is actually $60,000 that's an imputed income of $28,600 that Parent 'A' doesn't have.
            The Solution
            I propose the following calculation to balance the children's lives in both homes.
            We take the $1400 and divide by the 50% the children spend in each home.
            That would give each parent $700 to spend on the children's room, board, and clothing.
            Given that amount the payment from Parent 'A' to Parent 'B' would me $892 - $700 = $192 to Parent 'B' each month.
            This would give an equal amount of funds to both parents to help raise the children.
            While maintaining that Parent 'A' given his higher income still pays %63 of the children's costs which is still fair.
            This would allow the children to have the same style of cloths at one house, as they do at the other house. This would benifit the children becuase they wouldn't see a disparagy in standards of living between the homes.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
              The Solution
              I propose the following calculation to balance the children's lives in both homes.
              Who are you proposing this to? Family court judges cannot change the law. Even if you mounted a challenge to the law, it can only be struck down, not changed by the courts. The only way make the changes you are proposing is to take them to the federal government. The changes will not happen just because you email them to your MP. You have to make the arguments and be convincing at the bureaucratic level, because the Guidelines are put together there, and then passed on to parliament.


              This means that Parent 'B' actually has $508 + $384 = $892 to spend on the children, or 63% of the pool, and Parent 'A' actually has $892 - $384 = $508 to spend on the children or 36% of the pool.
              Currently the children live equally with both parents; however their pool of money is not balanced between the homes they live in..
              No it doesn't mean that. Parent A has more money than $508. Parent A has an income of $60k in your scenario.

              Parent A still has $892 to spend on the children. Parent A is transferring money from their discretionary income to parent B, so that Parent B has a similar amount to spend on the children in that household. In your scenario Parent A has already spent all of the rest of their money and only has $508 left in their pocket. Your scenario only works if you start with the assumption to make it work.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mess View Post
                Who are you proposing this to? Family court judges cannot change the law. Even if you mounted a challenge to the law, it can only be struck down, not changed by the courts. The only way make the changes you are proposing is to take them to the federal government. The changes will not happen just because you email them to your MP. You have to make the arguments and be convincing at the bureaucratic level, because the Guidelines are put together there, and then passed on to parliament.
                You have to start somewhere. Many laws have been changed because a small group grew to a critical mass, which convinced a politician that it might be worthwhile to take a stand on the issue.

                The problem here is that the opposing side (eg. LEAF) strongly opposes any change that might lead to more equitable outcomes in family law. Also, there is serious discrimination against payors of support in our society. These are not insurmountable hurdles, but they will take time. Just because success cannot be achieved immediately, does not mean that it should not be strived for.

                Also, the problem lies at different levels. The problem to those paying full table support is with the bureaucrats who have made the tables. The problem with the matrimonial home split is political, and the problem with offset calculations is judicial.

                Or, to summarize, for shared custody, judges are precisely the people who need to be convinced, and who have the power to fix the problem. The legislation already exists to be fair, it is just the judicial interpretation that skews the results.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Mess View Post
                  Who are you proposing this to? Family court judges cannot change the law. Even if you mounted a challenge to the law, it can only be struck down, not changed by the courts. The only way make the changes you are proposing is to take them to the federal government. The changes will not happen just because you email them to your MP. You have to make the arguments and be convincing at the bureaucratic level, because the Guidelines are put together there, and then passed on to parliament.


                  No it doesn't mean that. Parent A has more money than $508. Parent A has an income of $60k in your scenario.

                  Parent A still has $892 to spend on the children. Parent A is transferring money from their discretionary income to parent B, so that Parent B has a similar amount to spend on the children in that household. In your scenario Parent A has already spent all of the rest of their money and only has $508 left in their pocket. Your scenario only works if you start with the assumption to make it work.
                  In my situation I'm seven years older than my ex, and have very little discretionary income.

                  I was going to file a court paper when I file for the adjustment in CS I have to do that each year. As such I will make the arguement that the trial judge didn't have knowledge of the debts of the relationship as such couldn't have taking into account that in his disicion as such perhaps he would have ordered something else.
                  I believe the judges have the discretion to order something other than offset by taking into account the debts one party has if they were incurred during the relationship. Correct me if I am wrong here.

                  Anyhow the plan was to file a 14B and state we can't discuss this with our Parenting Coordinator becuase his expectise is custody and access and not finanical or property as such I would be seeking permission to bring a motion on the matter. That way it's more like an adminstrative motion and if a judge wants to hear the arguement then they might be more open to ruling for it.

                  It only takes one case, to build opne it.
                  Take the case in quebec.
                  I know I don't have the facts right but the story is the same.
                  where a supermodel was common law to a millionar that had a 13 year relationship with a millioniar, they had several children. They seperated. Woman's groups funded the ex wife's case as interested parties, and they went after the arguement that half his property (which was his before the relationship should be her's) I believe they won, but I think it has gone to appeal.
                  What does this mean, it means now for common law relationships if you have a girl friend move into your all paid house then perhaps when they leave they can take half the value as if you were married.

                  P.S. I know I have said gf and such but it could also be a male that goes after the vaue as will.

                  Did anyone else hear about this case.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mess View Post
                    No it doesn't mean that. Parent A has more money than $508. Parent A has an income of $60k in your scenario.

                    Parent A still has $892 to spend on the children. Parent A is transferring money from their discretionary income to parent B, so that Parent B has a similar amount to spend on the children in that household. In your scenario Parent A has already spent all of the rest of their money and only has $508 left in their pocket. Your scenario only works if you start with the assumption to make it work.
                    I'm curious now, time to do the math.

                    Does anyone know a good online calculator for after-tax income for somebody earning $60,000? The ones I find are giving me a very low figure so there must be something I am overlooking.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Revenue Canada comes through

                      Parent A: $60,000 income
                      Parent B: $35,000 income

                      After Tax Income:

                      Parent A: $31,695.84
                      Parent B: $19,078.24

                      Recipient Support (for 2 children):

                      Parent A: $892x12 = $10,704
                      Parent B: $508x12 = $6,096
                      Offset: $4608

                      After Support Income:

                      Parent A: $27,087.84
                      Parent B: $23,686.24
                      Difference: $3401.60

                      Sec 7 split:

                      Parent A: 63.2%
                      Parent B: 36.8%

                      Assume day care at $80/day for two kids, or $1600/month. That is $19,200 per year.

                      Daycare costs:
                      Parent A: $12,134.4 (63.2% of costs)
                      Parent B: $7056.6

                      Income after daycare, taxes, and support:

                      Parent A: $14,953
                      Parent B: $16,629

                      Now, sec 7 should probably be calculated on the after support income, but many poor saps that I have talked to end up getting it calculated on gross income. The above is the reality for most people I talk to. Earn less, get more. A marginal tax/support rate of over 100%.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Now, if parent A increases his income by $1000, what is the net result?

                        Income:

                        Parent A: $61,000
                        Parent B: $35,000

                        After Tax:

                        Parent A: $32,200.54
                        Parent B: $19,078.24

                        Offset recipient support for two children: $4776

                        After tax and support:

                        Parent A: $27,425
                        Parent B: $23,854

                        Parent A got $338 of the $1000 increase
                        Parent B got $168 of the $1000 increase

                        Not sure if I have a point, I was just curious. The above doesn't include section 7 pain or extra costs involved in earning that $1000.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Now, with 4 kids and offset support:


                          Parent A: $60,000 income
                          Parent B: $35,000 income

                          After Tax Income:

                          Parent A: $31,695.84
                          Parent B: $19,078.24

                          Recipient Support (for 4 children):

                          Offset: $6264

                          After Support Income:

                          Parent A: $25,431.84
                          Parent B: $25,342.24

                          Hopefully parent A doesn't have any costs associated with earning more, or he's actually going to end up with less money than parent B.
                          Last edited by Janus; 01-25-2013, 02:12 AM. Reason: oops, kept income at 61000

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Thank god I'm on city subsity for daycare.
                            my cost is 517 a month. Mind you the children only go every other week.
                            my ex works nights so she only needs daycare 4 days and 2 nights a month.

                            But do you calculations take into account all the tax benefits?
                            HST for my ex, none for me
                            Child care benefit
                            UCCB

                            etc. etc.

                            What is the calculation now?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Janus View Post
                              Revenue Canada comes through

                              Parent A: $60,000 income
                              Parent B: $35,000 income

                              After Tax Income:

                              Parent A: $31,695.84
                              Parent B: $19,078.24

                              Recipient Support (for 2 children):

                              Parent A: $892x12 = $10,704
                              Parent B: $508x12 = $6,096
                              Offset: $4608

                              After Support Income:

                              Parent A: $27,087.84
                              Parent B: $23,686.24
                              Difference: $3401.60

                              Sec 7 split:

                              Parent A: 63.2%
                              Parent B: 36.8%

                              Assume day care at $80/day for two kids, or $1600/month. That is $19,200 per year.

                              Daycare costs:
                              Parent A: $12,134.4 (63.2% of costs)
                              Parent B: $7056.6

                              Income after daycare, taxes, and support:

                              Parent A: $14,953
                              Parent B: $16,629

                              Now, sec 7 should probably be calculated on the after support income, but many poor saps that I have talked to end up getting it calculated on gross income. The above is the reality for most people I talk to. Earn less, get more. A marginal tax/support rate of over 100%.
                              Interesting numbers and the observation on S.7. Need to do some analysis but, interesting path you have tayken on identifying things. Need to cross check gross expenses for families with the average family costs from Statscan as well.

                              Your observations on S.7 are interesting as well.

                              Could you provide the link to the Revenue Canada information you leveraged to calculate the after-tax income?

                              Good Luck!
                              Tayken

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Janus View Post
                                You have to start somewhere. Many laws have been changed because a small group grew to a critical mass, which convinced a politician that it might be worthwhile to take a stand on the issue.
                                The problem is you are not going to find that "small group" on a free public message board. As well, that "small group" generally has legal counsel, financial support (eventually) and members who are focused and not aligned to any dogma/ideology generally.

                                For example, it would take a small group of well thought out and balanced people that span gender, race, religion and sexual orientation to raise the issue.

                                Check out how Stephen Watkins is organizing efforts regarding child abduction. He is setting up the correct model for bringing forward legislative change. Also, one has to consider the emotional and financial investment to bringing forward this change.

                                I don't totally disagree with you but, when looking at it from a return on investment perspective (ROI) the emotional investment combined with the financial investment to resolve the dispute isn't worth it. It would impact parental communications and make matters more difficult for the children involved.

                                So, when one states that the courts are not concerned with children's best interests, one has to ponder if the courts take this approach to get families out of the stream of litigation and into some normalized mode of operation that doesn't involve the adversarial system.

                                So, you have to weigh possibly the emotional impact to children for having long drawn out litigation in such a matter. I don't think there are many reasonable parents who would risk their children's emotional health and well being to win on the principals of math.

                                Because, child support does eventually end one day. So, someone taking on the argument before the court may spend the majority of their child support paying years fighting it out in court. Not sure if that is in the best interests of the children really.

                                Good Luck!
                                Tayken

                                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