Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child support calculations over $150,000?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    [emoji849]

    Considering you blast others about reading into things and making assumption I find it laughable how you project your experience on this. Note that the OP did not say anything about his child or wanting more time. Simply that his income has quadrupled and he loses most of it to taxes so he finds the monthly child support excessive. If he had come in here saying he wanted more time and he wanted to do more and he was being denied there may have been a different response. You can pretty much gauge the situation based on what is left out and the lack of follow up response.


    Lost cause rockscan... he’s only interested in ranting about how Dads are getting screwed and how all is women just suck them dry


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
      You clearly missed the point.



      If you, the females, the perceived child support recipients, are claiming that child support is to equalize life in both homes, then why does it have tendency to leave fathers to have to live on a couch?



      Another perspective, if ex re married another rich guy (assuming she only goes after rich guys) and is making way more than this guy combined, them how exactly does the 3000 from this man equalize the households? Child support is flawed in so many ways and you all know it. Quit band wagoning and milking people's hard earned money.



      Though my advice was not to do any of those things, and though I don't give advice, nor am qualified to do so, I can confirm I voluntarily gave up my kids too back in 2012 due to duty counsel negligence. close to 7 years later, I got 50.50. 7 years is a significant passage of a time. The child was a toddler at that time. Child is school age now. That's a huge material change in itself.



      I laughed in the face of status quo. The weakest most single ridiculous argument to maximize child support(blood money) and maintain power and control.

      [emoji849]

      If anyone missed the point it was you. This seems to be your MO in this forum.

      Considering you blast others about reading into things and making assumptions I find it laughable how you project your experience on this. Note that the OP did not say anything about his child or wanting more time. Simply that his income has quadrupled and he loses most of it to taxes so he finds the monthly child support excessive. If he had come in here saying he wanted more time and he wanted to do more and he was being denied there may have been a different response. You can pretty much gauge the situation based on what is left out and the lack of follow up response.

      There are many fathers on here who don’t like paying support, have difficult exes and are beaten down by the system. The difference is they don’t beat their chests like you do. Take it down a notch, we get it, you’re a courtroom hero, people should worship you, parades are being...zzzzzzzzz.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
        [emoji849]

        Considering you blast others about reading into things and making assumption I find it laughable how you project your experience on this. Note that the OP did not say anything about his child or wanting more time. Simply that his income has quadrupled and he loses most of it to taxes so he finds the monthly child support excessive. If he had come in here saying he wanted more time and he wanted to do more and he was being denied there may have been a different response. You can pretty much gauge the situation based on what is left out and the lack of follow up response.

        Go back and read one of the very first things he said :

        My ex has custody (given voluntarily due to bad advice) and I have visitation a couple of days every week.

        He needs to go back and fix this. It's do able.

        The reason he ran away is probably the tone of the comments the females gave here.

        Mensdivorceforums is always the more fruitful channel.
        Last edited by tunnelight; 08-13-2019, 07:58 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
          he’s only interested in ranting about how Dads are getting screwed and how all is women just suck them dry


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
          It's not a rant. It's a statement of fact. It's indeed what most women do after separation, ever. If it's not through child support, then it's through spousal support. If it's neither of those then it's running off to a shelter home and taking sole position of his home. There's good reasons why once my lawyer after filing a motion for another client (a dad being denied access) said he's sick and tired of women screwing around with dads access. Coming from someone who's been a lawyer for over 30 years. It's also a big part of what he did to my ex and other women alike.
          Last edited by tunnelight; 08-13-2019, 07:46 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by workinghard View Post
            I have read in some places that when your income is over $150,000 they may amend the child support tables. I have been divorced for 5 years and my daughter is turning 7 soon. My income is about $400,000/year right now but it was only about $75,000 when my ex and I split up.

            My ex has custody (given voluntarily due to bad advice) and I have visitation a couple of days every week.

            I'm currently paying over $3,000 a month to my ex (who has since remarried to someone making decent income and she works full time) and that seems excessive given how much it costs to raise a child.

            I have no problems paying but when I'm losing almost 55% of my income to taxes it seems like a little much to pay over $3k.

            Thoughts?
            I'm no pro on child support issues. However, I do know in all matters in family court where there is any sort of support order in place, it is fairly common that you exchange your financials every year. If you haven't done that then you should brace yourself for having to pay CS arrears. I've read many threads on this forum of parents who don't do this and they are absolutely shocked at the amount of arrears they find themselves in.

            I believe the idea of child support is to ensure home where child lives is up to similar standard as if child was being raised by intact family. Like it or not. Tunnelight is correct in one thing - if you want to maintain the 400k+ year lifestyle, while paying your CS, you should meet a woman who makes same as you. Actually, to do anything less than that kind of makes anyone's argument that women are bloodsuckers lame IMO. There are MANY men out there who like to have the control and prestige of being able to say that they fully support their families. All in one's perspective.

            I have huge respect for parents who get on with paying their support obligations and who don't make kids feel bad about it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Wow, that escalated quickly. I'd like to clarify a few points as things seem to have been misinterpreted. The reason I came here was that according to the support calculators (and this blog) for individuals making over $150,000 the table may not be appropriate.

              1) I have made my peace with the fact that it is very hard to change custody and I get a lot of time with her so I'm not interested in dragging everyone in to court for that. I have told her that if she wants to spend more time with me I'd be happy to speak with her mother but it's her choice. This isn't about getting custody/more time. Her mother doesn't make nearly what I do so sharing custody or 50/50 time wouldn't make a huge difference.

              2) I feel sorry for the fathers that live on couches or get otherwise screwed by the system or bad advice but I didn't cause that and I can't fix it, so saying I should be lucky because I make money doesn't really help anyone.

              3) I took a lot of risks and worked very hard 10-12 hours/day 7 days a week for years to get where I am. I'm not looking for sympathy, I know I make a lot of money, I'm just looking to keep as much as I can. I spend a LOT of money on my daughter, pay 100% of the section 7 expenses and have set up an RESP for her future etc.

              4) The amount I pay is the table amount and has been from day 1. There has been no court order and I have voluntarily given my tax returns over every year. I simply use the justice department calculator and adjust it each year.

              As I understood it, the purpose of child support is to either maintain the child's standard of living after divorce and/or maintain a minimum standard of living. Everyone is entitled to maximize their utility within all legal bounds which is simply what I am asking about. There are obviously some very bitter people who have been maligned by others but if anyone has interpretation or experience with the "over $150,000 the table may not be suitable" line I would like to hear about it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Thank you for your clarification.

                I'm sure there are people reading here who fall into the over 150k slot who can offer some suggestions.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Yes, you are correct. After 150k the tables don't apply. This is mainly for say a father who earns 5 million a year and would have to pay say $30,000 a month in child support. That child support amount obviously wouldn't make sense and so the judge would not use the table based amount calculation.

                  400,000k as you earn... well... approx $3000 is the child support payable... you'll need good reasoning to lower this....you are paying 100% of. childs section 7 expenses already... how much is this total child support you pay every month?

                  if it's not in a court order, you'll have to decide what is fair and pay that... but you've already decided on an amount 3000 and are paying that. as I indicated...all of a sudden lowering this amount is going to piss her off and land you in court... and a judge will want to hear from you why you all of a sudden changed it....warning...selfish unilateral decisions are hugely frowned upon in court.

                  if you have no interest in increasing your time with your child and not motivated because it wouldn't change child support much then you probably you should keep your custody agreement and keep paying what you're paying and not ever again ask about child support because it just makes you look like a fool who's just trying to get more rich. selfish, and cheap - otherwise you would be paying a lawyer than to come on a site for low income citizens who can't afford legal services... all of that defending for another cheapass deadbeat millionaire who'strying to save 5 bux.. seriously man?

                  but who am I to speak... rich people know all the good lawyers and pay money to get shit done !

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
                    If you... are claiming that child support is to equalize life in both homes, then why does it have tendency to leave fathers to have to live on a couch?
                    Child support is only meant to equalize in shared custody. There are some issues with CS in a shared custody situation, but that's an argument for a different thread. For non-custodial parents, child support does what it sets out to do.

                    In this case, the father is a non-custodial parent. As such, child support is not meant to equalize life in both homes, it is meant to enrich the home of the custodial parent for the presumed benefit of the child.


                    I voluntarily gave up my kids too back in 2012 due to duty counsel negligence. close to 7 years later, I got 50.50.
                    You are a massive outlier with an incompetent ex. Your advice is generally not applicable to 98% of the people on this forum. Almost nobody gets their kids back after giving them up.

                    I laughed in the face of status quo.
                    That's not why you won. Status quo is a serious argument, and should not be dismissed lightly.

                    start with small increments and work your way up. If she refuses to cooperate, take her to court without hesitation.
                    For people who are not what you claim to be, that will almost certainly not work. When you don't have the kids the courts are not going to suddenly rule in your favour. OP has almost no clout here. He needs to be incredibly nice for the next two years. Even threatening court would probably end any hope of obtaining a reasonable amount of time with his kids.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      A material change in circumstances can still take place following a consent order.

                      Foot note:

                      You are right, OP should just continue being nice. Being nice to his ex will give him what he wants in 2 years. I certainly had to be nice with my ex to get what I wanted, real fucking nice.

                      Disclaimer, the more nice I was to my ex, the more nice she was in saying no and playing games and the less I got what I wanted. One day, by the advice of a family law lawyer, I decided to be an asshole and take her back to court. Best decision I ever made.
                      Last edited by tunnelight; 08-16-2019, 12:08 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tunnelight View Post
                        A material change in circumstances can still take place following a consent order.
                        Of course it can, but the bar is high.

                        Disclaimer, the more nice I was to my ex, the more nice she was in saying no and playing games and the less I got what I wanted. One day, by the advice of a family law lawyer, I decided to be an asshole and take her back to court. Best decision I ever made.
                        1. Going to court is not being an asshole. Sometimes you have to go to court.

                        2. In the case of the OP here, he has a massive status quo against him, if he goes to court right now he will almost certainly lose.

                        3. Therefore, since court is not an option, he must play nice. No, he won't get exactly what he wants, but hopefully he can chip away at the status quo enough to get a reasonable shot at court. I agree that he will eventually have to go to court, but he is not ready to go just yet.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Wow. Tunnelight bitter much?

                          FYI: men are assholes too. After 3.5 years, 2 lawyers and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, my asshole lawyer-Wasband has never been forthright providing his financials. He’s in the $150,000+ income. He’s been too busy (cause he’s a “super-lawyer” you know). The information he has provided through the years was only done so on at the 11th hour after being served with motions to disclose. I’ve had to hire a forensic accountant to analyze his income and assets. All the while, I can barely make ends meet with my minimum wage job, while he’s buying new Audi’s, travelling to Ireland and soon Australia, buying all the latest technical gadgets and I can’t even afford to fix the breaks on my car or have the family pet vaccinated. We were married 23 years and had 3 kids. I have to borrow money from my kids to pay my internet bill and transfer money into their account when I receive my SS. Wasband is dragging this out hoping for me to surrender and agree to whatever low-ball offer he might finally make. The equalization payment will be substantial, and I expect my SS will increase.

                          That said, never would I generalize that all ex-husbands who are imposed support obligations are assholes like he is, nor should you assume all wives are out to make them destitute.

                          To the OP, just pay your CS and talk to your accountant about how to lower your income tax obligations.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Janus View Post
                            he has a massive status quo against him
                            You can't argue "status quo" once a material change in circumstances has taken place.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Janus View Post
                              Of course it can, but the bar is high.







                              1. Going to court is not being an asshole. Sometimes you have to go to court.



                              2. In the case of the OP here, he has a massive status quo against him, if he goes to court right now he will almost certainly lose.



                              3. Therefore, since court is not an option, he must play nice. No, he won't get exactly what he wants, but hopefully he can chip away at the status quo enough to get a reasonable shot at court. I agree that he will eventually have to go to court, but he is not ready to go just yet.


                              That’s right Janus. Status quo’s are huge!! Took a year for me to hear it from a judge.. my ex didn’t hear the same as I though.. as he is still insisting on joint with waaaaaay more time than he has now. Judge almost laughed at him... said 6 year status quo and our OCL report... then told the ex to stop with the games as income will get inputed too... as he is squarely on track this year to make even less then he did last year and confines to not give the judge any explanation as to why... and judge asked him point blank.. what is the material change... no answer was given.. yet we are still in court. :-/.


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                1. If there is no material change, then yes, status quo is huge and takes priority.

                                2. Once a material change in circumstances has taken place, status quo is history.
                                Last edited by tunnelight; 08-25-2019, 02:04 PM.

                                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