Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 10-19-2009, 07:24 AM
Foredeck Foredeck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 370
Foredeck is on a distinguished road
Default

I make significantly more then my ex as a gross income. However, after you calculate all social programs that she receives, my child support, my extra payments for section 7 expenses, etc. We make roughly the same.

If you substract my education tuition, she will have a higher net income/disposable income.

I won't say that I'll live in poverty to go through with this. However, I will have to make some serious cuts in my budget, and, I will live under her standards for the 3 or 4 years it takes.

I don't mind paying from the tables. However, if she does benefit from the increase from my education, I think it would be fair to deduct tuition from my salary when calculating CS.

I'm guessing I'm stuck in this situation, but just needed to vent.
  #12  
Old 10-19-2009, 07:38 AM
Stargate Stargate is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Posts: 219
Stargate is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foredeck View Post
I am looking into doing my MBA and I was curious about something.

If I do go through with it, I will spend 5 years of studying part time on top of being a father and my full time job. It'll cost around 20 000$ also.

To make things simpler, lets say I get a 10 000$ per year raise out of this. It means that I'll have to pay 90$ per month more, or roughly 1 000$ per year.

The one thing I don't like is that she won't be affected by the extra expense, but she'll benefit from the result of the work and spending.

Am I stuck paying the table amount, no matter how I get there?
Simple answer is yes. The more you make the more you'll pay in CS. You CAN deduct your MBA costs from the standpoint of CRA.
  #13  
Old 10-19-2009, 09:27 AM
billiechic billiechic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vaughan
Posts: 2,373
billiechic is on a distinguished road
Default

The tuition you pay is deducted from your income each year that you pay it on your income tax, so it does reduce your CS obligations, at least for that year.

I am going to school part-time now, and this reduction will probably make our incomes almost the same.
  #14  
Old 10-19-2009, 10:14 AM
Foredeck Foredeck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 370
Foredeck is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billiechic View Post
The tuition you pay is deducted from your income each year that you pay it on your income tax, so it does reduce your CS obligations, at least for that year.

I am going to school part-time now, and this reduction will probably make our incomes almost the same.
I thought the CS tables were on gross income? I will be working full time, so my net income will be lower.
  #15  
Old 10-19-2009, 11:17 AM
got2bkid got2bkid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

Daba said
"So you would keep the child (and yes, as they live together the EX too) in poverty for years then hand the kid a pile of cash when they turn 18? To me, this does not seem like a good plan. Really, I know that a lot of NCPs get a raw deal, but your proposition seems worse, from my point of view. And I too, a CP will be probably be using up my tiny savings to go back to school part time, and even though my eventual higher earnings this will decrease my ex's proportion of section seven expenses, I totally think that is fine and fair."

You appear to believe that children are living in poverty if the CS payments are based on the income the parents had when they split up. If so, at what point do they have "enough" at the CP's house? At what point are they "out of poverty? If they are "in" poverty at the CP"s house, then clearly they child support system doesn't work and the child should be living with the higher income earning parent.

I disagree that a child instantly "benefits" from an increase in the NCP's income. Children cost a certain amount to raise. Just because you make more, doesn;t mean they cost more or you start spending more on them, move to a bigger house, get a bigger car. etc. Also, if the child benefits indirectly in an intact family when either parent has a rise in income, only the CP parent benefits from a rise in EITHER parents income. The CP can make millions and still squeeze the NCP for "child support" that leave him broke. Cause "it's for the kiids".

The ex in our case used the CS we sent "for the kids" to go to school for 6 years and get her 3rd useless degree. She choose not to work for 8 years and keep the kids in relative poverty. I agree with the previous poster about accountibility of where the CP spends the money. To me, saving the "extra" cash, after the child's needs are met by the NCP would put more pressure on the CP to provide properly for their child as well, not just rely on the "cash machine / NCP".
  #16  
Old 10-19-2009, 12:25 PM
representingself representingself is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 992
representingself is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid View Post
Also, if the child benefits indirectly in an intact family when either parent has a rise in income, only the CP parent benefits from a rise in EITHER parents income.
That's a slanted version of the truth.

In the Federal Child Support Tables, for every additional $100 per month that a NCP makes in gross income, the CS obligation increases $1 or $2.

So even if you only keep 70% of your gross income (after taxes), you are still gaining net $68 to $69 per month.

You get to keep the majority of your increase in income.
  #17  
Old 10-19-2009, 12:29 PM
Foredeck Foredeck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 370
Foredeck is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by representingself View Post
That's a slanted version of the truth.

In the Federal Child Support Tables, for every additional $100 per month that a NCP makes in gross income, the CS obligation increases $1 or $2.

So even if you only keep 70% of your gross income (after taxes), you are still gaining net $68 to $69 per month.

You get to keep the majority of your increase in income.
It's actually for every 100$ per year, you have to pay 1$ per month. So, if I make 100$ more per year, I pay 30% in taxes and 12% in CS. So, I am left with a bit about 55%.
  #18  
Old 10-19-2009, 12:52 PM
representingself representingself is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 992
representingself is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foredeck View Post
It's actually for every 100$ per year, you have to pay 1$ per month. So, if I make 100$ more per year, I pay 30% in taxes and 12% in CS. So, I am left with a bit about 55%.
12% of $100 is $12.

Child support increase of $1 per $100 is equal to 1%.

However, because CS is based on Gross Income and you pay it out of your Net Income... that $1 would relect 1.42% of the Net increase.

You would therefore keep 68.6% of your Net $100 increase.

I think..... I never was one for math.
  #19  
Old 10-19-2009, 12:55 PM
Foredeck Foredeck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 370
Foredeck is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by representingself View Post
12% of $100 is $12.

Child support increase of $1 per $100 is equal to 1%.

However, because CS is based on Gross Income and you pay it out of your Net Income... that $1 would relect 1.42% of the Net increase.

You would therefore keep 68.6% of your Net $100 increase.

I think..... I never was one for math.
But the tables are on monthly CS payments and annual gross income.

The monthly CS payments increase by 1$ for every 100$ of annual salary increase. So, if my salary increases by 100$ annually, I have to pay 1$ per month, or 12$ per year more.
  #20  
Old 10-19-2009, 12:55 PM
got2bkid got2bkid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

That's true Foredeck, and she can "earn" less taxable income, therefore get even more CCTB or tax return $$$ etc. IF they want to go that way.

But, what I really meant was, whether it's an appropriate reaction or not, when the NCP makes more and instatly "gives" more the the CP household, it does raise the CP standard of living, along with the child.

If the incomes of both parents were taken into consideration (as they are in many countries) and the CP made more $$$, how would they feel if they were told by the gov't, to hand over XXX to the NCP so it helps the child when they visit the NCP household? They probably wouldn't like that too much. CP's have it pretty good here, and should know it.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post Secondary Education Ginger_Mallow Divorce & Family Law 39 12-11-2012 08:18 PM
University Education Cost Limitations cigar7 Financial Issues 22 09-23-2011 07:32 PM
Post-secondary education StepMom25 Financial Issues 26 11-05-2010 11:55 AM
RESP - education Me_too Financial Issues 11 09-19-2008 09:20 PM
Adult Children - education expenses jq55 Divorce & Family Law 20 09-19-2007 01:24 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:59 PM.