So, as much as the CS guidelines do not take into consideration the amount of CCB that a person receives, I truly believe that it should. After all, the purpose of child support is not to ensure that the children have the same 'standard of living' whether their parents are separated or not? and with that in mind, if a family is separated and their combine income is $131,000 should they not technically be 'expected' to spend the same amount as a family who earns the same income but are still together? I crunched some numbers for Ontario and I was blown away...
Lets assume that the table for child support is a starting point to determine the amount that should be spent for a child. Income of $131,000.00 would give you an amount of $1,792 a month or $21,504 a year for 2 children.
Scenario 1:
- Family still together and $131,000 GROSS income
- CCB and provincial child benefit : about $3000 a year ($250/month)
- Amount to raise 2 children: $21,504
- Amount 'out of pocket' from parents: $21,504- $3000 = $18,504/ a year or $1542 a month
Scenario 2:
- Family separated total family income $131,000 (custodial parent: $36,000 non-custodial parent: $95,000)
- CCB and Provincial child benefit for custodial parent: about $12,000
a year ($1000/month)
- Amount to raise 2 children: $21,504
- Amount 'out of pocket' from parents: $21,504- $12,000 = $9,504 a year or $792 a month
***as per the federal guidelines, scenario 2 a non-custodial parent would be ordered to pay $1292 a month in child support OR $15,504 a year***
How is this fair? the family who is separated in the end, the custodial parent has $27,504 a year to spend on the children when a family of that same income but living together is expected to spend $21,504.. that is a $6000 difference and that is all after tax money.. and who is paying that $6000 difference.. the non-custodial parent.
Furthermore, the way the guidelines are made, if the non-custodial parent has the children 38% of the time doesn't make a difference, that parent will still pay the full amount like someone who sees their children 0% if the time!
Wouldn't it be fair that every family that has a income of $131,000 separated or not be expected to spend the same amount on their children... child support is for the children.. and child benefits are also for the children... so that $6000 extra paid by the non-custodial parent to me is pretty much 'spousal support'... I would go even further to say that both parent's income should be taken into consideration so if the non-custodial parent is making $95,000 and the custodial parent is making $36,000 well out of what is the out of pocket for the parent, the non-custodial should pay $72.5% and the custodial parent the remaining. After all don't they say that each parent needs to contribute for the children? To me having a low income and huge government benefits doesn't count for the actual contribution of the parent
What do you guys think? curious to see your view?
Lets assume that the table for child support is a starting point to determine the amount that should be spent for a child. Income of $131,000.00 would give you an amount of $1,792 a month or $21,504 a year for 2 children.
Scenario 1:
- Family still together and $131,000 GROSS income
- CCB and provincial child benefit : about $3000 a year ($250/month)
- Amount to raise 2 children: $21,504
- Amount 'out of pocket' from parents: $21,504- $3000 = $18,504/ a year or $1542 a month
Scenario 2:
- Family separated total family income $131,000 (custodial parent: $36,000 non-custodial parent: $95,000)
- CCB and Provincial child benefit for custodial parent: about $12,000
a year ($1000/month)
- Amount to raise 2 children: $21,504
- Amount 'out of pocket' from parents: $21,504- $12,000 = $9,504 a year or $792 a month
***as per the federal guidelines, scenario 2 a non-custodial parent would be ordered to pay $1292 a month in child support OR $15,504 a year***
How is this fair? the family who is separated in the end, the custodial parent has $27,504 a year to spend on the children when a family of that same income but living together is expected to spend $21,504.. that is a $6000 difference and that is all after tax money.. and who is paying that $6000 difference.. the non-custodial parent.
Furthermore, the way the guidelines are made, if the non-custodial parent has the children 38% of the time doesn't make a difference, that parent will still pay the full amount like someone who sees their children 0% if the time!
Wouldn't it be fair that every family that has a income of $131,000 separated or not be expected to spend the same amount on their children... child support is for the children.. and child benefits are also for the children... so that $6000 extra paid by the non-custodial parent to me is pretty much 'spousal support'... I would go even further to say that both parent's income should be taken into consideration so if the non-custodial parent is making $95,000 and the custodial parent is making $36,000 well out of what is the out of pocket for the parent, the non-custodial should pay $72.5% and the custodial parent the remaining. After all don't they say that each parent needs to contribute for the children? To me having a low income and huge government benefits doesn't count for the actual contribution of the parent
What do you guys think? curious to see your view?
Comment