In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


On Sun, 28 Jan 1996, fathers wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Donald J. King wrote:
> 
> > WHY SHOULD ANY PARENT PAY TO SEE THEIR CHILDREN SYSTEMATICALLY ABUSED, AND
> > NEGLECTED??
> > 
> > Under the current scheme of "child support", there is no accountibility
> > required by the recipient thereof, on any fiscl basis, of the monies
> > received.  As has been proven, time, and again, this subsidy does not
> > actually go to the benefit of the child.  This is a fallacy "presumed" by
> > the court(s), and under the law, that "presumes" that the custodial parent
> > (mother, usually), will exercise sound judgment in the allocation of these
> > funds to provide the maximum benefit, for the children in their care.

Rarely, if ever does the father actually pay as much as was available in 
the original marriage.  In order to do this he would have to pay 80% of 
his after-tax income.  This would leave him sleeping in subway stations 
and unsuitable for work.

It is only a matter of time after the final decree, that the mother 
realizes she must do something to supplement the child support.  Her 
options include:

Working outside the home.  Without additional training, she will be
unlikely to earn enough to make up the difference.  She would also 
have to earn enough to pay for her share of the day-care.  Often she goes 
back to the court for an increase in support based on this need.  
Assuming that the father is paying the amount given by the guidelines, 
she can get another $400/month for licensed day-care.  The father cannot 
deduct this and the mother doesn't have to use licensed day-care.  The 
guy who lives up the block will do it for $200/month.  He'll do it for 
$100/month if she'll have sex with him a few times/week.  Papa is now 
paying 75% of his income and mom just pocketed $300/month.

She can put herself through school.  Of course she will need day-care 
(see above).  She can get federal assistance based on her 20 hour/week 
minimum wage job (the child support isn't considered her income).  When 
she triples her earning capacity, the child-support is recalculated based 
on the New COMBINED Income - the father can realize a 1% reduction (about 
$4/month if he pays a lawyer $1000 for the filings.  The break even 
occurs about 250 payments later (21 years).

She can wait for him to get an increase.  Since dad is now single, he has 
more time to spend at work.  Since he has just lost 50-75% of his 
after-tax income, he needs to earn more to pay off the debts of the 
marriage.  He may take work transfers, change jobs, become a consultant, 
or just work a second job.  Just as he starts to break even, getting a 
20% increase (average for NCP fathers within 2 years after divorce).  A 
lawyer, working on a contingincy basis demands and gets a 20% increase in 
child support.  The father ends up paying an additional 20% of his 
after-tax income.  The mother's lawyer gets $16,000 over 20 years.  The 
mother gets an extra $38,000, and the father gets to pay an additional 
$48,000 in support plus an additional $24,000 in taxes and FICA.

She can get a boyfriend.  Since the only income considered in the 
child-support equation is actual income earned by the mother herself, she 
can exclude all income from her boyfriend.  The fact that he just happens 
to be paying a portion of the rent (in cash, of course), and is providing 
additional portions of her expenses is not considered part of the 
child-support equation.  To acknoledge any income from a lover would be 
considered prostitution.  To make such an accusation without being able 
to prove prostitution beyond a reasonable doubt would be an invasion of 
privacy and possibly slander, in a court of law.  Mom could net an 
additional $500/month or $120,000 over the next 20 years.  If the 
boyfriend is on disability, this would be tax-free income with the 
ability to earn extra "off the books".

She can get married.  The main advantage of marriage over just shacking 
up is the death and insurance benefits.  She can keep the husband's 
insurance for herself and have the father's insurance for the kids.  Of 
course, this insurance has a net value of about $400/month (vs. standard 
rate health insurance).  The net value over 20 years could exceed $96,000.
The difference is paid by the employer and reduces earnings potential by 
approximately 10-20%.  Net cost to the father $120,000 over 20 years.

If she inherits money after the divorce, she can use it to put down on a 
house.  She shelters the taxes, builds the equity, and gets a low monthly 
payment.  None of this figures into the support equation the way an 
annuity payment would.

Bottom line is that a shrewd woman, working all the angles of the law, 
can get as much as $1 Million over the next 20 years.  The court actually 
has a vested interest in that it shifts the tax burden from the mother 
who would cap-out at a 20% rate to the father who can quickly find 
himself in the 50% (state, local, fica...) tax rate.  One "dead-beat-dad" 
is worth $500,000 in taxes alone.

The image of the woman, in her first 3 months after her divorce, trying 
to curtail the expenses to fit within a budget roughly half the size of 
the one she was managing 6 months earlier creates the illusion of 
hardship.  It is a hardship for that initial "shock period".

As adjustments are made, as new resources are tapped, the father his held 
to a 20 year slavery contract.

> In addition, it has been PROVEN time and again that this presumption is 
> FALSE.  The court and all of its attendants KNOW this.  So WHY do they 
> continue the failed PRESUMPTION?  m-o-n-e-y.

As indicated above, NCP fathers are a major source of tax revenue, 
potentially as much as 50 billion/year in "bonus taxes".  We actually get 
to pay the taskmaster for enslaving us.  Given the "20 year contract", 
that figure can go be as much as 3 trillion dollars over a 20 year 
period.  This is based on 50 million NCPs paying an average of $500/month 
"extra taxes" over the next 20 years.

> > During the O.J. Simpson trial, Marcia Clark, leading prosecutor therein,
> > summed it up, and confirmed what we all have known, and espoused, but has
> > fallen upon the deaf ears of the social rats that continue to feed off their
> > own children, which, BTW, appears to be the majority of the population.  She
> > said, of her motion for modification of child support, in her own
> > dissolution case, "Since I am now doing high profile cases that requrie,
> > and/or exhert wide media attention, it is necessary to increase the child
> > support she is currently receiving, inorder to afford more clothes, and have
> > her hair done more often, due to the media exposure".

This would be an argument for a tax deduction.  It might even be used as 
a basis for reducing her child support.  On the other hand, California 
may require the NCP to "invest" in the woman's career growth (based on 
the assumption that he forced her to stay barefoot and pregnant after 
forcing her to drop out of high school - not that she chose to drop out 
and quit working).

> > Where is the child in this equation???

The "standard deduction" on my 1040 form is $2500/year/child.  This is 
what the government estimates is the child's "share" of the household 
expenses.  In other words, anything over $210/month/child is just taxible 
alimony.  If you are paying less than that, congratulations, you got of 
cheap.  If you are like me and paying more like $6,000/year/child, you 
get to pay a "penalty" of $3500.  You get to pay taxes on that at the 
single rate.  Total hit is over $1500/year.  If she doesn't want to give 
you the tax deduction, you can pay taxes of over $3000/year.  For two 
children, thats $9000/year in overpayment of taxes and alimony disguised 
as child support.

> answer:  in the day care center, paid for by the father, so that she can 
> keep the kids away from him!

As pointed out above, she doesn't even have to use a day-care center.  
She could just hire Megan Kanka's Babysitter.  For a few hours of sex 
every month.  And keep the cash for herself.

> > >> >I support my 3 children, of whom I have custody.  If you don't have custody
> > >> you should be sure they have what they need, before you buy a sports car or
> > >> a computer.

I support my 2 children, of whom I do not have custody.  Due to the cost 
of living difference between NYC and Colrado Springs Colorado, and the 
methods described above, they live luxuriously in a 2500 sq ft house in a 
upper middle class neighborhood along with their disabled mother and 
father.  I am living in an efficiency in Jersey City, no guests allowed.
It's slightly nicer than the "Community Corrections" hotel in Colorado 
Springs. (I don't have a room-mate in my 300 Sq Foot apartment).



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Feb  7 18:24:16 1996