5 ms·

If he switches from contract/1099 to a wage job I wonder if child support will start garnishing the fuck out of it. This is the black hole a lot of people get

by ty6853 2y ago

If he switches from contract/1099 to a wage job I wonder if child support will start garnishing the fuck out of it. This is the black hole a lot of people get sucked into and end up having to start their own business to buy some runway because the courts very much enjoy kicking non custodial parents in the teeth to the point they cannot get one foot on the ground.

endofreach 2y ago
It's not like the government is taking the money though... usually it goes to someone who is arguably deserving. So i feel "kicking in the teeth" seems inappropriate. I also fucked up because of taxes many times and just recently a big bad "surprise" hit me. But it's not like it was not my failure of responsibility.
- john_moscow 2y ago
  No point in setting yourself on fire to keep others warm though.
  - kaikai 2y ago
    Actually I think caring for your children is one of the few times where it DOES make sense to set yourself on fire to keep them warm. I get the logic of needing room to get on one’s feet, but those kids still need care. Presumably their other parent is already sacrificing to pick up the slack.
    - anon743448 2y ago
      While dramatic, and sometimes necessary to set yourself on fire but most of the times your children will be better off if you push through the storm without burning yourself. They will suffer cold a little longer but watching your parent burn to death will scar them for life. And that is the problem with child support system. It is ready to burn the father as the first option instead of last resort.
    - phendrenad2 2y ago
      This whole thread is a masterclass on why having children is a bad idea in our society. Yikes.
  - atoav 2y ago
    If you added a person to the world you're responsible for them. Especially if you're not putting in the day to day work of raising a kid and someone else is. Don't want a kid? Use contraceptives. But do not blame it on the government that you now are responsible for another person. Santed a kid but realized the person you have been with isn't for you? Well then it was probably too early to get a kid with them. Amazing. Has US individualism become so extreme, that it can't even be expected from parents to stand in for their kids, till they are grown up? Yes, metaphorically good parents would set themselves on fire to warm their kids. If you want to support poor parents the answer isn't "fuck their kids", the answer is "let the rest of us help them".
  - liamwire 2y ago
    If the alternative is that your kids go cold instead, let me be the first to offer you a match.
    - immibis 2y ago
      And what should that child do for warmth, when both of their parents are dead?
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Taxpayer. First for welfare, then the prison. Maybe that's the point, remove the father from the kids life, subtract enough money he can never fully stand back up, dad is now broke and out the picture and the kid without money or a fatherly role model. More fodder for gangs, the prison system, and exploited manual labor.
kaikai 2y ago
Supporting their kids is one of their responsibilities. Child support is income-based. I haven’t had to navigate that system so don’t have specific advice, but I’m not going to support someone dodging child support.
- ty6853 2y ago
  It is based on imputed not actual income, unlike taxes. Hence say someone getting taken hostage by terrorists will owe back support and be jailed upon their release [0]. The tax analogy would be the IRS thinks you should be better at stocks, maybe on the basis you had a few good years, then taxes you for that this year instead of your bad gains due to luck/depression/whatever. https://greensboro.com/ex-hostage-jailed-in-child-support-case/article_1fed687a-38e8-55c9-ab2f-411f82a525fa.html https://greensboro.com/ex-hostage-jailed-in-child-support-ca...
  - waste_monk 2y ago
    Unfortunately they have to be pretty harsh about chasing up child support, as people spend fantastic amounts of time and effort trying to dodge it. Support has to use imputed income based on earning capacity, because people regularly quit their jobs (or get ones that pay significantly worse that their previous income) to avoid paying child support. I have a relative who worked in family law and I have no doubt there is a subset of the population (or rather the subset of the population who end up in the family court system) stupid and vindicative enough that they would deliberately get themselves held hostage, if they thought it would get them out of child support.
    - 1123581321 2y ago
      That sounds like a plaintiff's perspective when there is no concern for the welfare of the other parent. From a broader view of family law, we should be trying to make it more fair and being watchful for opportunities to reform abuses. The public has an interest in the welfare of both parents and any children in a divorce. We want the children to have two healthy and stable parents, and we do not want to incur health and human services costs from a destabilized parent. Not to mention the moral issues with allowing injustice to occur in an imbalanced area of the legal system.
cafard 2y ago
Did his Ask mention child support?

by ty6853 2y ago

endofreach 2y ago

It's not like the government is taking the money though... usually it goes to someone who is arguably deserving. So i feel "kicking in the teeth" seems inappropriate. I also fucked up because of taxes many times and just recently a big bad "surprise" hit me. But it's not like it was not my failure of responsibility.

john_moscow 2y ago
No point in setting yourself on fire to keep others warm though.
- kaikai 2y ago
  Actually I think caring for your children is one of the few times where it DOES make sense to set yourself on fire to keep them warm. I get the logic of needing room to get on one’s feet, but those kids still need care. Presumably their other parent is already sacrificing to pick up the slack.
  - anon743448 2y ago
    While dramatic, and sometimes necessary to set yourself on fire but most of the times your children will be better off if you push through the storm without burning yourself. They will suffer cold a little longer but watching your parent burn to death will scar them for life. And that is the problem with child support system. It is ready to burn the father as the first option instead of last resort.
  - phendrenad2 2y ago
    This whole thread is a masterclass on why having children is a bad idea in our society. Yikes.
- atoav 2y ago
  If you added a person to the world you're responsible for them. Especially if you're not putting in the day to day work of raising a kid and someone else is. Don't want a kid? Use contraceptives. But do not blame it on the government that you now are responsible for another person. Santed a kid but realized the person you have been with isn't for you? Well then it was probably too early to get a kid with them. Amazing. Has US individualism become so extreme, that it can't even be expected from parents to stand in for their kids, till they are grown up? Yes, metaphorically good parents would set themselves on fire to warm their kids. If you want to support poor parents the answer isn't "fuck their kids", the answer is "let the rest of us help them".
- liamwire 2y ago
  If the alternative is that your kids go cold instead, let me be the first to offer you a match.
  - immibis 2y ago
    And what should that child do for warmth, when both of their parents are dead?
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Taxpayer. First for welfare, then the prison. Maybe that's the point, remove the father from the kids life, subtract enough money he can never fully stand back up, dad is now broke and out the picture and the kid without money or a fatherly role model. More fodder for gangs, the prison system, and exploited manual labor.

kaikai 2y ago

Supporting their kids is one of their responsibilities. Child support is income-based. I haven’t had to navigate that system so don’t have specific advice, but I’m not going to support someone dodging child support.

ty6853 2y ago
It is based on imputed not actual income, unlike taxes. Hence say someone getting taken hostage by terrorists will owe back support and be jailed upon their release [0]. The tax analogy would be the IRS thinks you should be better at stocks, maybe on the basis you had a few good years, then taxes you for that this year instead of your bad gains due to luck/depression/whatever. https://greensboro.com/ex-hostage-jailed-in-child-support-case/article_1fed687a-38e8-55c9-ab2f-411f82a525fa.html https://greensboro.com/ex-hostage-jailed-in-child-support-ca...
- waste_monk 2y ago
  Unfortunately they have to be pretty harsh about chasing up child support, as people spend fantastic amounts of time and effort trying to dodge it. Support has to use imputed income based on earning capacity, because people regularly quit their jobs (or get ones that pay significantly worse that their previous income) to avoid paying child support. I have a relative who worked in family law and I have no doubt there is a subset of the population (or rather the subset of the population who end up in the family court system) stupid and vindicative enough that they would deliberately get themselves held hostage, if they thought it would get them out of child support.
  - 1123581321 2y ago
    That sounds like a plaintiff's perspective when there is no concern for the welfare of the other parent. From a broader view of family law, we should be trying to make it more fair and being watchful for opportunities to reform abuses. The public has an interest in the welfare of both parents and any children in a divorce. We want the children to have two healthy and stable parents, and we do not want to incur health and human services costs from a destabilized parent. Not to mention the moral issues with allowing injustice to occur in an imbalanced area of the legal system.

cafard 2y ago

Did his Ask mention child support?