discuss the (de)merits of child support being used as income etc

[skiptex 225]

discuss the (de)merits of child support being used as income etc

the thread got got close.. but MOD said it could be discussed in another thread..

here is the link to get you up to speed if you want.. http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/335434-125-medcaid-child-support/page__pid__4980493__st__30#entry4980493

[웃 910]

If you have a kid with a billionaire and later get divorced. And you get $100,000 a month in child support. You get $100,000 a month.

If you get $400 a month. You get $400 a month.

As long as you can show a history of the money being paid then why shouldn't you count that as income?

It's like saying it is wrong to state that you make $100,000 a year if you have 5 kids. You should subtract X dollars per kid. No, you still make $100,000 a year.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[kytwell 179]

Child support should be used for the kids.<----------PERIOD

I am in a fortunate situation that I don't need or rely on child support I receive from my ex-wife. She doesn't pay it regularly either. When I was getting it regularly I set up passbook savings accounts for the 3 kids and would divide the amount by 4. I would deposit it into their accounts and use the rest to go buy them something at the store or go out to dinner with them. I still do it the same way now. I have never used it to show as "income" to get a car loan, mortgage and I won't be using it for the immigration process, that money is to support the kids, not my lifestyle.

I understand that some need/rely on it for their mortgage, electric, food etc. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the kids dressed in rags and the women with manicured nails, fresh haircut, latest trendy clothes and complaining her ex isn't paying enough to support his kids. I'd prefer that the courts take the money and allocate it, half in the form of a check for the rent/mortgage and the other half in the form of a gift card to the local supermarket. This would help to alleviate some of the bitterness and acrimony in the process and that would be better for the kids. As the fathers resent having to pay, b/c they have it in their head the money isn't being spent on their kid and the bitter spiteful woman acting like you can't control me, I'll spend it as I see fit if you want the kids to have more, buy it for them in addition to the money you already paying for them.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why not just eliminate the affidavit of support and disqualify a family based immigrant for any welfare until they are a citizen?

Job done.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

There aren't any "demerits".

It's in the FAM that it can be used if it can be documented.

Why not just eliminate the affidavit of support and disqualify a family based immigrant for any welfare until they are a citizen?

Job done.

States rights issue.

Child support should be used for the kids.<----------PERIOD

I am in a fortunate situation that I don't need or rely on child support I receive from my ex-wife. She doesn't pay it regularly either. When I was getting it regularly I set up passbook savings accounts for the 3 kids and would divide the amount by 4. I would deposit it into their accounts and use the rest to go buy them something at the store or go out to dinner with them. I still do it the same way now. I have never used it to show as "income" to get a car loan, mortgage and I won't be using it for the immigration process, that money is to support the kids, not my lifestyle.

I understand that some need/rely on it for their mortgage, electric, food etc. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the kids dressed in rags and the women with manicured nails, fresh haircut, latest trendy clothes and complaining her ex isn't paying enough to support his kids. I'd prefer that the courts take the money and allocate it, half in the form of a check for the rent/mortgage and the other half in the form of a gift card to the local supermarket. This would help to alleviate some of the bitterness and acrimony in the process and that would be better for the kids. As the fathers resent having to pay, b/c they have it in their head the money isn't being spent on their kid and the bitter spiteful woman acting like you can't control me, I'll spend it as I see fit if you want the kids to have more, buy it for them in addition to the money you already paying for them.

Hilarious.

If you have a kid with a billionaire and later get divorced. And you get $100,000 a month in child support. You get $100,000 a month.

If you get $400 a month. You get $400 a month.

As long as you can show a history of the money being paid then why shouldn't you count that as income?

It's like saying it is wrong to state that you make $100,000 a year if you have 5 kids. You should subtract X dollars per kid. No, you still make $100,000 a year.

Indeed.

[Rebecca616 38]

As a mother, i work nearly full time at my job. I think the time i have with my kids is too valuable to take 2 jobs. I personally do not qualify by myself to meet the 125% poverty rate but when i include my child support i do. My fiance is more than willing to find any type of job when he is eligible. The state I live in, when he does start to work, my child support will decrease because the total amount of income in the home will increase. no X spouse/payee in my book will complain about paying less child support.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Child support should be used for the kids.<----------PERIOD

I am in a fortunate situation that I don't need or rely on child support I receive from my ex-wife. She doesn't pay it regularly either. When I was getting it regularly I set up passbook savings accounts for the 3 kids and would divide the amount by 4. I would deposit it into their accounts and use the rest to go buy them something at the store or go out to dinner with them. I still do it the same way now. I have never used it to show as "income" to get a car loan, mortgage and I won't be using it for the immigration process, that money is to support the kids, not my lifestyle.

I understand that some need/rely on it for their mortgage, electric, food etc. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the kids dressed in rags and the women with manicured nails, fresh haircut, latest trendy clothes and complaining her ex isn't paying enough to support his kids. I'd prefer that the courts take the money and allocate it, half in the form of a check for the rent/mortgage and the other half in the form of a gift card to the local supermarket. This would help to alleviate some of the bitterness and acrimony in the process and that would be better for the kids. As the fathers resent having to pay, b/c they have it in their head the money isn't being spent on their kid and the bitter spiteful woman acting like you can't control me, I'll spend it as I see fit if you want the kids to have more, buy it for them in addition to the money you already paying for them.

Ridiculos statements really. What you are saying is you disagree with irresponsible parenting. Good for you. What does that have to do with child support? If a couple is married and the kids live in rags and the woman is getting manicures is that somehow better?

Bully for you that you put the child support in savings. Maybe better to have stayed married and done the same? I mean we are judging here, right? We are allowing someone else to decide what we should do for our kids? Right? So let's use MY standards instead of yours, OK?

Child support is simply a form of payment to replace what would have been there if the parents were still together. A family has expenses, the expenses benefit all in the family. OUR children benefit when WE pay the electric bill, the mortgage, the car payment and health insurance. They rely on US to do that. We use ALL of our income resources for that. We do not have "child support" as income in any way. Yet ALL of our income is child support and far beyond some mythical cutoff age of 18. Seriously?

You cannot say to a person that "you must meet the income requirements for a family of four" and then remove one of the sources they use to pay for those expenses. The suggestion is ludicrous. Daft.

Why not deduct their "income" further by the amounts paid for housing, utilities, etc., etc? Why? because THAT is what is meant by qualifying for a family of four!

I mean if we are going to judge this then why not simply raise the level of income required far above what it is...for the children?

You, and the government, simply cannot decide that a person's income sources cannot be "counted" because "it is for..." All the people in a family "count" and all the income resources "count"

The only problem with this picture is that we have to do this AT ALL. There should be NO affidavit of support in any part of this process. The government does not care if you, your spouse or your children live in a box under a bridge. Anyone making that mistake in judgement needs to wake up. What they care about is being able to collect on their expenses if they should grant your spouse benefits in the future. Simply say NO BENEFITS. Done. You should both sign a contract stating that you understand that NO BENEFITS will be available to that person unless they become a citizen.

IF you do get benefits the government WILL count "child support" as income and use it to determine the amount of money they dedcut from your income to re[ay the benefits, yet you do not think it should "count"? Silly. Not only silly, but it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what the process is for. This process has nothing to do with responsible parenting or what, ultimately, the money is used for. Stop imagining that it does.

[xebec 195]

I was going to reply here....but I think Gary has it covered. Not much left to say.

[slim 1,525]

If the dude already paid taxes on it then it's not income. But if they deducted it from his salary pre-tax and then gave it to the baby momma she should claim it as income and pay taxes on it.

What's interesting about child support is it's typically only income when it matters. Need some credit? Go ahead and count it as income. Need to pay the government? Don't count that support, it'll put you in a higher bracket.

[kytwell 179]

Ridiculos statements really. What you are saying is you disagree with irresponsible parenting. Good for you.

Yep

Bully for you that you put the child support in savings. Maybe better to have stayed married and done the same?

Ever heard of a 529 plan? Did that while married the 1st time too

You cannot say to a person that "you must meet the income requirements for a family of four" and then remove one of the sources they use to pay for those expenses. The suggestion is ludicrous. Daft.

Why not deduct their "income" further by the amounts paid for housing, utilities, etc., etc? Why? because THAT is what is meant by qualifying for a family of four!

I mean if we are going to judge this then why not simply raise the level of income required far above what it is...for the children?

You, and the government, simply cannot decide that a person's income sources cannot be "counted" because "it is for..." All the people in a family "count" and all the income resources "count"

The only problem with this picture is that we have to do this AT ALL. There should be NO affidavit of support in any part of this process. The government does not care if you, your spouse or your children live in a box under a bridge. Anyone making that mistake in judgement needs to wake up. What they care about is being able to collect on their expenses if they should grant your spouse benefits in the future. Simply say NO BENEFITS. Done. You should both sign a contract stating that you understand that NO BENEFITS will be available to that person unless they become a citizen.

IF you do get benefits the government WILL count "child support" as income and use it to determine the amount of money they dedcut from your income to re[ay the benefits, yet you do not think it should "count"? Silly. Not only silly, but it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what the process is for. This process has nothing to do with responsible parenting or what, ultimately, the money is used for. Stop imagining that it does.

Ok the above rant/lecture is in regards to the visa process. I thought this was topic here regarding child support, not visa process. And the gov't has this wrong IMHO, as it(gov)is wrong in many other cases too!

Maybe our definitions of "income" are very different. I have always been under the impression I pay taxes on "income" whether it's earned through work, dividends, interest etc, etc. Someone receiving child support isn't paying taxes on it, so it's not really income. It's a subsidy for the kids and should be treated as such, not as income. We'll have to disagree on what "income" really means.

[Fandango 1,439]

If the kids count towards counting them in the household size, why shouldn't money that comes into that house for their care count too?

[Dave-n-Oksana 49]

Child support should be used for the kids.<----------PERIOD

I am in a fortunate situation that I don't need or rely on child support I receive from my ex-wife. She doesn't pay it regularly either. When I was getting it regularly I set up passbook savings accounts for the 3 kids and would divide the amount by 4. I would deposit it into their accounts and use the rest to go buy them something at the store or go out to dinner with them. I still do it the same way now. I have never used it to show as "income" to get a car loan, mortgage and I won't be using it for the immigration process, that money is to support the kids, not my lifestyle.

I understand that some need/rely on it for their mortgage, electric, food etc. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the kids dressed in rags and the women with manicured nails, fresh haircut, latest trendy clothes and complaining her ex isn't paying enough to support his kids. I'd prefer that the courts take the money and allocate it, half in the form of a check for the rent/mortgage and the other half in the form of a gift card to the local supermarket. This would help to alleviate some of the bitterness and acrimony in the process and that would be better for the kids. As the fathers resent having to pay, b/c they have it in their head the money isn't being spent on their kid and the bitter spiteful woman acting like you can't control me, I'll spend it as I see fit if you want the kids to have more, buy it for them in addition to the money you already paying for them.

I have to agree. When I was paying child support (when my kids lived with the ex) that money was to be used to pay for their support not hers or her bf. As I was paying the taxes on this money, it should be my choice how that money is used. If she wanted to use it as income for any reasons, then she should be paying the taxes on it.

My kids needs come first, not hers.

[Fandango 1,439]

I have to agree. When I was paying child support (when my kids lived with the ex) that money was to be used to pay for their support not hers or her bf. As I was paying the taxes on this money, it should be my choice how that money is used. If she wanted to use it as income for any reasons, then she should be paying the taxes on it.

My kids needs come first, not hers.

This is really a separate domestic issue between the two parent, and not really germane to the conversation. No ones saying the support is going to the upcoming immigrant...the issue is whether the money can be counted as being household income. And since the children are counted in household size, it makes sense that the money going to their cae is counted too.

Furthermore, as the non custodial parent ALREADY has paid taxes on the money, it makes no sense to tax it again.

[Danno 1,228]

If the kids count towards counting them in the household size, why shouldn't money that comes into that house for their care count too?

Seems right to me,

why should two single parents with two kids each be judged the same when one of these families is getting Child support income and the other not?

[kytwell 179]

If it's in the household, it's going to support those in the household. Married, divorced, separated or whatever, doesn't really matter, we're talking households. If I have the basic understanding of yours and Gary's position properly? Which would eventually include the incoming immigrant? So, although you say you want it to be counted to get over the poverty threshhold in the USCIS/NVC eyes, you are turning around and saying to the rest of us that the child support won't be of any benefit to the incoming immigrant, who will soon be living in the household. See! We can play semantics all day long.

I think it was slim who had used the analogy of: a welfare recipient playing and winning the lottery, but saying he didn't use welfare money to gamble with.

If it really was income, you'd be taxed on it. You all betta bele dat!