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

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Uhm, no. Usually the person paying for child support does not take an exemption for the child, not able to 'claim' the child as a dependent, as the child not have same domicile.

Who claims the child for tax purposes ("for TAX purposes" being the key phrase here) is usually settled between the parties and may or may not be included in the divorce agreement. Only ONE can claim each child. If there are two, or more, they can be divided.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Uhm, no. Usually the person paying for child support does not take an exemption for the child, not able to 'claim' the child as a dependent, as the child not have same domicile.

The custodial parent can release their claim to the exemption (form 8332) and allow the non-custodial parent to claim the exemption. The custodial parent can also revoke this release. If both parents try to claim the exemption, it will go to the custodial parent.

[Fandango 1,440]

Voluntarily giving your money away to a non-profit versus compulsory transfer of your post tax dollars earned, into your exes or baby mama's account, are a bit different. One you can write that "gift/donation" off on your taxes. Second, the IRS doesn't consider child support as income for the receiver, nor tax deductible for the giver.

Supporting your own children isn't the same as charity.....

[kytwell 179]

Supporting your own children isn't the same as charity.....

Charity begins at home.

A Link

[Fandango 1,440]

Charity begins at home.

A Link

Pointless. Child support isn't charity.

[kytwell 179]

Child support being discussed in the other link. As has been pointed out to me this thread is in regards to Visa process.

[Fandango 1,440]

Child support being discussed in the other link. As has been pointed out to me this thread is in regards to Visa process.

I don't need to read a whole other thread to state that child support isn't charity.

Ad you don't need to bleat out lame cliches and irrelevant links as a (non)response.

[kytwell 179]

Okay it's a subsidy. Call it what ever fits your viewpoint. But there are huge inequalities in the child support process and I know them all too well from all avenues, as a child of divorced parent's, as a payer when I had 50-50 and now as a receiver since I have custody. And the system screws you as a man. If you're the father and are non custodial, you need to step up and be a man and support your kids. Women in this situation are firm in their stance that this money isn't charity.

Now if you're a woman having to pay child support, you can do whatever you damn please. Don't pay, not show up, not call or care for your kids and they system doesn't punish you for it, as they would if you were a man.

If you have 50-50 custody as it should be in the vast majority of the cases, then the father should care for the kids when he has them and the mother should care for them when she has them. No money needs to be exchanged and kids would fare better as it benefits them having equal access to both parent's and the parent's would be more civil, since there's no bitterness involved from the child support system, because it's been eliminated with this set-up.

[Fandango 1,440]

Okay it's a subsidy. Call it what ever fits your viewpoint. But there are huge inequalities in the child support process and I know them all too well from all avenues, as a child of divorced parent's, as a payer when I had 50-50 and now as a receiver since I have custody. And the system screws you as a man. If you're the father and are non custodial, you need to step up and be a man and support your kids. Women in this situation are firm in their stance that this money isn't charity.

Now if you're a woman having to pay child support, you can do whatever you damn please. Don't pay, not show up, not call or care for your kids and they system doesn't punish you for it, as they would if you were a man.

If you have 50-50 custody as it should be in the vast majority of the cases, then the father should care for the kids when he has them and the mother should care for them when she has them. No money needs to be exchanged and kids would fare better as it benefits them having equal access to both parent's and the parent's would be more civil, since there's no bitterness involved from the child support system, because it's been eliminated with this set-up.

It's apparent that this is a sore subject for you, and I'm sorry it seems to hit so deep. But at the end of the day, this thread is bout child support as income, not about the differences in the system between the parents,

[kytwell 179]

Child support being discussed in the other link. As has been pointed out to me this thread is in regards to Visa process.

But at the end of the day, this thread is bout child support as income,

Are you f'n kidding me? I already said that and you told me it was a "(non) response"

[james&olya 1,121]

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

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.

You know my ex?!!!

[james&olya 1,121]

Okay it's a subsidy. Call it what ever fits your viewpoint. But there are huge inequalities in the child support process and I know them all too well from all avenues, as a child of divorced parent's, as a payer when I had 50-50 and now as a receiver since I have custody. And the system screws you as a man. If you're the father and are non custodial, you need to step up and be a man and support your kids. Women in this situation are firm in their stance that this money isn't charity.

Now if you're a woman having to pay child support, you can do whatever you damn please. Don't pay, not show up, not call or care for your kids and they system doesn't punish you for it, as they would if you were a man.

If you have 50-50 custody as it should be in the vast majority of the cases, then the father should care for the kids when he has them and the mother should care for them when she has them. No money needs to be exchanged and kids would fare better as it benefits them having equal access to both parent's and the parent's would be more civil, since there's no bitterness involved from the child support system, because it's been eliminated with this set-up.

[james&olya 1,121]

I can pretty much assure you that if you share these views within earshot of your children, kytwell, you are going to make them feel like either pieces of meat or bargaining chips.

Unless you know a lot more about his situation than has been disclosed here you don't really know that! It is people like you that judge situations like this based on often faulty stereotypes that results in a lot of the prejudice (pre-judging) that has the effect of depriving many fathers of their rights!

I agree that, as a general rule, you should never, ever, disparage the ex when your children are around. As a child their identity is derived from both of their parents and when you attack the other parent you attack them. But individual situations vary widely, often in ways you might never imagine! My ex has sociopathic personality disorder and can lie so convincingly she can fool almost anyone for a while. She had custody and bad-mouthed me constantly. I NEVER spoke ill of her within their hearing. They have both chosen to live with me since their mid-teens and have NOTHING good to say of their mother. I used to try and get them to ease up on her till a child psychologist told me I needed to let them vent. It became necessary for me to acknowledge their feelings and that those feelings were valid and justified in order to prevent them from feeling like that worthless piece of meat/bargaining chip as you put it! By their choice and hers they no longer have any contact. I have never said it to them but they say often that they know the only reason their mother wanted custody was for the money!!!

[james&olya 1,121]

My thoughts are you should pay attention.

You missed the part about support paid reducing AGI?

Edited November 1, 2011 by james&olya

[Fandango 1,440]

Are you f'n kidding me? I already said that and you told me it was a "(non) response"

It can be counted as income to the custodial parent for the purposes of immigration and meeting the financial requirements. It's paid as support from the other parent. That is the topic at hand.

It's not charity, which was my only issue with what you said.

All the rest is bringing personal issues into this thread. Its unfortunate that you're in that situation, though.