If so why they already have money?
Just wondering
2007-09-06 17:06:45 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
So what you all are saying is its not about the kids its about fairness. Well why is it called child support or alimony then.
2007-09-06 17:38:34 · update #1
I don't think they should get alimony for sure. Child support, they should get a least a little bit. But child support should take the recipient's income into account to be fair. After all, if the recipient is making $100,000 a year, and the sender is only making 25k, it's hardly fair to expect the sender to pay the same share of income as if the recipient make nothing.
2007-09-06 17:19:38 · answer #1 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If the person who has residency of the child/ren earns $50,000 per year and the person they divorced and took the children from earns $50,000 then no I dont think alimoney or child support should be payed.
If the basis is the person who has the residentual responsbilities of raising , paying dental , health , education so on and so forth and the person who doesnt have residency earns say $65,000 to $85,000 (rough estimate) then yes the non-custodial should pay alimoney and child support in full while still following through on access rights of visitations.
My ex husband earns $50,000 a year and some how managed to get his tax agent to lie saying he only earns $32,000 a year I found this quite funny .
2007-09-07 00:54:06 · answer #2 · answered by JadeyOz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sorry, but your question doesn't make much sense. child support and spousal support are based on formulas, how many children do the parents have, how many years married, the non-custodial parent's income..so many pieces are missing from your question.
certainly, if they are a couple married 25 years, have five children and the custodial parent makes 50 thousand a year, the non-custodial parent makes 100+ a year..it would be a different story than if they had one child and the custodial parent was making the 50thousand and non-custodial parent only made 10 thousand..the judge would award a much different amount in support. see what i'm saying?
2007-09-07 00:26:43 · answer #3 · answered by shyanne 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Child support - absolutely. Both parents should share the financial burden of raising a child, since both created the child. It should be apportioned such that it is based on the income of each. In other words, whoever makes more should be incurring more of the expense.
Alimony - depends. If she is making 50K per year, but he makes 500K per year, then yes, IMO, he has a responsibility to keep her in the lifestyle to which she has grown accustomed. If she is making 50K per year and he is making 25K per year, then no, probably not. In some cases, she could even have to pay him alimony. So the answer is not so clear cut. It depends on the income of each, as well as the duration of the marriage.
2007-09-07 05:11:18 · answer #4 · answered by bamascrappingirl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think anyone should get child support. All children should be supported and raised by both of their parents. Alimony should be paid as severance pay if one parent gave up a carer and kept the house and now has no job skills, while the other parent climbed the corporate ladder and has a big income. All assets should be divided 50/50.
2007-09-07 00:30:55 · answer #5 · answered by lily 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
say when the couple was together they were making 200K as a couple (her still only bringing in 50K) a little uneven isn't it? i mean, her lifestyle and the lifestyle her children were accustomed to would drop significantly. children wouldn't be raised the same with the same advantages. so yes child support is a must. alimony is a different issue. if she was working part-time so she could be more at home and was making less money then she would have, then yes alimony should be paid.
2007-09-07 00:19:34 · answer #6 · answered by Isabella S 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The child is yours so you have a responsibility to help take care of them. You sound like you want to stop paying because your spouse makes what you seem to think is a lot of money. It is not as much as you think when stretched over a year and used to support a child today and to prepare for their future. You need to face your responsibilities and do all you can for your child no matter what you think you spouse has by way of material things. Shame on you for trying to shirk your duty and abandon your child.
2007-09-07 00:46:01 · answer #7 · answered by CindyLu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IF the father is not in there lives then yes I think they should get child support for the kids that way the kids know that he's atleast working to help put a roof over there head. IF he is in there daily lives and everything then no b-cuz they have the greatest part....emotional connection!
2007-09-07 00:16:19 · answer #8 · answered by So you think you know me!? 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Alimony, no. Child support is for the children--THEY should get support from both parents.
2007-09-07 00:16:02 · answer #9 · answered by grizzie 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well "T" it's like this.....$50K is not all that much to raise a child, pay rent in a "somewhat" safe neighborhood, buy food, buy clothing, sports activities for the kid at least in Southern California. Now maybe in some other outta the way place like Idaho, things might be a bit different. It all depends on what kind of lifestyle change impact you want for your kid.
2007-09-07 00:15:55 · answer #10 · answered by "wheels" 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋