Why is child support not a tax deduction?

By an audit process. It is that simple. It does not have to be complicated.

 

Not so fast my friend, define needs and wants and the tracking of all expenditures. Who can afford to have the government involved in that debate.

No matter what it is a terrible situation no matter, which parent you happen to be.

 

The judge in my case defined needs as Clothes, Food, and Shelter. That's it.

 

I am not trying to be antagonistic in this thread, but simply trying to define the issue.

Should the government be tasked with defining whether the child gets Nike or wally world shoes? How about Kraft food or generic? The child enjoys the in ground pool isn't that a Shelter. See there are so many different ways to spin it that the lawyers would get rich. The child suffers and the taxpayers get to foot the bill.

 

I understand what you are saying. I just was putting out there the unfairness that the person paying gets. They get very few visits. Lindenul is lucky. But I know tons of people who pay huge amounts of money and see the kids rarely and sometimes has to fight to see them. They were my basis for asking.

 

Money is fungible. If you give me a dollar and I put it in my bank account, it becomes just like all the other dollars in my bank account. Is that dollar included in the next check I write? or not? Short of keeping the child support money segregated in a separate account, and then writing separate checks for the child's pro rata share of the rent, the groceries, etc., how can you tell what money is spent for the support of the child?

This last part of your comment - "the kids get very little of the money they are supposed to recieve." - seems to imply that the children are supposed to receive the child support money. Surely that's not what you mean? The adults are supposed to receive the money for the support of the children.

As I said before, if you divide household expenses (rent, utilities, groceries, etc.) by the number of persons in the household, that gives you the pro rata share of each person. Then add to that figure expenses specific to the child - clothing, school supplies, medical expenses, entertainment, transportation, etc. and that will give you the total cost of supporting that child. Is the child support more or less than half of that amount? Only if the child support is less than half of the cost of supporting the child is there a gap, and I'm sure there are cases where there is a gap, but I think there are a lot more cases where the non-custodial parent imagines a gap because he or she is not aware of all of the expenses.

Love & Peace,
Pat

 

OK. I understand that now. How can it cost $1300.00 a month for one child?? If you can logically answer that you will have me.

 

Again who wants the government involved in what type of Macaroni and Cheese somebody should buy? Lawyers could compile many different expense scenario's.

Maybe we can spread a little love from the 4042 world and require all custodial parents attend and live by frugalmomof2's grocery standards!

 

It doesn't. But can I trade in my ex-husband for whoever is paying that amount?

 

Well, I guess that would depend on the circumstances. Bill & Melynda probably spend a lot more than that on their kids. (Do they even have kids? ) LOL

That's why it's based on the income of both parties.

 

It just seems excessive.

 

:lol:

 

Just a thought that maybe it is based on the parent's income and lifestyle they had before the divorce. The courts may look at as why should the child have to change his/her lifestyle because his parents couldn't stick together?

 

According to the calculaters it soley depends on income. Which I think sucks.

 

I agree with you, Pirate, and I'm certainly not suggesting that should be done, just using that to explain that child support may seem excessive when not all the factors are taken into consideration. The purpose of the income-based charts is to try to let the children have a lifestyle similar to what they had before the divorce. That doesn't happen in real life, because it is impossible to run two households on the income that previously supported only one household, without cutting a lot of corners.

 

$1300 does seem like a lot Server....like Kaci mentioned though, doesn't it all get figured out by how the parents were living before they were divorced? Meaning they take into account what both parents make in income, your monthly expenses, the ages of the children to figure out school needs, medical needs etc?

I have no dog in this fight really, I don't get child support and I don't pay it, my hubby and I are currently raising two kids. I just do taxes on the side so I answered Server's question to what I know.

Sharon

 

See my last comment and Kaci's comment. It's not the kids' fault.

 

Child Support is based on several things. Both incomes , child care expenses, and other children the parents may have from other relationships.

 

I guess that is why I am still married to wife #2. No snide comments Pirate. It was lite hearted.:lol:

 

Again it is not the child's fault at all, but does this not establish a bad precedent? Their situation changed and the lifestyle needs to be changed. This seems to encourage living beyond the means of a now two household unit.