Why is child support not a tax deduction?

I have no personal experience with the whole child support thing, so I am a little fuzzy on the rules, but why is there not some sort of blanket rule about how much it costs to clothe and feed a child for a month? It shouldn't matter how much either of the parent's make, a kid only eats so much..........................I guess my gripe is, she makes more money than he does (on paper, :roll: he has one of those "cash" professions), so therefore she has to pay the majority of the childcare expenses if my understanding is correct. I think it should be 50/50 regardless..........it took two to create the child, so both should contribute equally. Does that make any sense?? :?:

 

I know some over-worked, over-tired custodial parents who would disagree with that statement.

They are the ones that have to get up in the middle of the night when the kids are sick, while the non-cust parent sleeps the same night away blissfully.

They are the ones that have to rely on the non-custodial parent in order to have any semblence of an adult life. If the non-cust parent doesn't show or cancels, there goes the custodial parent's plans for the evening, unless they have the money for a sitter.

If the non-custodial parent needs to change visitation because of something going on a particular date, they can just not show up if the non-custodial parent doesn't agree with the change. If the custodial parent needs to change visitation due to something going on a particular date, they are dependent upon the non-custodial parent agreeing and showing up to take the kids.

If the non-custodial parent has weekend visitation, and cancels one weekend due to illness or other plans, the custodial parent is caring for those kids all on their own for two weeks non-stop, 24-7, without a break. The non-custodial parent doesn't ever have to worry about not getting a break.

When a custodial parent is working a full-time job, cleaning up after the kids daily, and trying to be the dinner-fixer, the homework-helper, the "get your teeth brushed and get in the bed" parent every day, by themselves...it's exhausting.

And just a warning here...don't give me the "If you don't want them, give them to him" crap. It's B.S. Just because a parent says their exhausted from non-stop parenting, does not mean they don't love the kids, it doesn't mean they don't want the kids...it means they are doing the job of 2 parents all by themselves, and it's exhausting.

If that is true, good for you. But if I had a nickel for everytime I've heard a non-custodial parent say that...only to see them quite easily turn around and say "I can't take the kids for a week, I have too much going on at work...or I can't take them for an extra night, I have plans."....

It's just the reality of the situation.

 

I wish more were like you. It seems to me that so many non-custodial parents get giddy with their freedom to play, have adult relationships and adult time out...that they begin to think that they are owed that. Their time with their kids becomes secondary, and they sometimes don't even see what's wrong with that.

Why not? You've gone down that path with non-custodial parents here. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

For a parent having to raise the kids, clean up after them, cook for them, help with homework, get them bathed and in bed, serve as chauffer to practices, doctor appointments, be the referee, etc...and work a full-time job...24/7, all week except for weekends...

...it would be not only complicated...it would be a hardship, an uncalled for burden added on.

 

You are talking apartments only. There are houses to rent, mobile homes to rent or even buy in some instances. You are also looking at extremes. In most cases, the NPIC leaves the house that the couple were sharing with their kids and the kids stay right where they were.

See what i said above about a 1 bedroom light. Most cases kids stay where they were and the utilities remain basically the same as they were before the NPIC left.

When you win lottery money, you are required to report it and pay taxes on it. If you work for tips, the same thing. Interest related income you are required to report it and pay taxes on it. Every bit of income, that i know of, you are required to report it and pay taxes on it. Not so with CS.

As i said in a previous post, the PIC also gets to wake up every morning and see their kids bright and shining faces (aside from morning grumpiness from time to time). They get the pleasure of seeing their kids grow every day, the joy from accomplishments and so on. Ask most NPIC's and they would gladly trade with the PIC if they were allowed. Providing, of course, the NPIC isnt a low life.

Wrong. In some instances perhaps this is true but the NPIC can have their wages garnished to pay up, they can go to prison until its payed up and so on. Perhaps they can be 30-90 days late all the time as you said, but there are other things that can be done about it. Some states are more diligent about it than others.

That happens every day to people who remain married with kids. It happens to people without kids, it happens to single people. That argument holds no water. On the other side, this is also the price that people have to pay to have children.

You do not know what i am not considering. Considering that i have been divorced for over 6 years now, i have a pretty good idea of what im talking about and what i am considering.

 

I appreciate you saying that though i am not saying all of this so i can be a poster boy for anything. Nothing is more important to me than my son. Nothing. And nothing stops me from spending my time with him. It never has. Well there was once i had to work and had to miss a night but that has happened only once.

Because mainly, that was not the subject of this thread. Course, thread hijacking has never stopped this place before has it?

 

So you don't think the child needs (and that the other parent should have to help pay for):

$60 for choir fees
$15 for that gift to go to the birthday party
$$$$$ for medical co-pays, OTC medications, eyeglasses, insurance premiums
$275 to go on the church trip
$120 for art supplies for high school art class
$40 month added to car insurance when they get their permit
$65 for new sheets & comforter for their bed

Just for starters...

 

Thank you for being a role model for your son and other men that may find themselves in your situation. Not all men are bad, as some seem to think

 

But see...it's a two-way street.

I also know tons of custodial parents that are receiving no CS, the courts give a slap on the wrist, and the non-payment or late payments continue...

...yet the non-custodial parent gets visitation just as planned.

The courts see the two issues as totally separate. Visitation can't be denied for non-payment of support...and payment can't be denied even if the custodial parent doesn't allow visitation.

 

Personally I don't think the government should be involved in deciding what to spend the money on. I know my expenses would be less than you quoted above.

 

It depends on what level of lifestyle the judge has determined the child should get. Typically, the judge will deem that the child's lifestyle should be at least close to that of the parents.

If dad can afford a $600,000 house and a Lexus, then the child should not have to skip playing ball because mom can't afford the costs on her salary alone.

The idea is that if the parents were together, the non-custodial's income would be shared by the child...and the child shouldn't suffer the loss of that income just because the parents are no longer married.

Judges - and most people - don't feel a non-custodial parent is obligated to only pay basic needs of the child. Most feel he/she is obligated to share their earnings with the child on the same level that they would if they were living with that child.

 

If you were married and had 2 kids...and made $300,000 a year...

..would you only spend enough on the kids to provide shelter, food and clothing, while you drove an expensive car and went on vacations without the kids?

No, it's doubtful that you would.

 

Guess you never watched The Cosby Show when Dr. Huxtable would explain to his children that the children were broke. The government has no right to dictate what kind of lifestyle a parent chooses to provide for their children.

 

Tangibly, yes. But look at it this way. The person paying gets to spend time with a child that is well-nourished, has decent clothing, is healthy thanks to preventive medical care, is happy with their life of playing ball, socializing, participating in school, and they can see with their eyeglasses and their braces are straightening their teeth. They are doing well in school and have lots of news to share with you when they see you, because they are getting what they need.

The non-custodial parent's CS payments have contributed to that, and he/she benefits from it in the way it positively affects the child....the same as the custodial parent.

Now think about that. If you got remarried (don't know if you are or not) and your new wife has 3 kids...do you want her child support cut in half so that you now must pay 1/4 of the expenses for her kids while their other parent pays only 1/4 support for his own kids? Do you really want to have to pay the exact same amount to support his kids that he pays?!?!

The child's expenses don't change just because someone got married.

Understood...it's hard on everyone. Most custodial parents have to do the same thing.

It's called being a parent.

 

As of the census in 2000, the national average monthly child support amount is $391.66, or $4700.00 per year.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...ent+in+nc&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&lr=lang_en

When you consider that the additional expense of having a home to accomodate children (versus a home that can accomodate a single adult) can be more than $100.00 alone, that's about right. By the time you add groceries, healthcare premiums, school and activity expenses.

 

He deliberately dodges child support payments that way?!?! That's not admirable.

There is a reason the judge set his amount that high. He must be paid well, and his children should share his success. He shouldn't be deliberately working to deny them that.

 

I must say I agree with you there. Both parents should shoulder an equal responsibility for financial, emotional and physical care of the children.

 

Not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

Morality issues, I guess. I always thought it was kind of creepy that they stuck their nose in like that. But then again, I guess there were parents who had teen kids of different genders sharing a bedroom, and that's a little creepy too.

No kidding. That's an imbalance that I can't fathom how to remedy. There is nothing that guarantees that married parents will spend their income on needed items for their kids. I've seen kids with parents that make plenty, and yet they dress in rags.

 

In this country not that many years ago people made do with what they had. How many rooms did most log cabins have?

Define rags and needed items as views differ...maybe they are instilling fiscal discipline.