Ted
2010-03-05 00:14:21 UTC
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/04/levi-johnston-19-years-old-and-over-20k-in-arrears/
I thought one of the comments was worth repeating:
novaseeker March 4, 2010 at 16:24
------------------
grerp wrote:20K is a lot of money. Bristol and the baby been
living in the Palin household, right? Shouldn’t child support = what
it costs to support the child? Babies aren’t actually that expensive,
and there are no daycare costs involved, right?
OTOH, Levi is a fame whore and a tool.
I actually know nothing about this issue; forgive my
ignorance.
--------------------
A lot of people don’t know the ins and outs of c/s unless they’ve
actually dealt with the system.
The old way of doing c/s was as you describe — it was based on the
cost of support. As divorce law was made more permissive beginning in
the 70s, alimony started to go by the wayside. In the wake of that,
the c/s rules were looked at closely and found to be wanting because
the levels were considered too low in light of the fact that the women
in question were much less likely to receive significant or long-
lasting alimony. So beginning in the 80s and continuing in the 90s,
most states, at the prodding of the federal government, went to the
"income share" model of c/s.
Under the income share model, the actual cost is not the main
factor in calculating c/s. Instead what is done is that the total
household income is calculated, and then a statutory formula is
applied to arrive at the base total monthly support "need". Then on
top of that extra "costs" are added like any hired child care, private
school and so on, to reach the adjusted total amount. Then that amount
is divided between the two parents on the basis of the % of income
each parent contributes to the base total — and in many states it
isn’t the actual income that is used but rather "imputed" income,
which is basically what the court thinks you are capable of earning.
So if Dad earns 60% of the base total, he is responsible for 60% of
the adjusted total. If Dad is the custodial spouse, Mom would have to
pay him 40% of the adjusted total every month, and if, as is more
common, Mom is the custodial spouse, Dad would have to pay her 60% of
the adjusted total every month. The payments are not taxable to the
recipient parent because they are considered to be "intra-family
payments", but they are also not deductible to the paying parent. So,
in essence, it functions as a tax on the paying parent and tax free
income for the recipient parent. The recipient parent is also not
restricted at all as to what the support amounts are spent on, and the
paying parent is not even authorized to inquire (courts can and do
issue restraining orders forbidding that).
Because the payments are calculated based on income rather than
cost, it’s often a windfall payment in practice. In structuring modern
c/s this way, the engineers were able to reinstitute an alimony kind
of payment under a much more defensible name of "child support" and
insulate the system from criticism — anyone who criticizes the way the
c/s system works is immediately accused of being a deadbeat or
deadbeat sympathizer and callous to the needs of children … mostly
because most people have no clue that the system is not based on the
cost of raising the child, but rather is an income tax on non-
custodial parents and a windfall payment to custodial parents that
doesn’t even need to be spent on the child at all. In all, this was an
extremely clever bit of legal engineering.
I thought one of the comments was worth repeating:
novaseeker March 4, 2010 at 16:24
------------------
grerp wrote:20K is a lot of money. Bristol and the baby been
living in the Palin household, right? Shouldn’t child support = what
it costs to support the child? Babies aren’t actually that expensive,
and there are no daycare costs involved, right?
OTOH, Levi is a fame whore and a tool.
I actually know nothing about this issue; forgive my
ignorance.
--------------------
A lot of people don’t know the ins and outs of c/s unless they’ve
actually dealt with the system.
The old way of doing c/s was as you describe — it was based on the
cost of support. As divorce law was made more permissive beginning in
the 70s, alimony started to go by the wayside. In the wake of that,
the c/s rules were looked at closely and found to be wanting because
the levels were considered too low in light of the fact that the women
in question were much less likely to receive significant or long-
lasting alimony. So beginning in the 80s and continuing in the 90s,
most states, at the prodding of the federal government, went to the
"income share" model of c/s.
Under the income share model, the actual cost is not the main
factor in calculating c/s. Instead what is done is that the total
household income is calculated, and then a statutory formula is
applied to arrive at the base total monthly support "need". Then on
top of that extra "costs" are added like any hired child care, private
school and so on, to reach the adjusted total amount. Then that amount
is divided between the two parents on the basis of the % of income
each parent contributes to the base total — and in many states it
isn’t the actual income that is used but rather "imputed" income,
which is basically what the court thinks you are capable of earning.
So if Dad earns 60% of the base total, he is responsible for 60% of
the adjusted total. If Dad is the custodial spouse, Mom would have to
pay him 40% of the adjusted total every month, and if, as is more
common, Mom is the custodial spouse, Dad would have to pay her 60% of
the adjusted total every month. The payments are not taxable to the
recipient parent because they are considered to be "intra-family
payments", but they are also not deductible to the paying parent. So,
in essence, it functions as a tax on the paying parent and tax free
income for the recipient parent. The recipient parent is also not
restricted at all as to what the support amounts are spent on, and the
paying parent is not even authorized to inquire (courts can and do
issue restraining orders forbidding that).
Because the payments are calculated based on income rather than
cost, it’s often a windfall payment in practice. In structuring modern
c/s this way, the engineers were able to reinstitute an alimony kind
of payment under a much more defensible name of "child support" and
insulate the system from criticism — anyone who criticizes the way the
c/s system works is immediately accused of being a deadbeat or
deadbeat sympathizer and callous to the needs of children … mostly
because most people have no clue that the system is not based on the
cost of raising the child, but rather is an income tax on non-
custodial parents and a windfall payment to custodial parents that
doesn’t even need to be spent on the child at all. In all, this was an
extremely clever bit of legal engineering.