Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 11:02 pm**

Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

EDIT: Added (alimony, Childsupport) to title.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:06 am**

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

Not only should it be legal, but it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 10:20 am**

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

EDIT: Added (alimony, Childsupport) to title.

The basis for child support is that when you have a child, you are responsible for 18 years (realistically, more like 24 today if they attend college...often more if they go to graduate school). That obgligation does not cease simply because you decide you cannot get along with your spouse. So, yes, your obligation to your children remains regardless of marital status.

I can get into this more later, but the biggest problem is that anything called childsupport is given to the custodial spouse and not counted as their income (in most cases, the reciever is not required to report it). Most fathers don't really object to giving their children money, they object to their ex spouse benefitting and sometimes not contributing even as much as they did prior to marriage.

Also, the court does not take time and energy into account. That is, a father who takes part-time job so that he can watch his kids, might very well be held responsible for the same child support as before... (or that he might have to work overtime to maintain that level of support and also pay for his own rent, etc is not taken into consideration).

It gets particularly asinine when you factor in remarriage. This is more critical in states like PA that are not joint property states. Basically, the one with custody can remarry. The new spouse's income is not considered.. that spouse is not legally obligated to support the step kids. That's sounds reasonable, but it can mean that someone marries a multi millionaire (literally) and the former spouse can have an available wage that is well below the poverty line, but not get a dime credit... even if that other spouse spends more actual time with the kids (but they do't live at that house). Yes, that is an extreme example, but a real one.

Anyway, gotta go do lunch for the kids

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 10:33 am**

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?
Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

In the specific situation of alimony, I don't think it should be a case of "standard of living". However, I absolutely do believe that how much the "non working spouse" contributed to the "working spouse"'s income-making capability should be the primary determining factor. The old adage of the wife that supported her husband through law school by working at a fast-food restaurant so he could concentrate on his schooling and then the husband left her for his younger secretary" do happen. But no, I don't think that it's a "standard of living" thing.

For the kids, I would consider that it should be a specific amount per location...like a "per diem rate", if you will. The location being wherever those kids are located.

Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 11:54 am**

Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Your quote is wrong...should read "deadbeat parents".

My ex wife is well behind on her payments and I have legitimate chance of getting the money. I scrimped and saved after we split to provide for my kids, while she moved in with her new boyfriend and racked up her credit cards to the point of going bankrupt. So no payments for a couple of years. She started paying me last year, only about half of what she is supposed to be paying. But now she is losing her job in a couple of months as the company is going bankrupt. So no job means no money.

But for the couple of years I got nothing, I managed without child support (that was with two kids playing hockey in the winter and one playing lacrosse in the spring). In fact, once we split up and she moved out, I found out I had more disposable income every month. That happens I guess with one less mouth to feed...that and she wasn't spending it on drugs and booze.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:08 pm**

keiths31 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Your quote is wrong...should read "deadbeat parents".

Absolutely true!

keiths31 wrote:My ex wife is well behind on her payments and I have legitimate chance of getting the money. I scrimped and saved after we split to provide for my kids, while she moved in with her new boyfriend and racked up her credit cards to the point of going bankrupt. So no payments for a couple of years. She started paying me last year, only about half of what she is supposed to be paying. But now she is losing her job in a couple of months as the company is going bankrupt. So no job means no money.

This is just one of the many problems.
That said, I suspect you are a better parent and that is what you have to keep in mind. (though it does grate, I am sure!)

keiths31 wrote:But for the couple of years I got nothing, I managed without child support (that was with two kids playing hockey in the winter and one playing lacrosse in the spring). In fact, once we split up and she moved out, I found out I had more disposable income every month. That happens I guess with one less mouth to feed...that and she wasn't spending it on drugs and booze.

One note, though, despite all the gains that have been made, it is STILL much harder for a woman to make the same income as a man. Also, many, many women STILL wind up sidelining or curtailing their careers. This can also equate to higher levels of depression, which in turn makes things even worse. Not saying that in ANY way excuses your wife's behavior.. this is in reference to your example of being able to support your kids, put them in sports, etc.

Anyway, I believe there needs to be more separation between alimony and child support. The distinction often gets blurred in such debates.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:10 pm**

keiths31 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Your quote is wrong...should read "deadbeat parents".

Fair enough, I agree completely.

What can I say...I'm old, and not hip enough to get with the times. <smile>

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:15 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
keiths31 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Your quote is wrong...should read "deadbeat parents".

Fair enough, I agree completely.

What can I say...I'm old, and not hip enough to get with the times. <smile>

Except, I do believe you are younger than I...

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:21 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
keiths31 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Your quote is wrong...should read "deadbeat parents".

Fair enough, I agree completely.

What can I say...I'm old, and not hip enough to get with the times. <smile>

Damn women and their wanting to be like men.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:32 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
keiths31 wrote:But for the couple of years I got nothing, I managed without child support (that was with two kids playing hockey in the winter and one playing lacrosse in the spring). In fact, once we split up and she moved out, I found out I had more disposable income every month. That happens I guess with one less mouth to feed...that and she wasn't spending it on drugs and booze.

One note, though, despite all the gains that have been made, it is STILL much harder for a woman to make the same income as a man. Also, many, many women STILL wind up sidelining or curtailing their careers. This can also equate to higher levels of depression, which in turn makes things even worse. Not saying that in ANY way excuses your wife's behavior.. this is in reference to your example of being able to support your kids, put them in sports, etc.

Anyway, I believe there needs to be more separation between alimony and child support. The distinction often gets blurred in such debates.

Funny thing that...she made more money than I did and had health benefits at her work. I didn't. You aren't excusing my EX-wife's behaviour, but you do list excuses as to why she may have acted the way she did. She didn't sideline her career. She went back to work as soon as she was able to stand on two feet again. Don't generalize. Sometimes people (male or female) are just jerks...

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:33 pm**

Army of GOD wrote: ...it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

I agree, to a point. However, if a child is going to college, working hard and the parents can afford to help, they should. The cost of tuition to some of the better colleges, in particular, is too high for most students to work their way through. (I realize that cost of college is overrun in some cases, but that is a different topic. Just saying that going to college is not "being lazy" or "spoiling", IF they are working at it).

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:35 pm**

keiths31 wrote: ]

Funny thing that...she made more money than I did and had health benefits at her work. I didn't. You aren't excusing my EX-wife's behaviour, but you do list excuses as to why she may have acted the way she did. She didn't sideline her career. She went back to work as soon as she was able to stand on two feet again. Don't generalize. Sometimes people (male or female) are just jerks...

Except, the reason I separated my response was because I WAS bringing it back to the general. You gave an example, fine, but the thread discussion is about the overall situation.

And.... I am the wife of a divorced guy with kids. So, I do have a clue

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 1:32 pm**

Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 1:59 pm**

Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

I respect and value Woodruff's opinion. I think people who waste youths' time teaching them baton twirling routines should be hunted down and shot. Of course, unlike Woodruff, I think they should be shot with a taser, for the lulz. Not executed in a back alley or something like he suggets.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 2:45 pm**

pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

I respect and value Woodruff's opinion. I think people who waste youths' time teaching them baton twirling routines should be hunted down and shot. Of course, unlike Woodruff, I think they should be shot with a taser, for the lulz. Not executed in a back alley or something like he suggets.

for a moment there I thought you had made friends again with woodruff, now it seems like you're out to get him.

Adding to the discussion, I hate divorce. it tears families apart and it's a terrible thing to go through for anyone.
If divorce wasn't socially acceptable or legally possible then less people would go through it and this question of alimony and child support & custody would not be an issue. But since this is not the case, as the divorce rate is way too high, my opinion on the matter is that both parents should contribute the same amount in proportion to the amount they see the kids (assuming both parents wanted custody of the children). It would be horrible to be the dad of a child whose mother forced a divorce in such a way that disallowed the dad from seeing his child, and then the dad isn't allowed to see his children and he has to pay child support for them just the same. It would be terrible if someone had to pay for the support of someone who he wasn't allowed to see because of legal restrictions. Or vice versa gender wise.
Honestly, I take the traditional viewpoint when I say when a married couple has a child, the mother should stay home and take of him and the dad should go out and work to support his family. If they divorce (hopefully they won't), the dad should only have to pay child support only if he is able to see the child or has custody of the children.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 2:47 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

EDIT: Added (alimony, Childsupport) to title.

The basis for child support is that when you have a child, you are responsible for 18 years (realistically, more like 24 today if they attend college...often more if they go to graduate school). That obgligation does not cease simply because you decide you cannot get along with your spouse. So, yes, your obligation to your children remains regardless of marital status.

I can get into this more later, but the biggest problem is that anything called childsupport is given to the custodial spouse and not counted as their income (in most cases, the reciever is not required to report it). Most fathers don't really object to giving their children money, they object to their ex spouse benefitting and sometimes not contributing even as much as they did prior to marriage.

Also, the court does not take time and energy into account. That is, a father who takes part-time job so that he can watch his kids, might very well be held responsible for the same child support as before... (or that he might have to work overtime to maintain that level of support and also pay for his own rent, etc is not taken into consideration).

It gets particularly asinine when you factor in remarriage. This is more critical in states like PA that are not joint property states. Basically, the one with custody can remarry. The new spouse's income is not considered.. that spouse is not legally obligated to support the step kids. That's sounds reasonable, but it can mean that someone marries a multi millionaire (literally) and the former spouse can have an available wage that is well below the poverty line, but not get a dime credit... even if that other spouse spends more actual time with the kids (but they do't live at that house). Yes, that is an extreme example, but a real one.

Anyway, gotta go do lunch for the kids

I'm not talking about any of this. Obviously you are required to provide food/shelter/schooling etc. I"m talking about above and beyond the basics....to where the child support each month is 100k and each year is in the millions...

Or a wife marries a supper rich guy and they live the extravagant lifestyle...they get divorced, she gets no cash because of pre-nup, but gets alimony of 10million a year because she was accustomed to the lifestyle. If she gets 50k a year that's one thing...if she gets millions that another.

what do you think of these peoples sense of entitlement...that just because they had something in the past...they still deserve it.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 2:52 pm**

uh, no. getting crazy amounts of money because you were accustomed to the lifestyle is wrong.
I think that if they get any alimony at all it should only have to be enough to pay for shelter, food, water.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 2:54 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
keiths31 wrote: ]

Funny thing that...she made more money than I did and had health benefits at her work. I didn't. You aren't excusing my EX-wife's behaviour, but you do list excuses as to why she may have acted the way she did. She didn't sideline her career. She went back to work as soon as she was able to stand on two feet again. Don't generalize. Sometimes people (male or female) are just jerks...

Except, the reason I separated my response was because I WAS bringing it back to the general. You gave an example, fine, but the thread discussion is about the overall situation.

And.... I am the wife of a divorced guy with kids. So, I do have a clue

I didn't say you didn't have a clue. I am just tired of everything people do having to have a reason built in. Whether is be social or environmental or what ever. Sometimes people just make bad choices because they are bad people.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 4:39 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
keiths31 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Your quote is wrong...should read "deadbeat parents".

Fair enough, I agree completely.

What can I say...I'm old, and not hip enough to get with the times. <smile>

Except, I do believe you are younger than I...

It was just a joke because a few of my cadets call me "the old man" from time to time. And pretty much for the reason I stated. <grin>

I'm not actually particularly old.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 4:43 pm**

shieldgenerator7 wrote:
pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

I respect and value Woodruff's opinion. I think people who waste youths' time teaching them baton twirling routines should be hunted down and shot. Of course, unlike Woodruff, I think they should be shot with a taser, for the lulz. Not executed in a back alley or something like he suggets.

for a moment there I thought you had made friends again with woodruff, now it seems like you're out to get him.

pimpdave has transformed into a permatroll. He apparently simply cannot help himself. Fortunately for him, he has the moderators in his hip pocket.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 4:45 pm**

shieldgenerator7 wrote:Honestly, I take the traditional viewpoint when I say when a married couple has a child, the mother should stay home and take of him and the dad should go out and work to support his family.

I am of the opinion that, when possible (and in most cases, this IS possible), ONE of the parents should stay home and take care of the children. I don't particularly think it should be the wife...either is just as good.

shieldgenerator7 wrote:If they divorce (hopefully they won't), the dad should only have to pay child support only if he is able to see the child or has custody of the children.

Unless abuse is part of the reason for the divorce.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 5:02 pm**

Woodruff wrote:pimpdave has transformed into a permatroll. He apparently simply cannot help himself. Fortunately for him, he has the moderators in his hip pocket.

Wrong. Maybe your arguments for my being banned are just complete fallacy. I'm not doing anything against the rules. Anything I've written in the last few days has been done by you, Phatscotty, and especially Night Strike. But you and they haven't ever been punished for it. So why is it that you think the mods should show favoritism and punish me where they haven't punished others?

Also, you're the only one calling people names. I am not a permatroll nor am I a cowardly pussy or any of those other awful swear words you called me in your most recent abusive PM (which I won't repeat here since I don't post Private Messages) and it all hurts my feewings!

Maybe it's time for you to stop crying shit wolf, Woodruff. It's all well and good for you to be acerbic, but the second someone dishes it back, suddenly there's a line that everyone but you has crossed.

To quote a wise Welshman, "Shut up!"

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 6:52 pm**

pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:pimpdave has transformed into a permatroll. He apparently simply cannot help himself. Fortunately for him, he has the moderators in his hip pocket.

Wrong. Maybe your arguments for my being banned are just complete fallacy. I'm not doing anything against the rules. Anything I've written in the last few days has been done by you, Phatscotty, and especially Night Strike. But you and they haven't ever been punished for it. So why is it that you think the mods should show favoritism and punish me where they haven't punished others?

What leads you to believe that's the case? I know...your buddy moderators told you, right?

pimpdave wrote:Also, you're the only one calling people names. I am not a permatroll nor am I a cowardly pussy or any of those other awful swear words you called me in your most recent abusive PM (which I won't repeat here since I don't post Private Messages) and it all hurts my feewings!

Look fuckhead. Stop the fucking lying. How pathetic is your life, really, that you take enjoyment out of lying about other people? You must be some sort of a doormat in real life.

There we go...I've fallen for your trolling again!

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 6:54 pm**

Woodruff wrote:Look fuckhead. Stop the fucking lying. How pathetic is your life, really, that you take enjoyment out of lying about other people? You must be some sort of a doormat in real life.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 7:00 pm**

PD, ppl R tired of your post content. I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you hate on people too much. Maybe you should stop worrying about the t-par-t death squad and get over it. Have a good day and God bless you.

Conquer Club

Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

Re: Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)