OT: Eva Longoria Files For Divorce From Tony Parker Read mo

[DuckIII]

lol- you assume too much. 20% of $5000 per month is $1000 per month. I would call that enough to provide at least the minimal for a child. Not sure what welfare provides but based on various things I've heard through the years i am assuming $700-$800 per child per month as the entire amount food, education, everything included in that. In a divorce with children the father usually also provides education allowance and other resposiblities. The father also has the child under his care for 3 of the 7 days per week. In this scenario $1000 per child is suppose to provide half of the money to raise the child. If I had kids I would gladly pay that amount per month. BUT 20% of 60,000 per month is is $12000 per month. no friggin way are you going to convince me it cost that much to raise a child...and many men earn more than $60,000 per month. In this case we are talking professional athletes and tony parker makes about 1 million per month. Should he be paying $200,000 per month in child support if he had kids? Really? I think $12000 per month is obscene. oh? and she gets to keep the house too?

What you would be doing is paying about $1000-$2000 per month for you child's basic essentials for 4 days per week.

The goal of child support is not to be able to keep them alive. It is to provide them with the level of lifestyle, financially, that they would have enjoyed had there been no divorce.

Its pretty surprising how many men think that their own children should live a less-advantaged life merely becaue their parents couldn't hack the marriage. Indeed, one of the reasons I consider marriage to be an important institution is because it helps keep selfish douchebag men in line when it comes to supporting their kids.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

lol- you assume too much. 20% of $5000 per month is $1000 per month. I would call that enough to provide at least the minimal for a child. Not sure what welfare provides but based on various things I've heard through the years i am assuming $700-$800 per child per month as the entire amount food, education, everything included in that. In a divorce with children the father usually also provides education allowance and other resposiblities. The father also has the child under his care for 3 of the 7 days per week. In this scenario $1000 per child is suppose to provide half of the money to raise the child. If I had kids I would gladly pay that amount per month. BUT 20% of 60,000 per month is is $12000 per month. no friggin way are you going to convince me it cost that much to raise a child...and many men earn more than $60,000 per month. In this case we are talking professional athletes and tony parker makes about 1 million per month. Should he be paying $200,000 per month in child support if he had kids? Really? I think $12000 per month is obscene. oh? and she gets to keep the house too?

What you would be doing is paying about $1000-$2000 per month for you child's basic essentials for 4 days per week.

The goal of child support is not to be able to keep them alive. It is to provide them with the level of lifestyle, financially, that they would have enjoyed had there been no divorce.

Its pretty surprising how many men think that their own children should live a less-advantaged life merely becaue their parents couldn't hack the marriage. Indeed, one of the reasons I consider marriage to be an important institution is because it helps keep selfish douchebag men in line when it comes to supporting their kids.

I'd probably use the word disgusting - but I agree completely.

[DuckIII]

Another thing that's funny to me, and maybe its just my particular lifestyle, but I already give my wife and kids essentially every **** penny I make. I keep a little "bourbon and pretzels" money for myself out of each paycheck and give the rest to my wife to pay for everything (she's far more responsible with finances than I am).

If I were to ever get divorced, I probably wouldn't know what to do with all the extra discretionary money I'd have.

[League Circles]

The goal of child support is not to be able to keep them alive. It is to provide them with the level of lifestyle, financially, that they would have enjoyed had there been no divorce.

Its pretty surprising how many men think that their own children should live a less-advantaged life merely becaue their parents couldn't hack the marriage. Indeed, one of the reasons I consider marriage to be an important institution is because it helps keep selfish douchebag men in line when it comes to supporting their kids.

Yeah but the courts are presumptuous about what that level of lifestyle is. For example, say a man makes $300k a year as a physician, but hates it and wants to spend as much time possible with his kids, with charitable activities, and with fishing. The court is going to treat his income like it will continue until age 65 or whatever, ignoring the fact that the man pans to retire at age 40 and do so while living on way, way , way less than $300k a year. Let's say he thinks that 50k is enough to support his and his kids lifestyle. you know the court won't buy that, even if true. To me one of the biggest problems in America is that everybody sees money in terms of income instead of assets. I don't expect the courts to be any different. What if a father who makes millions doesn't believe in private school, and his ex wife and the court are trying to make him pay for it "because he can".

I just don't think that any certain level of lifestyle can be determined or assumed, regardless of income level of the father. Even taking it to the extreme, say a father is very very charitable, and thinks his own kids should have to wear second hand clothes from good will so that he can give away more money to the homeless, for example. Why shouldn't he be allowed to do that?

I'm not saying I would, but just pointing out that America has a problem where a lot of people expect certain things from certain income levels in terms of housing, clothes, vacations, education, entertainment, etc.

Yeah a man is probably a douche if he exercises a lot of these rights to the extreme, but I think it's a immoral restriction on liberty to look at a man's income and decide how his children must live, beyond the necessities of food, housing, clothing and medical care. Anything beyond that is debatable whether or not it's best for the child, and that debate is for the breadwinner to settle, not for an arbitrary evaluation of his yearly salary to settle.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

The goal of child support is not to be able to keep them alive. It is to provide them with the level of lifestyle, financially, that they would have enjoyed had there been no divorce.

Its pretty surprising how many men think that their own children should live a less-advantaged life merely becaue their parents couldn't hack the marriage. Indeed, one of the reasons I consider marriage to be an important institution is because it helps keep selfish douchebag men in line when it comes to supporting their kids.

Yeah but the courts are presumptuous about what that level of lifestyle is. For example, say a man makes $300k a year as a physician, but hates it and wants to spend as much time possible with his kids, with charitable activities, and with fishing. The court is going to treat his income like it will continue until age 65 or whatever, ignoring the fact that the man pans to retire at age 40 and do so while living on way, way , way less than $300k a year. Let's say he thinks that 50k is enough to support his and his kids lifestyle. you know the court won't buy that, even if true. To me one of the biggest problems in America is that everybody sees money in terms of income instead of assets. I don't expect the courts to be any different. What if a father who makes millions doesn't believe in private school, and his ex wife and the court are trying to make him pay for it "because he can".

Thats not true at all. Fathers can and do petition the court for reductions in child support when their income changes - yes even if it was a voluntary change.

[ATRAIN53]

And If I had children I can assure you they would go to the best schools in Illinois, and have the best nannies, private tutors, be involved in every single thing that exists that they desired and eventually drive the nicest cars and down the road I would buy them the nicest house I can afford and have the absolute best of everything and I would never be with a a woman who would not allow me to do that for my kids if we had them.

sounds great man, i like some of your views and used to dream like that too....

then reality set in.

don't forget to budget health insurance in there too - the rates for a family plans these days are outrageous if your employer doesn't have a killer group plan.

when you do start thinking about having kids - people are going to tell you that it's going to "Change Your Life"

that's bunk advice and not even close to being accurate.
it changes more than everything. be prepared.

[League Circles]

The goal of child support is not to be able to keep them alive. It is to provide them with the level of lifestyle, financially, that they would have enjoyed had there been no divorce.

Its pretty surprising how many men think that their own children should live a less-advantaged life merely becaue their parents couldn't hack the marriage. Indeed, one of the reasons I consider marriage to be an important institution is because it helps keep selfish douchebag men in line when it comes to supporting their kids.

Yeah but the courts are presumptuous about what that level of lifestyle is. For example, say a man makes $300k a year as a physician, but hates it and wants to spend as much time possible with his kids, with charitable activities, and with fishing. The court is going to treat his income like it will continue until age 65 or whatever, ignoring the fact that the man pans to retire at age 40 and do so while living on way, way , way less than $300k a year. Let's say he thinks that 50k is enough to support his and his kids lifestyle. you know the court won't buy that, even if true. To me one of the biggest problems in America is that everybody sees money in terms of income instead of assets. I don't expect the courts to be any different. What if a father who makes millions doesn't believe in private school, and his ex wife and the court are trying to make him pay for it "because he can".

Thats not true at all. Fathers can and do petition the court for reductions in child support when their income changes - yes even if it was a voluntary change.

That's still presumptuous. It's presuming that the level of this year's earnings be the basis for the child's level of affluence this year, instead of letting the father balance the current needs and wants of the child with the long term goals and plans of himself and the family, including the kid.

I, for example, would probably never conceivably spend more than about 50-100k a year on child, and that amount would stay the same whether I was making a million a year and expected and wanted to for 30 more years, or if I was making 15 million on a one-year-left NBA contract, or if I made only 500K in earnings yet had a net worth of 500 billion. Yet the courts would probably want me to pay more if I was the basketball player because I make 15 mil. It doesn't matter if I can petition to decrease support after I'm done playing. The point being that whether or not the father is playing basketball should have zero affect on the child's standard of living. The only thing that should matter are the child's financial needs, which are not that much for a rich person, and the financial plans of the adult, and the current ability to pay them. Sorry I just hate the notion that because someone makes more money currently that they should be expected (especially required by a court of law) to have a certain level of home, cars, vacations, toys etc. That's all personal.

Just examples - I'd never buy a child a car that was probably more than a $40k car, which is still a luxury car and safe but not extreme. I'd never take my kids into a really really high end fashion boutique, even though I love high style, because I think it would be bad for the kids. I think a lot, far from all, but too many nonetheless of rich kids are spoiled to their own detriment.

[dougthonus]

That's still presumptuous. It's presuming that the level of this year's earnings be the basis for the child's level of affluence this year, instead of letting the father balance the current needs and wants of the child with the long term goals and plans of himself and the family, including the kid.

I, for example, would probably never conceivably spend more than about 50-100k a year on child, and that amount would stay the same whether I was making a million a year and expected and wanted to for 30 more years, or if I was making 15 million on a one-year-left NBA contract, or if I made only 500K in earnings yet had a net worth of 500 billion. Yet the courts would probably want me to pay more if I was the basketball player because I make 15 mil. It doesn't matter if I can petition to decrease support after I'm done playing. The point being that whether or not the father is playing basketball should have zero affect on the child's standard of living. The only thing that should matter are the child's financial needs, which are not that much for a rich person, and the financial plans of the adult, and the current ability to pay them. Sorry I just hate the notion that because someone makes more money currently that they should be expected (especially required by a court of law) to have a certain level of home, cars, vacations, toys etc. That's all personal.

Just examples - I'd never buy a child a car that was probably more than a $40k car, which is still a luxury car and safe but not extreme. I'd never take my kids into a really really high end fashion boutique, even though I love high style, because I think it would be bad for the kids. I think a lot, far from all, but too many nonetheless of rich kids are spoiled to their own detriment.

While I understand your point, and I think it does have some validity for those who are making extreme amounts of money, the vast, vast majority of people would use such a loop hole simply to avoid paying for their kid because they are cheap rather than to avoid the mother spoiling the child.

I don't think it'd be unreasonable to put a salary cap on child support at 100k a year.

[League Circles]

I don't think it'd be unreasonable to put a salary cap on child support at 100k a year.

We're in agreement then. I'm guessing that there are ex wives of very rich men who get more than that for child support, and I only think 100k is the high end of reasonable if the woman has 100% custody. It should be somewhat pro-rated.

I'm totally for the concept of court ordered child support, but I also don't think there should be an assumption scaled up to 100k. In other words, it shouldn't be pegged to the man's salary for any amount over the amount to properly clothe, feed, shelter, and provide medical care for a child, though of course special needs children can go through the roof of 100k pretty easily for "reasonable" things, not luxuries.

I just don't think that anyone that "can afford" 100k a year should be forced to give it. Maybe they think that will spoil a child - 100k worth of stuff a year. For example, most people, including myself, if given unlimited funds and having kids, would probably send their kid to a school that may cost 40 or 50k a year, but maybe a guy doesn't think that's a good environment for his kid or whatever, and wants to send them to a school that costs 15k a year, etc.

[dice]

I don't think it'd be unreasonable to put a salary cap on child support at 100k a year.

that's not bad. or base the limit on % of previous annual expenses

[zenvibes]

the only part that I am not in favor of is the clause to where you have to provide the same lifestyle. To me, the lifestyle a man provides is part of who he is. just like his brains, personality, body, sex. etc. A woman should only keep that if she is with that man. If she wants another man she should take all that comes with the new guy.

It's not about the woman keeping the lifestyle. It's about YOUR CHILD.

You are to provide your child with the means that you yourself have to put them in a lifestyle similar to what you would live in. If your ex benefits because of that, then that's simply too bad for you. Perhaps you should have let your wife work, and you could have stayed home with the kids. Then you'd have custody, she'd pay child support to you, but you'd be the one with few career options because you have no recent job experience. Do you really think you'd be better off?

I think a lot of men think the wife is getting off easy and getting something for free. I was doing stay at home dad work while running my at home consulting business for seven years, and believe me, being at home with your kids all day is no free ride.

then the CHILD CAN COME LIVE WITH ME!!!!

I've already stipulated I would file for custody and take care of all the bills. I would want my child under my rook 24/7 if possible. There is waaaaaay too much presumptous on your part here. I'm am all about rasing kids right!!! ALL about it. I have an organization that helps kids in need. I have raised 2 of sisters kids since they have been 15...and well I might add. One drives my vintage 450 sl the other my X6. And they are just my nephews. They both work for me and at my non-profit helping other less fortunate...this is not about a guy who is trying to suck from the system. I am a giver into the system...but if I get a divorce?????

Why on earth would I want to help my ex wife on court orders? And keep in mind I said I am divorced and have no issues with my ex. We are still friends. She is remarried to a very nice guy and I am super happy for her. i hope she gets the high hard one every night. This is not bitterness at all. My life is great and I am very happy. 10 years ago, her and I had been divorced for 2 years. when I earned my doctorate I paid off her $65,000 in student loans that she acquired while we were married...BUT it was by choice!!!! My choice. I did not ahve to do that. We had no kids. Nobody cheated on anyone. its just wasnt meant to be. We both went our own ways in peace. She was always nice to me as was her family. They helped us tremendously through the years. if she took me to court and hired an attorney I would have fought her tooth and nail and found a way to not give her one single penny if I could. be nice? Play nice? and so will I. By choice.

I am all for a 100,000 cap on child support as a salary.

As far as lifestyle goes? My kids dont deserve jack shxt unless I say so...whether live with me or dont live with me. My nephes live with me. I have been rainsing them for 6 years. I dont just give them my X6 as a gift. they earn it. They work their butts off both for me and in school so they can someday provide for themselves and their family. What? because I can afford any car in the world my kids automatically get one too? My ex wife gets one too? Please...No fricking way. For over ten years i have also been the sole supporter for both of my parents. You think I bought my mom the same kind of house I live in? They deserve that lifestyle because they are my mom? My mom's bills cost me 3 grand a month. that's generous enough. She has a modest home in a modest burb and drive a honda...all on my tab she doesn't even "deserve" that. I do that out of my generosity. That's my choice. Same would go for my kids. If my kid turned out to be a complete lazy pos, failing school, not working, playing video games you can bet your butt i'd cutt them off completely of any comforts and if they were over 18 they come home one day to find all the locks changed. Just because you are a parent you do not owe them your life. Each and every parent should be able to make that call....GIVEN THEY PROVIDE THE MINIMUM!!! which public aid establishes at around $500.

Since I actually have had 2 teenagers in my house for 5 years I know that's absurd. But you can easily provide for a child on $1500-2000. Food, clothing, everything all fits under that.

Housing is already supplied by you. health care is already supplied.

in a theoretical divorce one would ahve the kids 3-4 days per week. when the kids are with me...they get to experience my lifestyle. with mom her lifestyle. And I am firmly against any court deciding that a man needs to give x amount of dollars for the ex.

Firmly! And I understand a lot of douchbags wouldfind a way to not pay or whatever. So be it. She should have done her homework and found a better man or not so broke man whatever. Or maybe she should have been nicer to keep that man in her life. She didn't. he is a jerk and doesn't pay for his kids. deal with it! Life is what you make of it.

woman always want bad boys....and I get it cuz I kind of am one...but I'm a bad boy that pays my bills, cares for others, has my fun, and supports those in my life. If you happen to find yourself on the outside looking in there is a reason for it. I take care of everyone around. I just dont like a court order saying I need to do so because then the door is open for all the BS that is going on today. Some poor sap living in a 2 BR apt while his wife is living it up with her new boy friend in his old house while he payes her $2500 a month and only has $2500 left to live off of. His kids dont even want to be at his new home (2br apt) cuz it stinks in comparison to the old one. and he doesn't have a penny to spend on them anymore.

[bentheredengthat]

Wow. I'm a single dad and raised my son pretty much on my own. I paid child support anyways. After reading this thread I suddenly feel like I just walked into one of those intergalactic bars on Star Trek.

[zenvibes]

And If I had children I can assure you they would go to the best schools in Illinois, and have the best nannies, private tutors, be involved in every single thing that exists that they desired and eventually drive the nicest cars and down the road I would buy them the nicest house I can afford and have the absolute best of everything and I would never be with a a woman who would not allow me to do that for my kids if we had them.

sounds great man, i like some of your views and used to dream like that too....

then reality set in.

don't forget to budget health insurance in there too - the rates for a family plans these days are outrageous if your employer doesn't have a killer group plan.

when you do start thinking about having kids - people are going to tell you that it's going to "Change Your Life"

that's bunk advice and not even close to being accurate.
it changes more than everything. be prepared.

i put my 2 nephews through St I and now paying their tuition at depaul. They have been with me since the were 15 and 16. I am quite familair with the cost of raising children and providing for them the very best. They also both work for me. They drive my cars, motorcycles, and treat my house like its their own. I tried to get them involeved with any sport they wanted, hired coahing for them, spent hours and hours each work personally tutoring them to get them up to speed. They now take trips off my on my corporate card. And they are just my nephews.

My sister went through a divorce from a broke dxxk jerk that refused to even offer to help his own sons. So I have seen this from the point of view of both my sister and her kids. Lived out this whole scenario through them. These kids had every single issue you can think of when they came to live with me. And I was not ready for it. At all. I put my heart and soul into turning their lives around. Both graduated with honors from HS and get nearly straight A's at Depaul. They clown around too much for me and party too much but I can also say that they are very happy. When they came here they were into drugs and all kinds of trouble. This was a difficult road but well worth it for me. I would do anything for them because I already have done everything for them!!!! I completely changed my life for them. Completely.

but if they are to go live with my sister...guess what...they get to live in her house and under the lifestyle she provides. Sure I would help where I could...but at my choice when and where I want. And she is my sister, not my ex. I have done everything I could to help her get on her feet as well. On her feet does not mean a 5500 sf modern single family in wicker park...unless I choose it to be. Again my choice. Every man should get to choose how much he wants to help after the minimum. I agree with setting up a minimum and I have established that at $1500-2000 and I know what costs what.

The way the courts set it up is usually the man provides the health care...that an insignificant $400 per month for a top of the line PPO unless you have some illness or take you kids to th edr every 5 seconds fo rbs and they raise your premium. decent ppo plans start as low as 250 per child. A good dental PPO is 40 per month. then there are medical co-pays...the man pays those....might add up to $1000 for the whole year. education...the man pays that but if you live in a decent burb like burr ridge or hinsdale they can go public...cost is built into your taxes which the man already bought the house anyway. If you live in the city, you will have to send them to private and that is approaching $20,000 per year fomr many schools. $12,000 minimum. Guess who pays that? the man.

So on top of all this you guys really think the man should be dishing out more than $1500-2000 per month? For what? your ex wife's rover? her trip to paris?

Its funny to even hear you guys talk like that because i ahve 2 friends that are divorce attorneys. that is all they do all year long...huge offices in the burbs and downtown. And basically no man feel that way when his actual pay check is on the line. if you wives check in from time to time to read your stuff I totally get you position. but in reality....when you have to actually swallow that pill...no man I have ever heard of ever that makes 300,000 or more per year is in agreement with you. I'm 40 and have a lot of divorced co-workers, friends, colleagues. Many that love their kids as much as the next guy. And would gladly do whatever they could for their kids.

But coughing over $10,000 or more per month to you ex-wife completely takes away any "power" you might have had in any decision making process whatsoever. She doesn't ever need to be nice to you, nice to her kids, or consider your "ideas" in how you want to raise your kids. On that kind of dime she will never need to work and about 20% of your dime will get to your kids and 80% will go to supporting her. And some guys pay $50,000 plus per month!!! Its a frickin crime if you ask me!!!!

The courts will already have you provide the health care and education. 10,000 or more on top of that????? No way jose!!! If the burden is too tough on the ex wife to provide with 1500-2000 per month then they can come stay with me....and I would offer her $500-1000 per month to just go away...pick the kids up and be good to them and be a good mom 3 days per week and I might up it to $1000. If...IF...she is still super awesome, obeys all my wishes for the kids, and does right by me etc...then I would consider a bit more...but it would be MY CHOICE. But if you give a woman 10,000-20,000 per month you think she is going to listen to a word I say or how I want my kids to be raised? fat chance.

I think the fundemental thing that many guys here arent't considering is that women that the "marry into" the large tax brackets aren't exactly like the typical woman you will find in your typical suburb like shaumburg or naperville. Sure there is an awesome wife every now and then...maybe 1 out of ten. See in the large tax bracket there is actually an incentive to be procreate, act like a total Bxxxx after words and then take th eguys house and kids and his 20,000 child support....its heaven for them. Think Housewives of orange county or Atlanta or New York times 100. And those chicks are on TV and behave like that. Imagine real life with the cameras off. you think they get nicer with the cameras off? Guys in the large tax brackets have done enough for these chicks by even putting up with them for 10-20 years.

And thats' all im sayin. Put a cap on it! And I'm cool. Im all for doing evrything for your kids...but christ put a cap on it!!!! The system is planting the seed for women to pursue divorce because they get their cake, his cake, and eat both of them.

On the flip side, I am all for creating a minimum on child support as well. I know a girl, works for me that gets $600 per month for 2 kids!!!!!!! And he makes cash money on the side and doesn't report it. And he doesn't do crap except show up for karate lessons for his kids...minimal baby sitting everthing. he wont even pick them up fro school when he is sitting at home on his butt so she is always leaving work early. Now she is a fool for dating an idiot bartender to begin with, even stupider for marrying him, and rediculously (Please Use More Appropriate Word) for having 2 kids with him...even tatted his name on her finger...so I have little sympathy for her. But $600 per month is not enough. The courts should body slam a guy llike that!!! She makes $38,000 per year working for me and still qualifies for food stamps...which makes us all pay for his kids. that aint right! And if that's all you guys are saying then we are in agreement. But anything more than $2000 per month is jsut going to her. and if you guys wan to do that for your wives I am all for it...if its you're CHOICE.