- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/25/16 at 12:33 pm to undecided
Posted on 5/25/16 at 1:52 pm to undecided
quote:
So he's paying about 150,000 per month in alimony and 15,000 per month child support. How did the judge decided on that
Jesus.
OJ Simpson was pissed about $10,000 & ended up cutting 2 people.
Like Chris Rock says about OJ :
" I' m not saying he should have killed her , but I understand".
Posted on 5/25/16 at 2:26 pm to undecided
Isn't Fisher the one who engineered trades from Utah & Dallas because of his daughter's illness supposedly? Then sources found out he just was using her as leverage to go where he wanted.
He gets more of a free pass than most players I can remember. This is a terrible look for him. I'd be shocked if he ever coached again
He gets more of a free pass than most players I can remember. This is a terrible look for him. I'd be shocked if he ever coached again
Posted on 5/25/16 at 2:39 pm to undecided
Alimony is the biggest crock of shite I've ever seen in the 21st century.
Posted on 5/25/16 at 2:46 pm to ShoeBang
quote:
and $107,000 will not be spent on the kid. Love the system we have crafted for ourselves.
Good things it's not 150k in child support.
Posted on 5/25/16 at 3:36 pm to slackster
quote:So where is the $180,000 annual allowance for every other kid with split parents? A child doesn't need over 100k a year "get by".
but it isn't the kid's fault that mommy and daddy can't work it out.
This post was edited on 5/25/16 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 5/25/16 at 3:47 pm to shel311
Less than $180k a year isn't a "minimal amount to get by."
This post was edited on 5/25/16 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 5/25/16 at 3:58 pm to Drewbie
quote:
So where is the $180,000 annual allowance for every other kid with split parents? A child doesn't need over 100k a year "get by".
That isn't the point, at least that isn't my point. Child support should be reflective of the wages earned, at least up to a certain amount. It also should have some sort of fiduciary standards applied to the parent receiving it (it may already, I don't really know). If you cannot justify the expense, the money shouldn't be spent, and any residual balance should offset future payments.
The bottom line is that the child should be the beneficiary of the funds and the child's livelihood should be protected as much as possible by the court.
Posted on 5/25/16 at 4:18 pm to TTsTowel
quote:
How is it even logical to order someone to pay that much in child support per month? Is this just for one child?
My parents raised 3 kids on 25% of that
Posted on 5/25/16 at 4:36 pm to slackster
quote:
Child support should be reflective of the wages earned, at least up to a certain amount
Why?
There was nothing requiring a parent to spend more than a minimal amount on their children prior to the separation. Either you are a responsible parent or you are not.
Do you think responsible fathers are going to stop caring for their children's well being? You are just as responsible for your child before the divorce as after. No more no less.
The fact is, financial dynamics change post separation, shared expenses are no longer shared. Family members, including children, have to adjust.
All this does is provide another revenue stream for women who vested in the good life by squeezing a kid out. All the hardship of the separation lands on one person, the father.
Posted on 5/25/16 at 4:40 pm to slackster
quote:I don't agree at all. Child support is meant to aid the cost of raising a child. Not fund his Ferrari on his 16th birthday.
Child support should be reflective of the wages earned
Posted on 5/25/16 at 4:42 pm to slackster
quote:And you know damn well that 80% of that child support isn't going to be spent on the kid. There are baby mommas running around buying shoes with their child support cards that don't even get a decent fraction of that kind of payment. The fact is that if it's not a necessary expense for the child, the parent isn't going to use that money for its "intended purpose".
The bottom line is that the child should be the beneficiary of the funds and the child's livelihood should be protected as much as possible by the court.
Posted on 5/25/16 at 4:54 pm to undecided
Posted on 5/25/16 at 5:29 pm to Drewbie
There are also a shite ton of mothers who spent way more on their kids than they'll ever get from the deadbeat fathers. It's a bad system proned to abuse, which is why I suggested a fiduciary responsibility be added to those funds.
There is no perfect method, to that we can agree.
There is no perfect method, to that we can agree.
Posted on 5/25/16 at 5:48 pm to Drewbie
quote:So should the kid get something comparable to a living wage of a parent making $50k/year while daddy gets to break free and keep all the money to himself if he wants?
So where is the $180,000 annual allowance for every other kid with split parents? A child doesn't need over 100k a year "get by".
What is an acceptable amount?
Posted on 5/25/16 at 5:50 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:So based on what you just said, the kid doesn't suffer by his parents splitting up AND his mother keeping most of that money?
All this does is provide another revenue stream for women who vested in the good life by squeezing a kid out. All the hardship of the separation lands on one person, the father.
Posted on 5/25/16 at 5:51 pm to undecided
I don't want to ever get married
Posted on 5/25/16 at 5:52 pm to Drewbie
quote:Isn't that a different argument?
And you know damn well that 80% of that child support isn't going to be spent on the kid.
No clue how they do it, but couldn't you outline a certain amount for the kid, then the rest go to a fun for the kid until they're 18?
Still wondering, what's an acceptable amount?
Posted on 5/25/16 at 6:00 pm to undecided
quote:
$1.3 million annually in spousal support
Truly outrageous. Whatever judge makes rulings like this can rot in hell.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News