- 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
re: Tyrese Gibson Breaks Down Over Custody Battle
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:01 am to Central Tiger
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:01 am to Central Tiger
quote:
And here’s an additional kick to the gut. The father has to pay taxes on the money he gives her every month. Meanwhile, she gets $156K tax free annual income. Yeah, that’s fair. #maleprivilege
I think you have that reversed. I get a tax deduction on the payments to my ex and she has to pay taxes on it as if it was income.
3
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:03 am to PearlJam
quote:
And the lifestyle of the child.
pretty sure if the child is in Tyrese's life, he will provide that lifestyle himself. there is no logical reason why he has to pay a blanket sum per month to the other parent, especially in this day and age
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:04 am to mikelbr
quote:
The idea of support is "continuity of lifestyle prior to the split".
So you can marry in to a "lifestyle" but, not divorce out of it?
If "continuity of lifestyle prior to the split" was really the important factor, wouldn't it make more sense (barring documented abuse) to award custody to the parent most able to provide "continuity of lifestyle prior to the split"?
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:04 am to shel311
quote:
, I'm not so sure it would also be fair for the millionaire divorced half to continue to live the millionaire life while giving a few hundred bucks a month which is just enough to cover the child's necessary expenses. Even if you argue putting the remainder in a fund for the child or something, that's fine too. But I do think the rich parent should be giving up an amount to keep the child comfortable, not just enough to get by.
i think the only way that this really makes sense is if the rich parent is an absentee parent
otherwise, it's a wash in my eyes
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:06 am to redstick13
quote:
This is also bullshite. How can you predict that the lifestyle will remain the same for whatever duration the support payments are set for?
if you want a crazy example of this, read up on Dave Foley's situation
it's Canada, but still similar. they set his support based on the HIGHEST INCOME HE EVER EARNED. then his tv show get canceled and hell begins
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:12 am to redstick13
quote:
I get a tax deduction on the payments to my ex and she has to pay taxes on it as if it was income.
So the gumment is reimbursing you on the income tax you pay then re-taxing it when the ex gets it? Makes sense if that's the case.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:13 am to Jcorye1
quote:
When a parent is awarded money to raise the child, they should have to show a set of financials every year detailing where the money went, and if less than 95% of it goes to the child or a secure savings account/trust for the child it goes back to the person making the payments.
You have my vote!
A friend had his ex request he pay the child support early because she was going on vacation with her new boyfriend. I'm surprised we don't have more homicides between divorced parents.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:17 am to TheAlmightySmash
Child support in neither deductible or reportable. Alimony is deducted by the payer and reported as income by the recipient.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:19 am to TheAlmightySmash
quote:
So the gumment is reimbursing you on the income tax you pay then re-taxing it when the ex gets it? Makes sense if that's the case.
Unfortunately it is the case and my ex is a useless c_nt who doesn't even try to find work and lives solely on my payments. So obviously my tax liability is much higher than hers and the gov't gets to double dip.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:26 am to redstick13
If you’re getting a deduction and have a higher tax rate, then the government is losing in that deal.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:31 am to Smoke7024
quote:
If you’re getting a deduction and have a higher tax rate, then the government is losing in that deal.
Yes you're correct. I was thinking about it wrongly.
This post was edited on 11/3/17 at 10:32 am
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:44 am to dawgfan24348
Typical.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:47 am to redstick13
quote:
I get a tax deduction on the payments to my ex and she has to pay taxes on it as if it was income.
Um. How?
Is this alimony or Child Support you speak of?
Child support is NOT tax deductible.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:48 am to mikelbr
quote:
Is this alimony or Child Support you speak of?
The modern term is "maintenance payments".
Posted on 11/3/17 at 10:51 am to redstick13
quote:
The modern term is "maintenance payments".
Roger that.
I don't complain of my situation much anymore(like a lifer in prison who accepts his fate after a few years
). But seeing other men be complete deadbeats and still getting 40% custody pisses me off. At the mom's who allow it and the dads who take advantage of it. 
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:00 am to TheAlmightySmash
quote:
What are they feeding this kid? Beluga caviar? How can you possibly spend that?
Gotta live large.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:10 am to redstick13
quote:
I think you have that reversed. I get a tax deduction on the payments to my ex and she has to pay taxes on it as if it was income.
Spousal support is taxable income for the recipient.
Child support is not taxable income for the recipient-parent.
At least, that's the way it has been for me for the past 17 years.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:14 am to Jcorye1
quote:
When a parent is awarded money to raise the child, they should have to show a set of financials every year detailing where the money went, and if less than 95% of it goes to the child or a secure savings account/trust for the child it goes back to the person making the payments.
Agreed.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:14 am to ChewyDante
quote:
No person should EVER have to pay anyone $13k a month under the guise of that money being necessary for the other parent to fund the child when in their custody. I don't care how much money the person makes. It's one of the most unfair and asinine laws this country has and it baffles me there isn't a legitimate movement to change the law.
Money splits due to divorce should be determined outright and child support should be a reasonable amount to contribute to typical expenses of raising a child. No one thinks that $13k a month is being spent on the child, it's going to the lifestyle of the parent.
the only thing I could see with this is some of the private schooling or areas that the person lives. I could even see as child support an agreement to pay for a safe living arrangement and private schooling to be paid directly to the landlord/school by the provider.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:30 am to ChewyDante
quote:We probably have varying degrees of "comfortable" as it relates to one of the parents being a multi-millionaire.
Establish brackets instead of percentages. You make over x amount of money, you pay $2-3k per month. Something like that. $3k a month equates to a $36k yearly salary on top of that parents income and the income of whatever their potential new partner makes. That's more than adequate for comfortable living. That's all I'm saying.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News