You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] 13447007? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Child support is a percentage. His $34 million salary would calculate out to a little over $200,000 for 2 kids per month in California if you assume 50/50 custody (doubtful in his case) and about $260K if you do the normal 20/80. So $250K is within a range. Were it a lot higher I would suspect there were more to it but not in this case.

Now, if you ask me how fucking ridiculous it is to always use percentages we could have another discussion.

0
1

[–] Canada_is_gay 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah that seems about right. In theory the U.S. (it varies some state to state but is generally the same) child support is designed so that the child doesn't have a disproportionate lifestyle with one parent as with the other. In practice at some point that becomes ridiculous. In this guy's case the reality is even if sounding like blatant robbery (and in some ways it is) a couple mil per year from his big contract isn't really hurting him. The ones that suffer are the guy who makes a solid but not amazing income, like $75k-100k who has an ex-wife who does nothing. The couple thou a month or so he'll end up paying is a very feel-able step down in lifestyle for him. Meanwhile the ex-wife is incentivized to not seek her own work and change that, since the numbers are based off of difference in income. She could go get a $50k a year job and take responsibility for herself like she should. But where's her motivation? His child support would drop dramatically and she'd give up a plethora of "struggling single mother" benefits. It's all a wash for her even though it hurts him a lot. Terrible system.

The biggest thing is let's say our guy making $100k / yr hates his job. Maybe he took the job cause they were offering more money than anyone else, and he learns after taking it that that's because it sucks. He would like to quit and would happily take less money to work for someone else. He legally can't, at least not without still paying as though he makes the hundy thou. The court is going to say he voluntarily took less money so he's still on the hook for the same rate as the big salary. His life sucks at that job? Too fucking bad.

Even more so, let's say they have an 80-20 share instead of 50-50. She decides to move across the country. She probably can cause she has the 80. He decides he wants to move too so he can still go to little league, know teachers, etc even if he still only has a 20 share. The job he gets following his kids to stay max involved in their lives pays less than his current. He's still potentially liable for "voluntarily" taking less money.

It's all such garbage, and everyone involved is basically exploiting children for money. Sick fucks.

0
1

[–] 13447994? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

In this guy's case the reality is even if sounding like blatant robbery (and in some ways it is) a couple mil per year from his big contract isn't really hurting him.

Except they almost never reduce it if income goes down. So if he stops making that money next year he still has to pay support at the higher rate like he was making that money still.

When I got divorced I used their "new and improved" calculator in my state that supposedly took into account both parents income. Funny thing is that with me making $50K at the time and her making $29K I was paying $1000 a month for 2 kids. If she suddenly made $50K too then my support dropped to $995. Seriously, she almost doubles her income and my support only changes a few dollars. Hell, there was actually the possibility of the custodial parent paying support to the non-custodial if the percentages were like 55/45 and the incomes too disparate (courts never did it but the calculations allowed for it).

0
0

[–] lord_nougat ago 

How fucking ridiculous it is to always use percentages?

0
0

[–] 13448084? ago 

Extremely.

0
0

[–] hang_em_high ago 

It is more ridiculous to use a percentage for a sports star. This isn’t a career they can do until they are 65 so the money is up front. What happens to his child support payment if he retires?