Wife support is the new child support?

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: jdini76
Devil's advocate.

How do you know he doesn't normaly spend 15k a month on his children?

What does that have to with him now being required to spend that amount?

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I don't understand the topic title. This is child support, even the bolded section says the words "child support." Why do you call it wife support?

Because it doesn't take $15,000/month to raise a child. What is she doing with all that money?

He can certainly afford the $15k/mo. The money goes to the "welfare" of the child, which includes housing, clothing, food, etc. Housing costs are through the roof in California, and if they are used to living a certain lifestyle, it is absurd to think that the wife should move to the slums and feed PB&J sandwiches to the kid every day. I understand that the avg person does not need $15k, but the money is paid to the mother of the child for expenses related to providing for the child. Housing expenses fit into this.

Now with that in mind...I do think men get shafter badly. If my wife and I were to split, with 5 kids, I would be screwed. I would not be able to afford to live after I sent her a check, nor would she be able to live on the check i sent her. It would be lose-lose all-around.

 

[zebano]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: jdini76
Devil's advocate.

How do you know he doesn't normaly spend 15k a month on his children?

What does that have to with him now being required to spend that amount?

More to the point, if the kids "don't choose to be born and become accustomed to that lifestyle..." it's good to break them of that habit early, before they refuse to change.


Howard Schultz of Starbucks says that hunger to get ahead is a powerful factor in life and he worries that his kids are so spoiled that they won't have it (summary of what I heard on the radio yesterday).

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
you people have it all wrong. The outrage shouldn't be that people pay 15,000 a mo in child support. you're outraged about 15,000 cause it's a lot of money. it's a lot of money to you because you are poor. quit whining.

<---- Not poor, thank you very much.

$15K/month to support a child is too much. If he wants to spend that on his child, fine. Otherwise, he should only be required to pay for the essential things needed to live a healthy life and be educated.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I don't understand the topic title. This is child support, even the bolded section says the words "child support." Why do you call it wife support?

Because it doesn't take $15,000/month to raise a child. What is she doing with all that money?

He can certainly afford the $15k/mo. The money goes to the "welfare" of the child, which includes housing, clothing, food, etc. Housing costs are through the roof in California, and if they are used to living a certain lifestyle, it is absurd to think that the wife should move to the slums and feed PB&J sandwiches to the kid every day. I understand that the avg person does not need $15k, but the money is paid to the mother of the child for expenses related to providing for the child. Housing expenses fit into this.

Now with that in mind...I do think men get shafter badly. If my wife and I were to split, with 5 kids, I would be screwed. I would not be able to afford to live after I sent her a check, nor would she be able to live on the check i sent her. It would be lose-lose all-around.

it costs $180,000 minimum to live in california....the slums of it? You gotta be kidding me.

Considering that shouldn't be the wife's total income for the child, that is more than enough for the child to be raised in a nice area.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Edit: Just because I am poor and couldn't rub two nickels together doesn't mean he shouldn't have to pay (and trust me this 15,000 per month is nothing to him) a small fraction of his income to support his child. (I would be suprised if he protested 15,000 a month at all).

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Edit: Just because I am poor and couldn't rub two nickels together doesn't mean he shouldn't have to pay (and trust me this 15,000 per month is nothing to him) a small fraction of his income to support his child. (I would be suprised if he protested 15,000 a month at all).

The point is that it should be his choice, not the court system's choice. If he wants his kid to be happy and wealthy, let him pay it. Otherwise, it is called child support. It is to support your child, not make him top tier elite.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Exactly.

We should only allow people to keep money up to a certain amount, and force them to give away money beyond that amount.

Each man works to his abilities, and is compensated according to his needs.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Exactly.

We should only allow people to keep money up to a certain amount, and force them to give away money beyond that amount.

Each man works to his abilities, and is compensated according to his needs.

Yes. Better yet, how about people just work and don't receive any money? Then the government can take all of the revenue and give each person what they need to live. For example, every year everyone would receive new shoes and some shirts and pants. It is clearly unfair that some are richer than others when everyone works equally hard.


Wait...wait...wait...there is a reason I don't live in Cuba.

 

[eakers]

Its probabley because the child is used to living a certain lifestyle and the courts want to be able to maintain that lifestyle.

Does it say anything aobut alimony?

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: eakers
Its probabley because the child is used to living a certain lifestyle and the courts want to be able to maintain that lifestyle.

Does it say anything aobut alimony?

Since when is it the COURTS repsonsibility to maintain someones lifestyle?

If I losy my job, who is going to pay me so I can maintain my lifestyle?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Exactly.

We should only allow people to keep money up to a certain amount, and force them to give away money beyond that amount.

Each man works to his abilities, and is compensated according to his needs.

:laugh:

 

[chambersc]

This is why I absolutely HATE the state of California. Not the people from the state, mind you, just the state as an entity.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: eakers
Its probabley because the child is used to living a certain lifestyle and the courts want to be able to maintain that lifestyle.

That's exactly why some people pay more then others. It's all about income and maintaining a lifestyle.

 

[The Stigenator]

you know it would be best if the money goes into a trust acct where the male controls it, and sees what the female spends.

i hate CS and stuff, thats why i am going to be very picky about the woman i marry, cause she has to be reasonable and from an unbroken family and stuff.

 

[Shadowknight]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Is it just me or is this "child support" more like "wife support" so his former wife can keep living the life she was when they were married?

Well, child support is there to help clamp down on claims that "alimony" is too excessive, right?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Exactly.

We should only allow people to keep money up to a certain amount, and force them to give away money beyond that amount.

Each man works to his abilities, and is compensated according to his needs.

Yes. Better yet, how about people just work and don't receive any money? Then the government can take all of the revenue and give each person what they need to live. For example, every year everyone would receive new shoes and some shirts and pants. It is clearly unfair that some are richer than others when everyone works equally hard.


Wait...wait...wait...there is a reason I don't live in Cuba.

Exactly. Everyone gets tickets for bread and gas and such. Note that this would probably keep gas prices down as well.

The fact of the matter is that no one should be making $1 million a year when there are other people who only make $10k a year because they don't have jobs.

That's a fact.

So for all of you complaining that $15k is no big deal to someone with $1 million, remember that there is an alternative. It's just that the "fat cats" in Washington don't want everyone to have rationed bread and gas. :rolls eyes

Sure, there are a few rich people like Matt LeBlanc who have all the oil, but does that oil keep you warm at night? Think about it

 

[krunchykrome]

Same thing happened to defensive end Michael Strahan of the New York Giants. His ugly divorce I think ended with his wife demanding a ton of money in alimony in order to keep up with her expensive lifestyle she had grown accustomed to.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Exactly. Everyone gets tickets for bread and gas and such. Note that this would probably keep gas prices down as well.

The fact of the matter is that no one should be making $1 million a year when there are other people who only make $10k a year because they don't have jobs.

That's a fact.

So for all of you complaining that $15k is no big deal to someone with $1 million, remember that there is an alternative. It's just that the "fat cats" in Washington don't want everyone to have rationed bread and gas. :rolls eyes

Sure, there are a few rich people like Matt LeBlanc who have all the oil, but does that oil keep you warm at night? Think about it

You sound serious. You can't really be advocating a socialist or communist type of government, can you?

I don't have a problem with people making millions of dollars while others starve. I do have a problem with the government reappropriating their money.

 

[txrandom]

I got two stories that relate to this:

One of my past friends had divorced parents. His father owned a company and made a very high amount of money. The mom got child support for a two kids (one now) and was getting child support payments for more than most people here make. Of course, she was cheated on by the husband and was one of the nicest ladies I have ever met, so I think she sort of "deserved" the money.

The other story is of another one of my friends that had divorced parents. His father worked for a big company and had a pretty nice salary. The mother got child support for a couple kids and now only one is still under 18. But the problem is that she uses all the money for herself, she made her kids pay for almost everything and she was so stingy. Does anyone know if child support money has to be used for the children first? It seems like what she was doing was illegal. It pisses me off that she is living off her Ex's money and not using anyone of it on her kids. I can't wait till her last child is 18, and she won't be able to continue stealing money from her children.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
Same thing happened to defensive end Michael Strahan of the New York Giants. His ugly divorce I think ended with his wife demanding a ton of money in alimony in order to keep up with her expensive lifestyle she had grown accustomed to.

So, that is why we should make a lot of money and not let the women spend it. Sure, I might make $10 million/year, but I live in a 2 bedroom ranch and make the wife drive a '92 subaru and cook hamburger helper Instead of paying alimony and child support, you could just give her coupons for $1 off the next purchase of a can of tuna.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Exactly.

We should only allow people to keep money up to a certain amount, and force them to give away money beyond that amount.

Each man works to his abilities, and is compensated according to his needs.

Yes. Better yet, how about people just work and don't receive any money? Then the government can take all of the revenue and give each person what they need to live. For example, every year everyone would receive new shoes and some shirts and pants. It is clearly unfair that some are richer than others when everyone works equally hard.


Wait...wait...wait...there is a reason I don't live in Cuba.

Or even better, how about ATOT collects all the people's money, and then we can decide how much child support their kids should get, and how much we'll give back to them. We obviously know better how much Matt LeBlanc should pay in child support than he does. He should not be allowed to sign such a divorce settlement without approval from ATOT :roll:

 

[Tom]

This is none of our business. The guy agreed to pay that much.


I guess some of you aren't parents, or are just bad parents, but lots of parents want their kids to have the best life possible.

Some Fathers put their kids welfare above all the other bullshTt people spend money on, so why wouldn't a rich guy pay a lot of child support, and be glad too ?

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I am unsure what the problem is here? Leblanc makes a h@ll of a lot more than 1 million per year (at least up to this year). Try a million per episode on Friends and something like 700,000 (I think) for his Joey show. He must be worth 100 million. 150 grand a year child support would take six years to match the pay he earned for one Friend's episode. There is a lifestyle that the Leblanc's had (and California is a community property state) that I would think would look at a couple worth over 100 million and see 150 thousand a year as more than reasonable for their child.

Exactly.

We should only allow people to keep money up to a certain amount, and force them to give away money beyond that amount.

Each man works to his abilities, and is compensated according to his needs.

Yes. Better yet, how about people just work and don't receive any money? Then the government can take all of the revenue and give each person what they need to live. For example, every year everyone would receive new shoes and some shirts and pants. It is clearly unfair that some are richer than others when everyone works equally hard.


Wait...wait...wait...there is a reason I don't live in Cuba.

Or even better, how about ATOT collects all the people's money, and then we can decide how much child support their kids should get, and how much we'll give back to them. We obviously know better how much Matt LeBlanc should pay in child support than he does. He should not be allowed to sign such a divorce settlement without approval from ATOT :roll:

OR EVEN BETTER! How about we don't have any discussions on ATOT because obviously we are all stupid and can't make any logical arguments. As a matter of fact, any banter about any subject that we are not personally involved in should be banned.

 

[eakers]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: eakers
Its probabley because the child is used to living a certain lifestyle and the courts want to be able to maintain that lifestyle.

Does it say anything aobut alimony?

Since when is it the COURTS repsonsibility to maintain someones lifestyle?

If I losy my job, who is going to pay me so I can maintain my lifestyle?

you're not a child who is about to lose a family.