Wife support is the new child support?

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom
This is none of our business. The guy agreed to pay that much.

Then what exactly is our business? We are discussing child support as a whole with this as an ideal point. Have you never discussed on a public forum something that you thought was flawed, but obviously was not your business? Ever discussed abortion?

Originally posted by: Tom
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.

I am a good parent. My point is that if he WANTS to spend $15K/month on his child, he can do that. He should not be FORCED to do this. I'm sure he isn't thinking "I am so glad I have to spend this money every month!"

Originally posted by: Tom
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 ?

There is no conceivable way that you can spend $15K/month on a two year old child unless you are buying them a mansion for their bedroom and gold plated shoes. The point is that the wife is getting paid a lot of money under the guise of "child support."

Is there some reason why his kids are supposed to live a lesser lifestyle than he is ? How the hell do you know what his lifestyle costs per month ?

Can you point to the law that states his kids have to live the same lifestyle as he?

I left my big book of law at home with my gossip rags

I'm not talking about the law..

You say you are a good parent. Tell me why you think a rich man should live a better life style than his kids ?

When did I say that?

Now, tell me why you think the law should enforce his children having the same lifestyle as his.

If it was up to me, he and his wife would be in prison, but that isn't relevant.

Yikes...anyway, going back to the less scary idea that he should provide his kids the same lifestyle as he, or even that he should provide his kids with the best lifestyle he can manage.

However, those are morals, and it's not the government's place to enforce morality

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

LeBlanc will be financially responsible for his daughter's education, nanny and other needs.

Well, given this is LA correct? I can see this depending on if the kid is attending private school (which she probably is or will), and the cost of a nanny.



One thing you need to remember is that children do not ask to be born, and as such if they become used to a lifestyle provided by the parents, should they have to pay the price because of "irreconcilable differences" (which is another way of saying niether one wants to take responsiblity). This is exxcessive to those that make say twice this per year, but remember, he is making residuals from rebroadcasts of his shows, DVD sales etc.

besides, any father who loves his child would do this if he could afford it....I would. WHy hold the kid hostage because you dissagree with the mother?

The kid didn't be asked to be born, but that doesn't give him the right to have a silver spoon in his mouth forever. Lots of people go from riches to rags, does this mean the gov or some other entity should shell out the big bucks so those people and live in the same lifestyle?
Hell no!!!

 

[mrrman]

its crap but werent they making $500k-$1M per episode each on Friends

 

[Tom]

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Tom

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

Government makes law. This was settled in a court of law. By the rule of transitivity...do I have to spell the rest out for you?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

Government makes law. This was settled in a court of law. By the rule of transitivity...do I have to spell the rest out for you?

I take it you don't know what a "settlement" is ?

 

[CptObvious]

I did a search on the story (it's Friday afternoon, I'm bored at work ) and there are rumors that Matt LeBlanc cheated on his wife with his Joey co-star...them being spotted together before the divorce, etc. If true that probably explains a lot.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

Government makes law. This was settled in a court of law. By the rule of transitivity...do I have to spell the rest out for you?

I take it you don't know what a "settlement" is ?

Generally people settle when being forced into doing something. It is taking the safe bet, like a plea bargain.

 

[Journer]

complete and total BULLSHART!

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

Government makes law. This was settled in a court of law. By the rule of transitivity...do I have to spell the rest out for you?

I take it you don't know what a "settlement" is ?

Generally people settle when being forced into doing something. It is taking the safe bet, like a plea bargain.

We aren't talking about generalities, this is a specific case. Lots of people have said this settlement was "forced", or dictated by the "government".

Where is the proof ?

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

Government makes law. This was settled in a court of law. By the rule of transitivity...do I have to spell the rest out for you?

I take it you don't know what a "settlement" is ?

Generally people settle when being forced into doing something. It is taking the safe bet, like a plea bargain.

We aren't talking about generalities, this is a specific case. Lots of people have said this settlement was "forced", or dictated by the "government".

Where is the proof ?

When isn't a settlement "forced"? Do you think he called his ex-wife and says "I was thinking I should give you $15K each month. What do you think?" Sometimes you do have to read between the lines and think. Try it some time.

No more arguing. I get your point. And I also think you don't honestly believe that $15K / month is fair for "supporting" a child.

 

[Theb]

LeBlanc played struggling actor Joey Tribbiani in the long-running sit-com that ended in 2004. He reprised the character for the NBC spinoff "Joey," which was canceled in May after two seasons.

WHOA, "Joey" made it 2 seasons!?

Definitely a testament to how popular "Friends" was/is.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

Government makes law. This was settled in a court of law. By the rule of transitivity...do I have to spell the rest out for you?

I take it you don't know what a "settlement" is ?

Generally people settle when being forced into doing something. It is taking the safe bet, like a plea bargain.

We aren't talking about generalities, this is a specific case. Lots of people have said this settlement was "forced", or dictated by the "government".

Where is the proof ?

When isn't a settlement "forced"? Do you think he called his ex-wife and says "I was thinking I should give you $15K each month. What do you think?" Sometimes you do have to read between the lines and think. Try it some time.

No more arguing. I get your point. And I also think you don't honestly believe that $15K / month is fair for "supporting" a child.

What I think isn't relevant, I'm not a party to the settlement.

But since you ask, If this actor's income is 100k per month, just throwing a number out, I think 15k is a disgrace and I would be ashamed to be him.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Tom

So far, nobodies produced a shred of evidence that the government has anything to do with this divorce settlement.

Government makes law. This was settled in a court of law. By the rule of transitivity...do I have to spell the rest out for you?

I take it you don't know what a "settlement" is ?

Generally people settle when being forced into doing something. It is taking the safe bet, like a plea bargain.

We aren't talking about generalities, this is a specific case. Lots of people have said this settlement was "forced", or dictated by the "government".

Where is the proof ?

I sense that someone is grasping at straws...

 

[latino666]

I would not have a problem paying that much CS if that was court ordered if I was making as much as he did. But I would want documentation showing that the money is going towards the child. That way I would know if the ex was adding to her alimony money. Really the money should only be used for clothes, education, and food. The rest should be but into a savings account for the little ones.

The money the ex should use to buy a house and pay bills is the alimony money and the money she earns from work. I'm sure she can choose where she wants to live because of the alimony. But she should not be able to use the CS money to keep a rich lifestyle up for herself.

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: latino666
I would not have a problem paying that much CS if that was court ordered if I was making as much as he did. But I would want documentation showing that the money is going towards the child. That way I would know if the ex was adding to her alimony money. Really the money should only be used for clothes, education, and food. The rest should be but into a savings account for the little ones.

The money the ex should use to buy a house and pay bills is the alimony money and the money she earns from work. I'm sure she can choose where she wants to live because of the alimony. But she should not be able to use the CS money to keep a rich lifestyle up for herself.

I agree, I wouldn't want my childrens life to change one bit more than it had to. Here in NJ the child support is flat rate per child regardless of income of the parent. A few years back my wife and I were on the verge of a divorce and I was working out what I would need to give to keep them in the same house, clothes, food etc, but it would have all been voluntary and I could have dropped it if I didn't like how she was spending it. Hell you can alway buy them all their clothes, pay the mortgage and have groceries delivered to their mothers house.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: pinion9
I am tired of seeing men getting reamed like this. I believe each state should come up with a guideline as to how much it costs to raise a child. They should then say "Child support costs this much." If you want to be a good parent and give more, good. Otherwise, oh well. The cost for her to raise that kid should be roughly the same cost as for me to raise mine, and I can assure you, it isn't $15,000/month.

Talk about winning the lottery.

They definitely came up with something cheap for WIC. Free eggs, milk, orange juic (from concentrate), and bread. Who the fvck eats that, or can only live off of that, it's disgusting.

Why not the same 15 G's this guy's paying?