Post by Jim on Mar 12, 2009 13:38:38 GMT -5
Legislation Would Limit Child Support To What Paying Parents Can Actually Pay
Mar 12 2009 12:00AM
sayanythingblog.com/index.php
You’d think we’d be doing that already, but we’re not. Currently if, at the time your child support is calculated, you’ve benefited from some unusual overtime or a bonus your child support payments can be based on that income as well even though it’s not on-going. Thus, you can be stuck paying more than you can afford.
Also, if something should happen and you should lose your job or suffer a cut in your income you’re still on the hook for paying your child support. It doesn’t matter that you’re unemployed, the child support gestapo is going to get their pound of flesh.
But now there’s a bill in front of the North Dakota legislature to change that.
BISMARCK - House Bill 1329, which would keep atypical overtime or bonuses from being included in calculations for child support payments, might have initiated a secondary benefit for people who pay child support.
Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, who sponsored the bill, testified for it before the Senate Human Services committee this past week. He said the constituent that asked him to present the bill also temporarily lost his employment.
Although not covered in the bill, the issue creates real concern in the current economic climate. Weisz said with higher child support payments and a lower income, many child support payers have to decide whether to not pay child support and go into arrears or to not pay mortgage or car payments and risk foreclosure.
“The issue becomes who you pay,” he said in a separate interview.
Again, you would think that child support would be based on what the paying parents can actually afford instead of inflated calculations based on something other than common sense. After all, isn’t the point on-going support for the child? If you bankrupt the paying parent with payments so high he or she can’t pay them, what good is that? Non-payment can mean losing your drivers license or even being put in jail. And if those things happen, it can also mean losing your job. Then how do you pay?
Well, the child support bureaucrats have all the incentive in the world to maximize what paying parents pay because the federal government’s TANF funding to the various states is actually based on the amount of child support they collect and distribute. If (and this is an absurdly low estimate, but illustrative for this example) the state collects $1,000,000 in child support and distributes it the federal government gives the state $666,000 in funding. Thus, the state wants to maximize its federal funding by maximizing what paying parents pay in child support.
And, thus, parents get stuck struggling to pay for child support amounts inflated by bureaucratic greed.
Divorce is unfortunate, but it happens. And when it happens we have to make sure the children are supported. But right now, the system is based on fill the state’s coffers with lots and lots of federal money instead of what’s best for the child. Passing the law above is a step in the right direction, but we need to remove this incentive for bureaucrats to unfairly stick it to paying parents.
Mar 12 2009 12:00AM
sayanythingblog.com/index.php
You’d think we’d be doing that already, but we’re not. Currently if, at the time your child support is calculated, you’ve benefited from some unusual overtime or a bonus your child support payments can be based on that income as well even though it’s not on-going. Thus, you can be stuck paying more than you can afford.
Also, if something should happen and you should lose your job or suffer a cut in your income you’re still on the hook for paying your child support. It doesn’t matter that you’re unemployed, the child support gestapo is going to get their pound of flesh.
But now there’s a bill in front of the North Dakota legislature to change that.
BISMARCK - House Bill 1329, which would keep atypical overtime or bonuses from being included in calculations for child support payments, might have initiated a secondary benefit for people who pay child support.
Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, who sponsored the bill, testified for it before the Senate Human Services committee this past week. He said the constituent that asked him to present the bill also temporarily lost his employment.
Although not covered in the bill, the issue creates real concern in the current economic climate. Weisz said with higher child support payments and a lower income, many child support payers have to decide whether to not pay child support and go into arrears or to not pay mortgage or car payments and risk foreclosure.
“The issue becomes who you pay,” he said in a separate interview.
Again, you would think that child support would be based on what the paying parents can actually afford instead of inflated calculations based on something other than common sense. After all, isn’t the point on-going support for the child? If you bankrupt the paying parent with payments so high he or she can’t pay them, what good is that? Non-payment can mean losing your drivers license or even being put in jail. And if those things happen, it can also mean losing your job. Then how do you pay?
Well, the child support bureaucrats have all the incentive in the world to maximize what paying parents pay because the federal government’s TANF funding to the various states is actually based on the amount of child support they collect and distribute. If (and this is an absurdly low estimate, but illustrative for this example) the state collects $1,000,000 in child support and distributes it the federal government gives the state $666,000 in funding. Thus, the state wants to maximize its federal funding by maximizing what paying parents pay in child support.
And, thus, parents get stuck struggling to pay for child support amounts inflated by bureaucratic greed.
Divorce is unfortunate, but it happens. And when it happens we have to make sure the children are supported. But right now, the system is based on fill the state’s coffers with lots and lots of federal money instead of what’s best for the child. Passing the law above is a step in the right direction, but we need to remove this incentive for bureaucrats to unfairly stick it to paying parents.
