On the other hand, as I said and shown earlier, child support payments are rather low relative to the actual average expenditure on children.
So...he's in jail for not being able to pay an impossible sum imposed on him?
The first thing that strikes me is a glaring grammatical error in the article (not a misspelling, but a complete omission of a necessary word), which I do judge an article's legitimacy by. Not saying this isn't wholly on the up and up, but I'd feel much more comfortable reading this off the Washington Post, for example.
Anyway, assuming everything in the article is accurate, that is problematic. It makes zero sense to ruin what livelihood a man does have by jailing him. Better to reduce payments to something more realistic.
So apparently he makes 90k pretax, and failed to pay 53k in one year!? How in the world. It's as though they expect him to give up the majority of his income.This is not the first time the man has been jailed for non-payment of alimony. He spent 10 days in custody in 2010 after failing to pay $25,000 in spousal support, and he was ordered to spend two months in jail last year because he could not pay $53,000 in support payments to his former wife.
---------- Post added 2012-12-09 at 10:04 PM ----------
I've seen grammatical errors and spelling mistakes on the times, daily news, huffington post, cnn, fox, just about any news site, after all, they are all human.
Divorce laws are unfair to the ex-husband.
I'll assume the story as presented is factual, but one must be careful reading stuff off the 'Net from unfamiliar websites, as you know.
Also love the technicality they used to jail him. Its not because he couldnt pay her. Its because he diddnt pay the full ammount ordered by the court that they got him for... Now he has no job, massive debts and a nice stay in prison which will prevent him from getting any equally high paid job in the future. The american legal system has destroyed this mans life. His wife and kids too.
Hi, My name is Wikkr and im an Altoholic
Kinda like a scam e-mail, grammar mistakes just raise red flags for me.
The last thing I want is to get all enthusiastic about a news story on a small-time website that turns out to be less than accurate.
I love how there are a few notes from the article that are not really being touched upon, or even being questioned.
First) How disabled is the ex-wife? Is she unable to physically support herself? Is she a vegetable? Unable to walk? Is it a mental disability? How much assistance does she require and is the money being put to use there? Is she being funded by government sources for this care? What is the extent of her 'disability'?
Second) What is the situation with the 'child support'? How many children does he have with her? What is the status of his custody with said children/child?
Third) What are truly the details in the actual case that led to, not only the obscene amount of money involved, but also the legal fees? (if both got lawyers and the 100k was split evenly, it would be 50,000 a piece in legal fees he has to pay)
My personal opinion: The amount he has to pay vastly is unequal to the amount he makes. The amount is truly unrealistic, given living expenses on top.
The woman is disabled and would need assistance. But we are missing SO Many details in the actual story. I feel for the guy, I agree that the system is still sweked to the women being the beneficiary, but what about the details we are missing?
Also, dang guys you are trying to tear Semaphore a new one. o.o'
Regardless of the situation - nobody should have to pay over their income (or even an extremely vast majority) of their income. I'm blind to the laws of alimony and child support; however, I don't think anything should justify having to have somebody go to jail because he got divorce and had to pay more than he possible could have.
Meanwhile you on the other hand have linked 2 articles, which I'm guessing you didn't even read, because I'm sure you can't actually tell me the break down from the articles. Fact is the articles include Transportation expenses and Housing expenses as the largest cost. Pretty sure we already went over the fact that Housing expenses and transportation expenses are expenses the parent already has to pay. There is no additional cost in these departments. Maybe you should engage your brain a little in some logic and commen sense, before you run your yapper. Do you even live in the real world or just in some bubble?
You disparage so many posters about using sources to back up their claims, yet you rarely use any, and every time you do they don't prove a damn word you say.
You never responded to my last request for actual proof on your claim. Your best proof was "it's common knowledge" very nice argument. Your sourced article of course provided ZERO actual statistics to back up your claim. So either keep your hypocritical trap shut or practice what you preach.
It's hard for me to argue in favor of alimony when children aren't involved somewhere in the marriage, but I'll try. When you get married, you are agreeing to something. You may not know what that something is, but unless there is a prenup or even a postnup, that something will invariably change with every situation your connected life may encounter. If one of you doesn't work, it's agreed upon in the eyes of the court. You may not agree with it, and while married asked for help from your spouse, but you got married with some knowledge of that life. If your spouse loses their job after you get married and never finds another one, you both have accepted that new lot in life. If you end up supporting your spouse in marriage, you are hurting their chance of finding a job or career down the line. The longer someone is out of a job, the less chance they have. If that's not something you agree with, then the choice you have is to have a prenup agreement with scenarios and situations outlined.
To me, it's rare when both parents have full time jobs and have children. I've seen it, but it's just not common around my life. With that said, if its required or agreed upon that one spouse will be the stay at home parent to raise the children, you are ruining their future financial prospects by taking them out of the job market.
In a basic sense, alimony is a good idea (imo), but in its current form that has the potential to be manipulated, it's not so great.
wyrd bið ful aræd
The judge needs to be unseated. He has a horrible reputation for high balling people out of spite. They did not do the research versus this guys income to see if the judgment was viable. Bad math is bad. IMO, when law makers flub, they should have to take an active part in living out the mistake. For example, the judge orders this guy to pay more than he makes, now the judge has caused undue pain and hardship on someone, it should come out of his pocket book to help make up the mistake. The only way for these fools to learn from their mistakes is hard consequence.
Quite often, the difference between an idiot and a genius is simply a matter of success rate.
And fact is those are still expenses related to raising children, whether you like it or not. We went over nothing. You're unilaterally and arbitrarily deleted two large items from the cost of raising a child, just to suit your argument that it doesn't cost as much as it actually does.Meanwhile you on the other hand have linked 2 articles, which I'm guessing you didn't even read, because I'm sure you can't actually tell me the break down from the articles. Fact is the articles include Transportation expenses and Housing expenses as the largest cost. Pretty sure we already went over the fact that Housing expenses and transportation expenses are expenses the parent already has to pay.
Except I did in fact provided sources right there in front of you, and they agree exactly with what I say about the cost of raising children. You're the one being selectively blind about the expenses in order to create manufactured outrage over child support payments even though the fact remains that they cover, on average, less than half of the actual costs of raising a child.You disparage so many posters about using sources to back up their claims, yet you rarely use any, and every time you do they don't prove a damn word you say.
---------- Post added 2012-12-10 at 07:51 AM ----------
Nobody made that assumption except you.How come the person who was working isn't considered to have made any sacrifices?
What about it? You take the whole situation on both sides into account to result in an equitable outcome.What about career sacrifices that that person made?
---------- Post added 2012-12-10 at 08:01 AM ----------
Last edited by semaphore; 2012-12-10 at 08:03 AM.