And we thought CS could be rediculously hight now!
The Inflation of Life - Cost of Raising a Child Has Soared
CNBC – Mon, May 7, 2012 11:03 AM EDT
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/inflation-life-cost-raising-child-14573688...
- Rags's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Yup. 287k right? Currently,
Yup. 287k right?
Currently, FDH's CS will have him pay 180k total (if it remains the same) until the child is 18. Which means he's going to pay about 40k more than half what it costs to actually raise a child in a middle class family. This is why CS is stacked against the hard-working, job keeping NCP's of America.
His total contributions is $573 a month. I shudder to think what others, who pay upwards of 1k, have to shell out.
My dh will have paid $252,000
My dh will have paid $252,000 in cs when SD turns 18 AND that doesn't include what he contributes having her here 50% of the time or the sole contributions he made prior to divorce. :jawdrop:
More than what it costs to
More than what it costs to actually raise a kid in an intact family huh?
Figures CS wasn't right to begin with.
Yep and yet we should all
Yep and yet we should all feel sorry for this poor, poor child of divorce.
And it's funny when there are
And it's funny when there are some people who are saying that $573 a month is ridiculously low. But when you see the actual average it takes to raise one child...
And this is not even the cost conscious portion of middle class families. I would think I'd spend even less than that if I were to have a kid.
The flaw in the calculation
The flaw in the calculation is that they assume costs for things that people are already spending. DH and I already have a house. Adding BS didn't increase our mortgage, so the calculation includes a "housing" cost that we'd be paying anyway. Same thing if we have another child. There is no way in hell we spend the "state" dictated per child amount on BS every month. We do on SD though because of CS and custody.
Oh yeah, mine didn't include
Oh yeah, mine didn't include the fact that dh also pays for health insurance, so tack that on to his $252,000 obligation.
The other thing is that the calculation assumes a LOT of discretionary spending on popular "toys". People raise children for a lot less than this. Everyone gets so caught up in "what the children deserve". I'm not sure why kids have to benefit at every level of income. My dh recently got a raise. We didn't increase our spending, but cs increases so McCrazy can increase hers.
Well, those numbers are
Well, those numbers are always wrong. First, we have to take into account that MOST NCPs pay for insurance anyway, so that should not be factored in. That is a huge chunk of this. In addition, this amount should be split by 2 people who made the child. Third, don't forget this:
"Kids don't have to have all this stuff," says Knotts. "We are a generation where we feel like we need to give our kids all of these experiences, but you can do a lot with your kids without spending a lot of money."
You see, the expectation is that these kids should get all they want. Period. Sorry, but the incremental cost for our child in our home is minimal. It is NOT 1K a month even paying out of pocket for speech therapy at a cost of 75USD a week, not reimbursed by insurance. But then again, we don't buy our son everything he wants. He doesn't get to go to every single movie that comes out. He's not ENTITLED to extracurricular activites. Those are done when there is money and there is a limit on how much we spend on that. Currently only 45USD a month.
So, really, these numbers are ridiculous. But even if you want to say that's really what it costs to raise a child, this is the REALITY of CS in Texas and MANY other states.
If per the numbers here a child costs 226,900 to raise to parents with combined income of 99,730, I'll go with it anyway and prove that CS is outrageous.
1. 226,900 / 2 (2 parents should be helping support this kid) is 113450 that each parent is responsible for.
2. 99,730 is the combined income of both parents, we'll say here that each makes an equal amount 49865 per year
3. Per Texas tax guidelines for CS, you can see here https://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/taxcharts/2011taxchart.pdf, that would give the NCP a gross income of 4155 per month
4. For one child, which is OUR case and many others, 20% is taken for CS. That comes out to 658 per month in cs. That of course does NOT include that normal "NCP pays for health insurance, pays 1/2 of other health related bills, etc. which by the way, is INCLUDED in the 226,900 as a total cost"
5. 658 per month for 12 months per year is 7896 in tax FREE money for NCP/ie. CS.
6. TOTAL COST the NCP in Texas pays to raise this kid, that is 1/2 his? "142128". Not, 113450. That means the NCP is paying almost 30K more than the CP. That also is taking into account that CS by the CP is for ALL THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD, just like the article insinuates and by the way, again it says, many of the expenses are not needed. So the NCP is paying at least 142128 in CS, while the CP gets the "tax benefits".
Moral of the story, if the kid is raised "with ALL THEY WANT" and this article says, not what they need, they should spend about 226,900...the NCP is paying at least 142128 PLUS medical and the CP is paying only 84772. And again, they don't even really spend 84772 because of tax benefits for the kids, which are a minimum of 18K at 1K per year, as it has been that way for years now. The CP is not having to pay health insurance from that 84772, so really, they are not really paying 84772. They are also paying 1/2 of medical from their 84772, but the NCP has to pay 1/2 of medical above and beyond the 142128, not within the already additional 30K he spends at 142128. Period. Now tell me how that is not outrageous. Now tell me how that "is NOT unfair to the NCP". Yes, it is. Yes, CPs spend much less than they actually claim they do. Yes, CPs that spend much more, usually are spending way over their means and giving the kids things that normally the parents could not afford to. And let's not even mention all the NCPs who spend at least that much, are still call deadbeats by their ex's and kids because they just won't pay EXTRAs.
Agreed!
Agreed!
I don't just like this. I
I don't just like this. I super, duper, triple love this!
PS - by the way, my DH used
PS - by the way, my DH used to give me the BS "it's for my kid crap" for years...until I got sick of it and showed him the REAL numbers...what he paid, what the kid "needed" based on these tables, what he paid out of pocket in addition to it, the tax breaks that loser got, etc...once he saw the real numbers, he was PISSED. Never again did he give her an extra penny. Never again did he feel guilty for not giving more. But I had to literally sit down and figure out all the numbers for him to realize that ex was playing victim and he was being scre@#$#@$ed.
PS - and we won't even go
PS - and we won't even go into the fact that the reason THIS MUCH they claim is spent for one kid is because the parents, who of course, pay THEIR BILLS FIRST share expenses in the home for mortgage, car, etc...and in divorced families, those costs are DOUBLE. So, no, really, I don't buy that CS is just so low. If it's low, it's because the NCP was a loser to begin with and never made much money...period. Or doesn't make much money now. Not because the tables are low. That's the choice we make when we have kids with a person who makes peanuts.
To hear McCrazy talk we have
To hear McCrazy talk we have put her daughter in the "poor house" and she can't even afford juice. In fact, SD tried to take money from our home because mommy only had $4 left. Hmmm, not only does dh pay a ridiculous sum in CS, he also pays a retarded amount of alimony. SD is here 50% of the time, McCrazy does not work and has no day care costs, is not saving for college (or retirement, apparently), and can't afford JUICE. Well, dumbass, perhaps SD doesn't need 16 pairs of shoes, 4 winter coats, 100 velour sweatsuits from a popular girls school, and a new game for her electronic toy every week. Maybe THEN you could afford juice you stupid bitch. OR you could get a J-O-B!
Ah, yes...sounds like crazy.
Ah, yes...sounds like crazy. Someday that gravy train ends. Not sure how loser will be buying Hollister everything on welfare...not sure how loser will be buying the newest cell phone on the market on welfare...not sure how loser will be getting her hair and nails done every other week like her crazy mother on welfare...Oh well, I guess that's why she was "smart" enough to have two babies before CS ends so that she can then milk some other guy, just like her crazy mother has done.
I am just waiting for loser to call after CS ends claiming she doesn't have money to get her nails done, her hair done or to get her boyfriend new Hollister shorts for the summer lol
What is truly pathetic is
What is truly pathetic is that my SS-19's SpermIdiot paid only $43K in CS over the 17yrs the CO was in place. The SpermDipShit's CS obligation started at $110/mo and did not go above $133/mo for 9 years.
More pathetic is that the Judge specifically commented in one of our court hearings that "any child would be blessed to have the love and support of this wonderful family" :sick:
Well, wait...he paid 43K over
Well, wait...he paid 43K over 17yrs, that means the 17yrs are over. Right? These numbers are what it takes to raise a child that was born in 2010, not one that was born 17 years ago or more. There's a huge difference. It also states that the numbers "soared" 25%, that means that for a middle income family, that closer to 170190 in the last 10 years...so that means, that for two middle income parents, that cost would be closer to 85095 over the 17yrs, actually, it says 18yrs, but I'll give you the extra year. And you say he paid 43K in 17yrs? What was his income? Was it a middle class income where both he and your wife made 99K per year or was it a lot less? Did your wife get the tax benefits for the last 17years? Or did he?
You know, I understand that you feel that "you" had to make up the difference. But, does your wife work? How much did she financially contribute? What was HER income? It seems that you have a nice income and of course want to live that lifestyle, you are entitled to that. And in order to do that, YOU had to "take the burden of providing MORE for HER child" so that you could all live a certain lifestyle, but really, that's on you and your wife, not on her ex. I get it. Many of us are where you are. I see that in many smoms here in the same boat as you that are also resentful, but I don't think CS is really to blame. I think the ones to blame are our spouses, the ones who married or had a kid with some loser who didn't make much money, they themselves might not have made much money and then one day, they "moved up" in life and expected that their kid would have a different life married to SOMEONE ELSE...and of course, then blame the ex.
By the way, the 1993 tables are not available, but the 1995, which of course, are higher, are available. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/crc/crc1995.pdf
The highest amount per year spent on a child back then was 8710 per year. That's a total of 156780, which is a bit lower than my example above...and that is assuming the HIGHEST amount, not middle income like the one above.
"I think the ones to blame
"I think the ones to blame are our spouses, the ones who married or had a kid with some loser who didn't make much money, they themselves might not have made much money and then one day, they "moved up" in life and expected that their kid would have a different life married to SOMEONE ELSE...and of course, then blame the ex. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In our case, BM didn't want a child until Dh "moved up" and then she decided to have a kid a retirement plan. That didn't work out so well and now she thinks she and her kid should live the same lifestyle we live on our dime.
My wife was a victim of
My wife was a victim of statutory (unprosecuted) rape and was 16 when SS-19 was born. She was a HS student and working at DQ making about $8K/yr part time. DipShit was 22 and a landscape laborer making about $12K/yr full time.
DickHead eventually peaked at $40K/yr as a voluntarily intermittently employed licensed plumber. He purposely is and has been intermittently employed and takes a significant percentage of his pay in cash under the table to avoid his responsibilities like the worthless POS that he is. He went on to spawn three more out of wedlock children with 2 more baby mamas. One of the subsequent baby mamas was also under age.
My wife graduated with her HS class w/ honors, completed a dual major BS with honors, an MBA with honors and is a CPA with a fairly successful career. Her peak income to date is low 6 figures and increasing steadily. So yes, she works. SS-19 is an only child in our home and family.
So, even without my income his pittance of CS contribution over the years is irrelevant other than it is very accurately indicative of his lack of character and the condition of his moral, character, parental and human worthlessness.
Even using the 93-95 USDA figures you liked to, in our income bracket for raising a child from birth to age 18 ($212K), DickHead provided less than 20% of the costs to raise the kid. I rounded him up to $43K in total CS. The actual number is $42K and change.
So he paid $43K out of $212K while my 16yo single teen mom statutory rape victim wife was responsible for $169K. Which she did not even have to pay since her choice to work was her own. I was more than capable and absolutely willing to support she and our son (my SS). She chose to educate herself, have a professional career and to set an example to her son so she could do everything in her power to offset the influence of the toxic, polluted and shallow end of his gene pool.
As for my income, which I very happily and proudly provide the full benefit of to my family, lets just say that I make more available to the support of my son (SS) in a single quarter than he contributed since the kid's birth nearly 20 years ago. This is what a man, husband, father of character and honor does regardless of income, he supports his family, sets and lives the example to his children (even Skids) and he lives up to his personal and character obligations.
I do not blame CS for our specific blended family situation. I blame the morally bankrupt characterless idiots in the toothless moron blended family opposition. If I had turned out like my Skid's SpermIdiot my mother would have taken me out in a dark ravine somewhere and ensured I never returned unlike the SpermGrandHag who celebrates her worthless POS son's complete lack of character. Instead of raising me to be a worthless POS she and my dad set the example of what they expected and held my brother and I accountable to performing to that example and expectation. As any good parent would.
My intent for submitting the initial post was to point that for many NCPs, most who are of solid character and who are screwed by the CS system with insane CS obligations, things will invariably get even worse.
By the way, the stupid report
By the way, the stupid report says "Results of this study should be of use in developing State child support and foster care guidelines, as well as in family educational programs." Really? Then why isn't it being used?
They do actually use it in
They do actually use it in PA, which is why we're getting screwed. THere is a whole big chart on how much a child is "entitled" to based on the parents' combined income and then each parent is "responsible" for their portion, except like I keep saying, BM isn't responsible for any of it. Since her portion isn't court ordered, everyone is A-ok with her not working and supporting her kid, as long as dh is doing it.