Author |
Message |
Lurknomore
Member
07-07-2001
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 5:06 pm
LOL Shen, not saying you can't be bald and hot, just when you factor it in with ALL his other um non-hot characteristics and I'm just saying I don't see folks lining up to want to see X rated stuff or him having had any involvement in those type films. There are lots of hot, sexy bald guys. (I know some personally even!!!). Jon just is NOT one of them IMHO lolol. Plus he is balding and hiding it, which I actually think is far worse than bald. Least it's not the dreaded combover. But I prefer guys who have enough confidence in themselves to just be who they are with what they have. I've never been a fan of the "work with the strands you have left and try to hide it" method as it doesn't hide it and usually isn't a good look!
|
Sia
Member
03-10-2002
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 5:09 pm
I don't know what child support "normally" is or what it should be, but after the mortgage payment is met, I would look at the utilities and groceries needed. Once the house payment's been made and the electric and gas have been paid, how much more is needed? The house payment is the same whether there are three kids in a house or eight. I guess I'm thinking that $22K seems like an awful lot of money for Jon to pay, given that he has no income. Why IS it that much? I feel like Jon & Kate bought too big/expensive a house when they moved into the current mansion. They apparently felt there was no end to the big paychecks. Maybe Kate & the kids need a more affordable, more modest house. I do feel like Jon would do almost anything to keep from giving Kate money. I don't think he thinks of it as supporting his kids as much as he thinks he's handing Kate money for her. Child support, imo, should really be used to support the child/children. So many parents who receive support sort of waste the money or use it for themselves rather than the kids. I don't know what can be done about that. When parents use the kids as pawns and ask for more support (or the paying parent to try and get payments reduced), it puts the children in the middle and ALWAYS ends up hurting the kids. There can be lasting effects that may not surface for years.
|
Shenanagon
Member
07-28-2009
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 5:17 pm
I imagine the lawyers that are now deeply involved in this are going to be the real winners. haha Lurk I agree with the strands, my beautiful Norman shaves his head and I love it in comparison to hiding his receding hairline beneath his ball cap. Which he did for a few years until I pitched a fit lol. Jon's young, I imagine he's having a harder time of losing his brunette locks than my grey haired Norm. I'm so off topic here sorry but it's nice to be able to chat, disagree, find common ground with everyone so I'm feeling extra silly  
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 5:26 pm
Sia, that's not what the law says about child support. The law says that the children have the right to be equally supported by the *combined* income of the parents. So.... if one parent makes an unusually high amount of money, some percentage of that money is allocated to the children. In Colorado it is ten percent if the children live at one home. If they live in two homes, it is 15% of the *combined* income (since many of their expenses are duplicated). It is reasonsable I think for a much wealthier parent to help make the children's lives consistent across households, even if it pays much more than mortgage and utilities.
|
Sia
Member
03-10-2002
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 5:57 pm
I started by saying I know nothing about child support. I guess I wasn't very clear. I'm trying to say that it seems excessive to need--or, more accurately, to demand--five times the house payment just because one parent can demand it. I have always thought that wealthy celebritites (movie stars, TV actors, singers, etc.) have expenses that everyday, run-of-the-mill people wouldn't dream of asking for: a fur allowance, beauty salon treatments for thousands of dollars per month, a jewelry allowance, travel allowance, pool maintenance fund, lavish entertainment fund, huge monthly clothing allowance. I guess I have a much simpler lifestyle and I can understand needing to ask for enough money to support one's children, but I can't understand demanding obscenely excessive amounts of money in order to support a lavish, wasteful, extravagant lifestyle. What comes to mind most often is the celebrity divorce and spousal-support fights that get reported in the news, but I'm sure there are celebrity divorces in which child support fights escalate in a similar way.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:04 pm
Escapee, I thought you were a regular viewer of the show, but you've only seen a few episodes? Like Naja, I believe I have seen every episode, or nearly all of them. Kate has been shrewlike, not only to her husband, but to everyone she encounters from workers right on down to her kids. I think the few eps I missed must have been the ones where she was showering the kids with love LOL! because I just remember harping on them about ice cream or grass stains, not letting them use markers, etc. I remember lots of eye rolls and snide remarks and lots and lots of yelling and snarking at Jon. She is very abrasive, and yes I know she's not like that all of the time. I'm sure there have been moments of tenderness, but the overall abrasiveness in how she treats everyone, ordering them around, making sure they do everything exactly how she wants/needs it done is why she falls short of "good" mothering IMO. I'd really like to see what she's like when her kids enter those teen years, when they need to separate and do their own thing and be their own person. How will she ever let go of that control? I have no idea how much child support one should pay. It seems the non-custodial parent gets the short end of the stick in these scenarios. Their original plan to share the kids and share the house sounded like a joke to me from the get go. I think we'd all agree Jon had a lousy lawyer or ignored his lawyer's advice.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:06 pm
Forgot to add, that Kate working or wanting to be a career woman or be a star in no way makes her a not-good mother IMO. It's the way she treats people. The way she is so anal and cold and controlling. It has nothing to do with working and being away from your kids. Some mothers are great because they have that outlet away from the kids. They are more patient, able to give of their time and attention. Being a working mom is not a negative.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:11 pm
It might be as simple as they judged Jon's support payments by how much Jon made that year (2009), and he spent at least half the year being payed by TLC for J&K+8, so it would be a lot. He could go in and have it adjusted to according to what he made this year, which probably isn't much. I know when I was a kid, my dad had to take my mom to court a few times to have it adjusted. I specifically remember one time when he lost his job, another time when he had his first kid with his new wife. eta: ^^that was in reference to someone asking why Jon pays so much support.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:18 pm
Child support is supposed to provide food, clothing, shelter, and education. It is not supposed to be used as additional cash for the custodial parent to spend on whatever.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:27 pm
Costa, that's how it should be, but unfortunately, that's not how it is. I remember when it came out that the Spice Girl (forget her name) had Eddie Murphy's illegitimate child. He has to pay over $50,000 a month child support for just 1 child. I am pretty sure it costs less than 50K to support 1 child in a month.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:40 pm
In New York State, the non custodial parent pays 25% of their gross income if they have 2 children, 33% if they have 3, and it slides from there if there are more. Maybe PA's is similar, and if they based it on Jon's "share" of their 2008 income (they were doing the show), the $22,000 is probably just about right. I'm sure he can revisit the amount since he earned less in 2009. Don't forget that Jon tried to clean out the household account when he left. The court made him give that back, and Kate provided sufficient records to show that any monies she had used from that household account were indeed used for household expenses. She has also spoken in the past about having put money enough aside for the children's college educations. As far as I can tell, she is earning money to refill the household account, and I don't doubt for a second that the children's financial futures will be even more secure with her additional earnings.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:45 pm
Correction: •17% for one child •25% for two children •29% for three children •31% for four children •at least 35% for five or more children Then the noncustodial parent's share of child care, medical, and educational expenses is added to the income percentage amount. The combined amount, percentage of income plus share of expenses, is the basic child support amount. For incomes over $130,000, the court determines whether or not to use the percentage guidelines and may consider other factors in setting the full child support payment. This is of the non custodial parent's adjusted gross income, and takes into account any assets they may have.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 6:50 pm
Naja, I think there's the "shelter" thing. I don't think you can take child support and go buy a house, but the $$ can be used towards maintaining the house (including mortgage). So if someone has a $1M home, the child support would take the mortgage into account. I guess with 8 kids, Jon is screwed no matter how he looks at it if he has to provide child support for 'em.
|
Shenanagon
Member
07-28-2009
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:03 pm
I'm so glad I just have 2 kids lol It's a no win situation for either of them.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:03 pm
I guess with 8 kids, Jon is screwed no matter how he looks at it if he has to provide child support for 'em. I look at it completely differently! Let's say Jon decides to go work at McDonalds. Given the New York State regulations, we could take a $7.00 an hour job, x 40 hours a week, x 52 weeks and his gross income would be $14,560. He'd be in probably a 15% tax bracket, and have deductions for FICA of I think it's 7%, making his adjusted gross income somewhere around $11,500. At 35% for child support, he'd pay $4,052 per year or roughly $340 per month. Can you even imagine how Kate could support herself and 8 children if Jon played real hardball and got a job at McDonald's out of spite? I think that's why she's working at any and everything she can right now. Jon hasn't been working now for how long? He's just NOW talking about looking for a job...oh, "perhaps as a TV host".
|
Sia
Member
03-10-2002
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:06 pm
Costacat, thanks: that's exactly what I was trying to say! Child support is supposed to be used to provide for the child's needs in terms of shelter, food, clothes, education, but too often the parent receiving the support just pockets any money over what will pay for the bare necessities. Hukd, are those percentages taken from the non-custodial parent's gross earnings? Just curious; my brother is headed towards divorce this year, and he will be the one to receive custody of the children. Thanks.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:10 pm
Sia, actually what Costa just showed is that it has nothing to do with how much it actually costs to support the child/children. It had to do with the father's income or worth. And that's a good thing for Jon and his next support hearing for sure.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:12 pm
From the adjusted gross earnings, Sia. Take that number from the tax return (it's gross, less taxes and FICA). Here's information from New York: http://www.divorcesource.com/NY/ARTICLES/NYcsstandardsact.html It's an older article, but I don't believe it has been changed. This is also New York info: https://newyorkchildsupport.com/custodial_parent_info.html
|
Sia
Member
03-10-2002
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:17 pm
Maybe I'm trying to say that I feel like support should be more closely tied to the realistic expenses that a family incurs to feed, clothe and house children rather than just the maximum amount of money one spouse can get out of the other.
|
Shenanagon
Member
07-28-2009
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:23 pm
I think Escapee hit the nail on the head way up on this thread with the info "John left the state". Perhaps now he's coming back down to earth and realizing how completely selfish and stupid that move was. Now that he's realizing he's not a hot commodity but Kate and kids still are he's wanting to be reasonable. Not the way you'd want someone who loves their kids to behave but definitely it's in the best interests of those kids that the parents both behave maturely and reasonable with the kids wellfare their main concern. 22,000 should be reduced but also too he needs to actively seek and keep gainful employment. Kate as well, being the parent bringing in the larger income has a chance to offer the olive branch and think of the kids. I would hope they are both talking honestly with one another and that a contrite Jon and a mother who loves her kids "Kate" will put the kids first and get this whole mess out of the tabloids.
|
Shenanagon
Member
07-28-2009
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:25 pm
"Jon and Kate go on a date." I'd watch that show, minus the kids because they need some sense of realism in their young lives. Okay have at me ::ducks, bobbing and weaving my way back outta the line of fire::
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:32 pm
BTW, in the Jon works at McDonald's scenario, if they have joint custody (they do, right?) and the kids spend time with him, then HE would be the one RECEIVING child support. Not Kate.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:50 pm
Joint custody still means that there is a custodial and non custodial parent. Sort of a major and a minor. The only way Jon would receive child support from Kate if he was named custodial parent.
|
Merrysea
Moderator
08-13-2004
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 7:57 pm
In my case, we had 50/50 custody; neither of us was "the" custodial parent. I received child support because I had a lower income.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Monday, April 26, 2010 - 8:02 pm
Probably every state has it's differences. I can only speak about New York's regulations.
|
|