1966Gal
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/04/08
Posts: 10098
|
|
You, current income $150k. Her current income, ZERO. She's been out of the workforce 5 years...can't exactly jump back in making the same money she made before...so imputing her income is going to be difficult.
CAlif has a CS calculator, so the CS should be pretty cut and dry if you can come to an agreement of how to impute her wages.
You getting the tax deduction every other year or ever 2 years to her one year seems fair.
--------------------
The Gov cannot give anything to anyone - that they have not first taken away from someone else.
|
1966Gal
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/04/08
Posts: 10098
|
|
Oops...just read the rest of the thread.
You are DREAMING if you think you'll get her imputed at her former wage, PLUS raises that she never received.
The argument will go in the other direction...she was making $65k, but has been out of the workforce for 5 years and will have to probably start below that to get back to where she was when she left.
You'll be LUCKY to get her imputed at $65k...but really...leave your hypothetical raises out of it. She never actually got them, so you can't assume them. It makes you look unreasonable and petty. But she DID actually get the $65k and you can document that, so try to get that.
--------------------
The Gov cannot give anything to anyone - that they have not first taken away from someone else.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
...she is earning ZERO. So the tax benefit ONLY benefits her new hubby and new family. He should get the tax deduction EVERY year.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
1966Gal
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/04/08
Posts: 10098
|
|
That's ridiculous! Her household is supporting the child as much as his household is.
I'm sure you claimed your Skids when you were supporting them, Gr8dad. And rightly so.
--------------------
The Gov cannot give anything to anyone - that they have not first taken away from someone else.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
...their Mom, was WORKING and earning money, and her ex was NOT paying any support.
She is NOT working, and he IS paying support, PLUS has the kids 50% of the time. He deserves the ENTIRE deduction.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
and neither is her husband's income.
Your support should be based upon your income and her POTENTIAL income...what she COULD earn with her prior job experience and skills/education. The fact that she has other children and is CHOOSING not to work is a matter of choice for her and her current husband. YOU should not be expected to pay higher child support due to her CHOICE to be a SAHM.
You should probably have an attorney because the burden of proving what her income COULD be in order to impute it is difficult and complicated...probably not something you would want to handle yourself.
|
Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
you can only go on what those same skills/experience/education could get her in today's job market. Yes, it would be NICE if she could have her old income imputed, but it may not be a reality that she could walk into a position with the exact same pay now...this many years out of the work force.
|
Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
My ex makes $120K per year and pays significantly more for child support (also in CA). That's way too little.
|
Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
that she has specific skills/education/experience...which means an employment/education history including detailed job descriptions of all of her positions, and transcripts indicating all course work taken and degrees/certificates earned. Once her skills set has been determined, then you would have to prove what job occupations that skills set would qualify someone to do. THEN you would have to prove that there were in fact positions available in her area. Then you would have to show what those positions pay for a starting employee, which should would be after being out of the work force for so long.
An employment analyst would charge several thousand dollars to do this, but their work would be very good and would likely convince the courts.
|
Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
but your support is significantly below CA guidelines for your income...and THAT is what isn't fair.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
