Yeah! Sure, you may love her and care about her, but why would you want to get involved in a used-up damaged goods woman like that?
I know a LOT of people in that age group who live a whole lot better than that. The vast majority, in fact. Maybe you hang with a down-at-the-heels crowd. Or perhaps you know a lot of people who are going for extended educations or just beginning their careers and are looking to make a whole lot more income once they get established. Whereas the OP has apparently already established himself and is now staring down the barrel of 15 years of child-support induced poverty.
But that’s not even the real issue. There are a lot of people who are suffering, but that’s not any reason to make any particular individual suffer. The question - again - is the OP’s lifestyle versus that of his ex-wife and children. Does he need to be reduced to poverty so that his ex-wife and children can make minimal sacrifice (if any at all)? Or is the pain more evenly spread? Your tales of suffering by your friends does not address that issue at all.
I would say there’s some middle ground here.
The guy is part of the new family and they are all going to live the same lifestyle. If there is a family trip to Disneyland, they are all going. If they move to a nicer house, they all come along. If they buy nice food, they all eat.
[In addition, if the step-father does want to assume a parental role, it will be a whole lot easier for him to edge the bio-father out of the picture if he has the double advantage of living in a shared household and having more to offer on the material side. Especially because kids of divorced parents probably don’t appreciate the financial contributions of their non-custodial parents, since they don’t see the money coming from them.]
That said, I don’t think the new guy should have any financial responsibility to the step-kids. So the way I look at it is like this:
If you buy into the notion - as I do, as above - that the father’s responsibility is only to maintain a basic standard of living, then I think his financial obligation is completely unaffected by any new step-parent. But if you say he needs to sacrifice so that the kids keep the same standard of living as they had pre-divorce, then I don’t think you can ignore that the kids have managed to come by that same standard of living by other means. You can’t say the kids’ standard of living outweighs all other fairness considerations if they are going to have the same standard of living anyway.
I’d have thought that every bar in Dupont being in D.C. would be sufficient to discourage one from popping over there for a couple of drinks in and of itself.
For God’s sake, I’m not talking about people suffering! I’m talking about perfectly ordinary people living enjoyable, meaningful, and successful lives.
That’s very nice.
But for some reason, when it comes to the ex-wife and children, they apparently can’t live enjoyable, meaningful and successful lives on anything close to that amount. No, they will suffer a lot unless they have the ex-wife’s complete $100K income plus $27.6K tax free from the ex-husband.
The discrepancy is the problem.
>>The whole point to child support is to make sure the children’s lifestyle and care is not unduly damaged by divorce.<<
Why not?
If the economy takes a hit, children’s lifestyles may suffer. If a parent dies or becomes ill, lifestyle suffers. If the cable goes out during a thunderstorm, the children’s lifestyle may suffer.
What is wrong with having an elastic lifestyle? That is life.
Not really on topic, but I want to add that I, too, have lived in my own apartments in nice areas in Northern Virginia in my mid-late-20s and early 30s. They weren’t the most spacious or luxurious apartments (both post-WWII buildings) but in nice areas (Falls Church, Alexandria & Arlington).
Yes, when I lived in FC, I made it to Georgetown every morning in about 15 minutes. It took even less time to get into the city during non-rush hour. But generally you’re right, from most parts of FC, it may take a little longer. I just lived in a convenient place.
How many bedrooms do you have? 2 or 3? 1400 sq ft means nothing to me, I’m afraid.
I understand wanting to give your kids a proper place to stay when they’re with you - that is better for them - but maybe it would be best to get a room-mate just for the next year. Your costs will go down hugely after that, after all, and then in 3 years’ time they’ll go down even more. The payments will be easier to stomach when you remind yourself they’re not forever.
FWIW, I completely disagree with those saying ‘go for 50/50 childcare or you’re a bad parent.’ Even if both parents can arrange their work schedules to accommodate childcare, and both parents live close enough to the child’s school (which doesn’t happen that often), it’s often better for the kid to have one stable home rather than flipping between two homes every other day.
Yes, it’s important for the kid to see their parents regularly, but it’s also important for them to be able to maintain friendships, not have to commute a ridiculous distance, have things like pets and toys that they can regularly access, go to out of school activities, and generally feel like they have their own home.
It is. There’s no specific formula which says the non-custodial parent has to pay a specific amount - it’s decided on a case-by case basis every time. It would never amount to half the non-custodial parent’s income.
Add to that the fact that there are no tax deductions for having children, health insurance is a luxury, not a necessity, and the state provides a lot of free daycare from the age of 3 regardless of income (plus income-dependant help with childcare costs up till the age of 11), and the financial situation is so different that I’m not sure those cites are very meaningful.
Multi-quite seems not to be working, but to the person who ‘did the math’ and worked out that the OP’s ex will be better off financially, there was an assumption that the ex-wife won’t have increased costs; she does, though - she now has to pay the entire mortgage and utility costs for a family home.
I make exactly $100k/yr and my take home is under $50k. Welcome to the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic (US). 38% Federal tax, plus state and municipal taxes are the leading cause of anal fissures.
You must also be including deductions for 401k, health insurance and other benefits. That 38% federal tax is really only 35% until the tax increases go into effect and it’s not a flat tax on the total $100k, its a tiered tax. Even if you file as married filing separately (the highest brackets) and no dependents, your effective federal tax on $100k is only 19.5%.
No offense, but I don’t see why you feel the need to judge the OP and criticize him for his lifestyle because you live a completely different life than him with a lot more freedom with your time and spending habits.
He is in his 40s with two young children. You are in your mid-late 20s, unmarried with no children and you’re criticizing him for not living off $500 a month? What high horse do you live on where you can judge without having an inkling of what he is are going through? You are complaining about living off $410 a month after rent, but try to raise TWO CHILDREN with just $90 more a month. I really hope by the time you and your friends are 40, you will not be living in a group home, or a basement apartment with two young children to take care of. Hopefully, by then, you all will be successful, making 94K a year (like the OP) and have money for basic things like housing, taking the kids out and a vacation every now and then.
BTW, I’m a 26 yr old that lives in DC. What is this mythical, gentifying Q street neighborhood you’re talking about? Do you mean the H street corridor? Newsflash: that area is still pricey! I’m condo shopping at the moment, and you can’t anything around there for under 300K, and thats not including the private schools you’d have to send your kids to since public schools in DC are terrible, and the fact there is no Metro stop out there.
And people who keep saying he should cut back on retirement… are you nuts? Retirement is the #1 thing people should be saving for and on top of that, I’m sure he’s saving for his kids college as well. Sure, he can not chip in on his retirement but then his kids will be forced to foot the bill to take care of him when he’s old. WHY AREN’T YOU THINKING ABOUT THE CHILDEN?! :rolleyes:
He can live however he wants, but to say he has “no life” and can’t possibly raise his kids in a reasonable manner because he only has 100k a year is borderline insulting to the 94% of Americans (some of whom are in the DC area) and the everyday single mothers (average income $26,000) who somehow manage to live on less than that.
I think the initial OP was complaining about although he has his kids more tha 50% of the week, he still has to fork over 50% of his monthly income to pay child support. The initial rant wasn’t, “oh I make 100K a year and I can’t raise my kids.” It was “I see my kids all the time, and just because they can’t spend the night at my house I am forced to give up 50% of my paycheck.”
And yes, single mothers do live on much less than 100K a year and what quality of life are they able to provide for their children? I was raised by a single mom in Southern California back on 36K 1998 dollars and it still was a struggle and I missed out on a lot of opportunities my friends who had dual-incomes got to partake in. It sucked. Here’s a guy who worked hard to make a decent income and wants to give nothing but the best for his children, and he’s criticized for sending his kids to private school instead of public school? He’s criticized for living in a townhome in a nice neighborhood instead of moving to a probably less safe neighborhood which would be cheaper? What’s wrong with you people?
Nitpicks: He’s not sending them to private school instead of public school; the private school is just a better form of daycare till the child’s old enough for public school. And he doesn’t have them for more than 50% of the week.
I don’t really post that much here, but I am divorced in Maryland, like the OP. I have 2 children and pay $1095 a month for child support, which is fine with me - they are my children after all 
I have comparable income to the OP, however the child support was based on my ex making minimum wage, so there is some disparity in the calculations. I do feel for the OP as well, and I am glad he is seeing his children as much as he can, and the fact that his ex lets him.
While the OP does certainly pay a lot, it looks like the main factor in the payment amounts is the price of the schools he is sending his children to. $38K a year is $3166 a month, which means the OP’s share is $1583 a month BEFORE any support for housing/food/clothes, etc.
If you run the calculations for Maryland with just incomes, and no money for schools, the OP would be paying around $900 a month for support.
So, while I feel for the OP and hope he makes it through this, the OP would owe $1583 a month just for his children’s school, for his share of it. Just remember, if the kids go to a cheaper and/or free school at some time in the future, you can always try to get your support payments lowered.
I have to assume that your children are older then mine and not in daycare.
I think you’ve missed something, as of today October 1st, the child support laws have changed. I wouldn’t let your ex know as yours may very well go up.
I think a lot of people have missed something, yes the ‘private school’ is a better day care, but it costs almost exactly the same, within a few hundred dollars. However that is NOT apart of my child support because it was paid up front. So I’m only paying for ONE day care.
I can tell you that this is not the case. Trust me I’ve been over the numbers with my lawyer. The online calculators are usually wrong, and as I said the new laws have changed as of today.
This will happen in three years, and by $700 or so. Because my wife makes more then me she pays a bit more then 50% for day care. Again the other school/day care has been paid for. It never has been, nor will be apart of the support.
He’s not criticized for making these choices. He is reminded that these are indeed choices and there are existant- though perhaps not ideal- other options. Furthermore, making choices that involve a bit of sacrifice for the sake of your kids is not some great unprecedented thing that’s totally unreasonable to expect.
These are choices that he is damn lucky he gets to make…most single parents don’t get to decide if it is more important for them to have a high standard of living or a bit more financial wiggle room…they don’t get either one of those. In short, don’t tell me you are living on the edge when “on the edge” means you might have to get a roommate, and you are not interested in exploring the myriad of other options that might prevent that horrible fate.
I’ll never be a fan of the “100k just doesn’t go as far as it used to” argument.
I am seriously impressed. What time of the morning was that? I travel from Del Ray to Metro Center and it is pretty much at least 40 minutes every morning. The again, half that time at least is from the 14th Street bridge to the parking lot, so if you are going to Georgetown you might be avoiding much of the inside DC gridlock (depending on where in Georgetown you are coming from).
Well, i’m not looking to argue or whatever, and also thanks for the heads up on the new laws. So as I understand it, you currently pay $20,000 a year for day care? so that’s around $850 a month for your share, correct?
And the online calculator on Maryland’s Human resources page, which clearly states it is using the new laws, says around $1500 a month for your share, NOT counting any day care or schools. so that leaves you with $2350 or so a month.
I’m not saying it doesn’t suck, because it does. but it doesn’t look like it is an out of whack amount, but it IS a lot.
by the way, reducing the amount I put into retirement was the first thing I had to do, and drastically reduce my spending throughout each month, and keep my old car that was paid off.
I feel for you, i really do, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. I hope it works out for you, and as I said, I’m happy you get to see your children as much as you do.
The average family income in this area is below 100K/year.