Jump to content
IGNORED

Rich divorced dad helped write Father's Rights Bill in WI


Peas n carrots
 Share

Recommended Posts

Slimeball dad of the year. Man who is a big time donor to several Wisconsin Republicans has been revealed to have been the driving force behind a bill that would limit the financial responsibilities of fathers paying child support. Well, I'm sure this guy could actually pay for his kids if he wasn't donated tens of thousands of dollars to politicians.

 

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wealthy-divorced-donor-helped-write-controversial-child-support-bill/article_b3e3ed40-738a-52ea-bbf9-04d03cfa0e18.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this dick just doesn't want to pay his child support. He's an absolute ass, trying to relegate his children to a lower standard of living while he lives high on the hog. I don't know how he will face his kids when they grow up or if he even cares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just disgusting. Please let his opponent in the next election publicize this to the hilt and ensure he gets defeated.

Mandating equal time has nothing to do with the best interests of the child. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it's not. Not all parents live within a few minutes of each other, nor do all parents communicate well.

The child support stuff has absolutely nothing to do with the best interests of children, or the ability of a parent to pay, or basic common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to be good about this and think about this from the POV of the dad. In the most best light, I see an outraged father who has an acrimonious relationship with the ex who sees child support payments contributing to an extravagant lifestyle....however, the man is trying to strike at his ex-wife by indirectly hurting their children. He lives well, if he feels his child support payments is not going towards the children in the way he wants, he should petition the court. All that energy going towards lowering his child support payment could have gone to dealing with his wife (through lawyers if he wants) to ensure proper usage of child support payments. It seems like this guy just doesn't want to care for his family anymore. He sees his children as part of his ex-wife and therefore a burden to toss aside. Sorry, buddy. That's not how divorces work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope he's prepared to be as rejected by his children as they feel rejected by what he's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to be good about this and think about this from the POV of the dad. In the most best light, I see an outraged father who has an acrimonious relationship with the ex who sees child support payments contributing to an extravagant lifestyle....however, the man is trying to strike at his ex-wife by indirectly hurting their children. He lives well, if he feels his child support payments is not going towards the children in the way he wants, he should petition the court. All that energy going towards lowering his child support payment could have gone to dealing with his wife (through lawyers if he wants) to ensure proper usage of child support payments. It seems like this guy just doesn't want to care for his family anymore. He sees his children as part of his ex-wife and therefore a burden to toss aside. Sorry, buddy. That's not how divorces work.

If he's making that much money, the kids would have had an extravagant lifestyle if the parents had stayed married. The only question is whether the wife and children should see their lifestyle plummet after divorce while husband keeps more money than ever before.

His proposals would also allow some rich dads to pay NO support. If a guy has tons of assets, but either chooses not to work or manages to get creative on his taxes to avoid reporting income, under this proposal he wouldn't pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get the source link to load, but several articles refer to a 2012 instance in which this jerk enrolled his children in BadgerCare (WI's version of Medicaid) when the divorce settlement stipulated he had to provide health insurance for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of issues with some aspects of how child support is calculated and counted ( for example, it isn't tax deductible, and often isn't deducted when determining eligibility for various benefits.) .But it seems ridiculous that there would be an arbitrary cap. If the children were wealthy before, they should get to retain the same advantages.

And the part about assets is ridiculous. There could certainly be some way to exclude moderate assets like a house you live in, without allowing the wealthy to hide all their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of issues with some aspects of how child support is calculated and counted ( for example, it isn't tax deductible, and often isn't deducted when determining eligibility for various benefits.) .But it seems ridiculous that there would be an arbitrary cap. If the children were wealthy before, they should get to retain the same advantages.

And the part about assets is ridiculous. There could certainly be some way to exclude moderate assets like a house you live in, without allowing the wealthy to hide all their money.

Formulas vary from one jurisdiction to another. I can say, though, that when Canada came out with its Child Support Guidelines, it factored in the fact that the payments were not tax deductible and also took benefits into consideration. Back when payments were tax deductible, they were generally higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My brother paid child support for over a year while his kid was living with him full time. He also paid child support for the kid's entire first semester of college (until he turned 19 which is the age of majority in this state) while paying all of the parental share of the college costs and all other expenses.

Long story, but the courts essentially refused to fix the situation.

There are so many broken things about this system. Unfortunately, any advocates for reforming it see to be assholes that merely want to not have to pay so the real problems don't get addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My best friend's father has not paid enough child support for the last 18 years, while he and his new wife live rather well and bought their 2-year-old an Ipad and other expensive stuff. Meanwhile, my friend's mother had to support her children through one job and they couldn't afford a lot of stuff growing up. How can fathers who do that live with themselves? My friend and her brother also still have contact with him, wouldn't that be awkward as hell? But apparently he doesn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What I think it really is in cases like this is dads who are pissed that the moms are using child support to not work. If you're getting $10k/mo in child support, do you need to work too to provide anything for your own kids? Sometimes child support is treated like ex-spousal support, which is wrong. The ex will benefit by having part of the home paid for, and there's no getting around that. But it's not supposed to also support whatever the ex wants too.

I think that rich dad would make more headway if he had a bill where he amount getting sent to the ex is limited to prevent exes from using it for themselves, with the balances going to trusts for the kids.

But really, I think all of this falls under rich people problems. Capping child support at $150,000 a year is reasonable. Remember child support is tax-free to the receiving parent. Does it really take $12,500/mo to raise a kid? Not unless you're living in a mansion with private schools, vacations galore, shopping sprees, and more. "Oh my god, I can only have two horses. Daddy isn't supporting me!" It really takes a lot of selfishness for a kid to want so much more than what $12,500/mo will pay for. Any kid who doesn't see that mush as being supported is being raised wrong. That's the sort of raising that results in the brats on My Super Sweet 16. Someone who can't raise a kid on $150,000 is doing it majorly wrong.

I just can't feel bad for those exes and kids who think they're poor and aren't being supported because of getting "only" a tax-free $12,500 every single month when that is enough to live on anywhere in the US, including in cities like Manhattan and Malibu, even in luxury apartments. All I can see is major entitlement. You are not a disadvantaged kid with this kind of money.

This isn't the same as a mom whose ex is ordered to pay $500/mo that he'll go years without paying while she's slogging her way through medical assisting school during the day and working night shifts at the local Walmart.

I'm not going to feel bad for kids who might only get a couple vacations a year instead of a world tour four times a year when there are kids out there who went from having a so-so roof over their heads to having to couch-hop with mom because of a break-up. Those rich kids are still beyond comfortable, and frankly I'm pissed that people are worried about kids living ultra-lavish lifestyles who might have to scale back to merely lavish when there are kids out there who go fro eating a couple times a day to not sure where their next meal is coming from while daddy's only ordered to pay $26/mo that he usually doesn't.

The problems we need to address aren't how to keep incredibly rich kids living incredibly rich. It needs to be how to we make sure middle-class and poor kids aren't thrust into poverty when their parents split, which can happen even if dad is paying support, especially when an income that was stretched supporting one household now has to pay for two. You all can worry about the rich kids and their rainbow-farting ponies. I'm going to worry about one of my best friends who is only staying in the relationship she's in that reached physical violence on a few days ago because she can't afford to leave, even if she got 100% of all money. She and her boyfriend are financially tight as it is. If she leaves, she has nowhere to sleep, and section 8 and subsidized housing lists are years long. She has no one in the state they're in now, and if she left to come stay with me or another friend here, she'd have to leave the toddler because that's how residency works. So she's stuck. Can't move their son out of state to live with a friend, and even if she left and her boyfriend had to pay 100% of his income in support, she'd still be fucked because she'd have to pay for childcare to keep her own job, or quit her job, meaning she'd have less than she does by staying with an abusive asshole. Which kid has it tough, my friend and her kid who would be homeless, or that rich kid whose getting $12,500/mo in support that still pays for a luxury Manhattan apartment?

Kids only getting $12,500/mo and not seeing that as being supported. RICH first world problems. My god, people, seriously. Do we really need more Kardashians running around, or so we need to make sure the kids who are really at risk are being properly cared for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think it really is in cases like this is dads who are pissed that the moms are using child support to not work. If you're getting $10k/mo in child support, do you need to work too to provide anything for your own kids? Sometimes child support is treated like ex-spousal support, which is wrong. The ex will benefit by having part of the home paid for, and there's no getting around that. But it's not supposed to also support whatever the ex wants too.

I think that rich dad would make more headway if he had a bill where he amount getting sent to the ex is limited to prevent exes from using it for themselves, with the balances going to trusts for the kids.

But really, I think all of this falls under rich people problems. Capping child support at $150,000 a year is reasonable. Remember child support is tax-free to the receiving parent. Does it really take $12,500/mo to raise a kid? Not unless you're living in a mansion with private schools, vacations galore, shopping sprees, and more. "Oh my god, I can only have two horses. Daddy isn't supporting me!" It really takes a lot of selfishness for a kid to want so much more than what $12,500/mo will pay for. Any kid who doesn't see that mush as being supported is being raised wrong. That's the sort of raising that results in the brats on My Super Sweet 16. Someone who can't raise a kid on $150,000 is doing it majorly wrong.

I just can't feel bad for those exes and kids who think they're poor and aren't being supported because of getting "only" a tax-free $12,500 every single month when that is enough to live on anywhere in the US, including in cities like Manhattan and Malibu, even in luxury apartments. All I can see is major entitlement. You are not a disadvantaged kid with this kind of money.

This isn't the same as a mom whose ex is ordered to pay $500/mo that he'll go years without paying while she's slogging her way through medical assisting school during the day and working night shifts at the local Walmart.

I'm not going to feel bad for kids who might only get a couple vacations a year instead of a world tour four times a year when there are kids out there who went from having a so-so roof over their heads to having to couch-hop with mom because of a break-up. Those rich kids are still beyond comfortable, and frankly I'm pissed that people are worried about kids living ultra-lavish lifestyles who might have to scale back to merely lavish when there are kids out there who go fro eating a couple times a day to not sure where their next meal is coming from while daddy's only ordered to pay $26/mo that he usually doesn't.

The problems we need to address aren't how to keep incredibly rich kids living incredibly rich. It needs to be how to we make sure middle-class and poor kids aren't thrust into poverty when their parents split, which can happen even if dad is paying support, especially when an income that was stretched supporting one household now has to pay for two. You all can worry about the rich kids and their rainbow-farting ponies. I'm going to worry about one of my best friends who is only staying in the relationship she's in that reached physical violence on a few days ago because she can't afford to leave, even if she got 100% of all money. She and her boyfriend are financially tight as it is. If she leaves, she has nowhere to sleep, and section 8 and subsidized housing lists are years long. She has no one in the state they're in now, and if she left to come stay with me or another friend here, she'd have to leave the toddler because that's how residency works. So she's stuck. Can't move their son out of state to live with a friend, and even if she left and her boyfriend had to pay 100% of his income in support, she'd still be fucked because she'd have to pay for childcare to keep her own job, or quit her job, meaning she'd have less than she does by staying with an abusive asshole. Which kid has it tough, my friend and her kid who would be homeless, or that rich kid whose getting $12,500/mo in support that still pays for a luxury Manhattan apartment?

Kids only getting $12,500/mo and not seeing that as being supported. RICH first world problems. My god, people, seriously. Do we really need more Kardashians running around, or so we need to make sure the kids who are really at risk are being properly cared for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.