Massachusetts...$12% interest + 6% penalties
Editor -- Child Support News
Dusty
message news:10b1c6a...@corp.supernews.com...
> I found this on their website...I thought Virginia was bad.
Yupper! Nothing like getting hit with an interest rate that would make any
credit card company proud, eh?
But, oh does it get better... If you're $5k in the hole (for whatever
reason) you can kiss your drivers, professional and any other licenses good
by. Oh, and that passport you where using to go overseas and do company
work on.. you'll find a letter from the State Department in your mailbox
soon stating that your passport is no longer valid.
From my own personal experience with MA DOR/CSE, they are the biggest
sticks-in-the-mud I've ever had a conversation with. They absolutely will
not bargain or budge on anything. And good luck on getting a supervisor to
listen either.. You'd have better luck talking to a wall.
And I -used- to think the IRS was bad... at least they'll work with you!
short
"Dusty" <No....@Home.Org> wrote in message
news:kKCdnVD6VuF...@adelphia.com...
why do they pass laws to take away all the means to get and keep a job?
Oh look, I have to pay $6 grand. Now they're going to take any professional
licenses you might have, and your drivers license, so now you can't drive to
work. Makes sense, eh?
short
PattymacI
>Oh look, I have to pay $6 grand. Now they're going to take any professional
>licenses you might have, and your drivers license, so now you can't drive to
>work. Makes sense, eh?
Yes it does. Because you only lose your license if you're not paying anything
at all. Whether you can get to work or not is irrelevant if you aren't paying
anyway. .
Dusty
news:20040525202553...@mb-m07.aol.com...
So tell us Patty, if you have no way to get to work (forget public
transportation for the vast majority), how do you pay?
Didn't we already cover this ad nausium? I know we did, because I posted
the original question... :)
PattymacI
>I found this on their website...I thought Virginia was bad.
You don't get charged any penalty or interest if you currently are making
payments. I think you have to be current for the whole year and then no
interest or penalty is charged that year on any prior arrears. No matter how
many thousands you may owe. I couldn't find that info on the website but I
know the policy exists. They also will abate the interest and penalty on money
owed to the state if you can pay the principal in full. Anyone paying off
their arrears should keep track of the principal so when it gets low enough
that pmt in full is possible, asking for the abatement of all interest and
penalty in exchange for full payment of just the past due support can save a
guy thousands.
If the money is owed to the cp, the state can only waive the penalty unless the
cp agrees to waive the interest.
Dusty
Not in MA.
In MA, if there's any change in custody, employment or visitation CSE drags
it's feet to keep as much money in it's till so it can collect as much
interest as it can to get as much Federal money as they can.
If course you can run to Family court all you want, make all the requests of
the court you want, but they, like CSE will do little to change the status
quo.
There are a boatload of "policies" that exist in MA, but very few that are
enforced when an NCP (father) needs something changed. When a CP (mom)
makes a request of the court and/or CSE, they bend over backward to kiss
the CP's feet and make it happen.
Kenneth S.
Myself, I favor capital punishment for nonpayment of child support.
Some softies try to say that it's illogical to kill fathers for
nonpayment of child support, since death ensures that they will never again
pay child support. However, that's irrelevant, because if you're put to
death, you weren't paying anyway.
TeacherMama
That's right! Nothing is too severe for those who can't pay what they
don't have! Let them eat cake!
Kenneth S.
"TeacherMama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:14c7eb3b.04052...@posting.google.com...
And if the softies win the argument over capital punishment (via the
guillotine?), let's at least force these fathers to be castrated or have
vasectomies. That'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget. (Oh, wait
just a moment . . . that might diminish the job opportunities for child
support bureaucrats and reduce the flow of money from fathers to mothers.)
Editor -- Child Support News
I'm paying only on an arrearage that required me to pay $300/month.
Because I knew I would be back in college and not making any money, I
sometimes made quadruple arrearage payments and then didn't make any
payments for about six months...
I was charged and found guilty of contempt and DCSE filed a motion to take
my license -- even though I was about $1400 ahead of the $300 monthly
payment requirement.
"PattymacI" <patt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040525202553...@mb-m07.aol.com...
>>You only lose your license if you're not paying anything
Gini52
LMAO! Good one, Kenneth :-)
===
>
>
(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)
Chris
I SECOND that!
>
>
Chris
Then what's their objective?
>
Chris
Of course they could provide rehabilitation programs for these poor saps
just as they do for violent offenders. But NO; let's just toss them in the
slam and throw away the key! I guess violent offenses PALE in comparison to
the crime of resisting extortion.
>
>
The Dave©
> > > Oh look, I have to pay $6 grand. Now they're going to take any
> > > professional licenses you might have, and your drivers license,
> > > so now you can't drive to work. Makes sense, eh?
> >
> > Yes it does. Because you only lose your license if you're not
> > paying anything at all. Whether you can get to work or not is
> > irrelevant if you aren't paying anyway. .
>
> Then what's their objective?
Grandstanding. Sound bites. The old tried-and-true "get tough" on
<insert impotent voting block here> people. The *appearance* of
actually doing something. Getting re-elected. Maintaining their power
and prestige.
--
Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.
~Author Unknown
Werebat
>
> "PattymacI" <patt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040525205451...@mb-m07.aol.com..
Actually my ex requested that CSE be taken out of our payment loop
because they were retaining more than their share of "her" money.
So it may seem that they ultimately serve themselves only. Although when
she made her request the judge said he was "forced" to comply "against
his wishes". And for the last four weeks or so I've been fighting CSE
because they simply made up an order for me to pay them $100 per month
over and above what the judge ordered I pay my ex -- this is a complete
fabrication on their part (no, there are no arrearages and the order is
until my son's 19th birthday), so evidently it ultimately doesn't matter
what some niggling "judge" orders anyway once they've sunk their claws
into you.
- Ron ^*^
Dusty
> Actually my ex requested that CSE be taken out of our payment loop
> because they were retaining more than their share of "her" money.
>
> So it may seem that they ultimately serve themselves only. Although when
> she made her request the judge said he was "forced" to comply "against
> his wishes". And for the last four weeks or so I've been fighting CSE
> because they simply made up an order for me to pay them $100 per month
> over and above what the judge ordered I pay my ex -- this is a complete
> fabrication on their part (no, there are no arrearages and the order is
> until my son's 19th birthday), so evidently it ultimately doesn't matter
> what some niggling "judge" orders anyway once they've sunk their claws
> into you.
>
> - Ron ^*^
You know Ron, I tried to explain this to my X, too. That CSE would keep a
fairly good chunk of it and she'd have to deal with delays, etc... Well, 2
months after the order to have MA CSE involved I find her whining to me
about how she has yet to see any of the CS $ come from CSE.
All I could do is shrug my shoulders and say "I told you so." She exploded
on the spot! I told her that I'd be happy to hand the cash directly to her
(like I had every month since our divorce), but I told her she needed to get
her attorney to get CSE off the case. She refused.
CSE has stalled sending the payments on time; if there's a holiday or
vacation, X doesn't get the CS when she "needs" it; if she calls CSE to
complain about where "her money is", they place her on hold for hours; if
she writes them, she almost never gets an answer; the list goes on, etc....
She keeps crying that -I- have to do something. I keep telling her, "Get
CSE off the case and I can." But she never does. It may be because of her
attorney or the fact that she's brain dead from the feet up...
Some people never learn..
Gini52
>
>"Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:40B5E8...@cox.net...
>
>> Actually my ex requested that CSE be taken out of our payment loop
>> because they were retaining more than their share of "her" money.
>>
>> So it may seem that they ultimately serve themselves only. Although when
>> she made her request the judge said he was "forced" to comply "against
>> his wishes". And for the last four weeks or so I've been fighting CSE
>> because they simply made up an order for me to pay them $100 per month
>> over and above what the judge ordered I pay my ex -- this is a complete
>> fabrication on their part (no, there are no arrearages and the order is
>> until my son's 19th birthday), so evidently it ultimately doesn't matter
>> what some niggling "judge" orders anyway once they've sunk their claws
>> into you.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>
>You know Ron, I tried to explain this to my X, too. That CSE would keep a
>fairly good chunk of it and she'd have to deal with delays, etc... Well, 2
>months after the order to have MA CSE involved I find her whining to me
>about how she has yet to see any of the CS $ come from CSE.
In Florida, CSE is required to forward the money within a few days of receipt.
Don't other states have such requirements? Also, in FL., the fees are extracted
from the NCP. Yeah, he has to *pay* them for the privilege of taking his money.
Here's the real kicker--They tell the employers that they can grab some too--up
to $5.00 for administrative costs. Now I can't figure out for the life of me
where CSE gets the legal authority to tell someone else they can take a share
too if the so desire.
Bob Whiteside
"Gini52" <gi...@jlink.com> wrote in message
news:c95s5...@drn.newsguy.com...
Gini - What you have cited is federal law found in 42 U.S.C. Chapter 654b(c)
that requires the states to disburse the CS paid within 2 days. There are
other variables in some of the cases cited here anecdotally, like
reimbursement of arrearage TANF payments that need to be repaid, that make
it appear the state is keeping current CS money. The issues being expressed
are about how the money is applied within the system, not how it is
disbursed.
Editor -- Child Support News
"Gini52" <gi...@jlink.com> wrote in message
news:c95s5...@drn.newsguy.com...
Gini52
Whiteside says...
Hmmm...Well then, I don't get it.
Bob Whiteside
Sure you do. Current CS payments are applied against current TANF benefits
currently being paid. Arrearage CS amounts collected are applied against
previously paid TANF benefits. When a CP is on welfare and an NCP is
garnished for current plus arrearage CS, 100% of the payments go to the feds
and state until the old welfare debt is paid off.
That's why NCP's get complaints from their exes on welfare about not getting
all the CS money paid. Both parties need to understand CS money paid does
not flow to the family until the old welfare debt is paid off.
Gini52
OK--I knew this. I did not realize this particular CP was on welfare.
====
Dusty
news:g1ytc.13274$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
[snip]
> Sure you do. Current CS payments are applied against current TANF
benefits
> currently being paid. Arrearage CS amounts collected are applied against
> previously paid TANF benefits. When a CP is on welfare and an NCP is
> garnished for current plus arrearage CS, 100% of the payments go to the
feds
> and state until the old welfare debt is paid off.
>
> That's why NCP's get complaints from their exes on welfare about not
getting
> all the CS money paid. Both parties need to understand CS money paid does
> not flow to the family until the old welfare debt is paid off.
OK, Bob. But what about those CP's that aren't on TANF? What then?
My X has a full time job (makes more then I do), has never been on any sort
of welfare, yet complains constantly to me that CSE delays payments and
whines that -I- should make up the difference to her (of course, in cash,
paid directly to her).
Werebat
>
> "Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:g1ytc.13274$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net..
> >
>
>
> > Sure you do. Current CS payments are applied against current TANF
> benefits
> > currently being paid. Arrearage CS amounts collected are applied against
> > previously paid TANF benefits. When a CP is on welfare and an NCP is
> > garnished for current plus arrearage CS, 100% of the payments go to the
> feds
> > and state until the old welfare debt is paid off.
> >
> > That's why NCP's get complaints from their exes on welfare about not
> getting
> > all the CS money paid. Both parties need to understand CS money paid does
> > not flow to the family until the old welfare debt is paid off.
>
> OK, Bob. But what about those CP's that aren't on TANF? What then?
>
> My X has a full time job (makes more then I do), has never been on any sort
> of welfare, yet complains constantly to me that CSE delays payments and
> whines that -I- should make up the difference to her (of course, in cash,
> paid directly to her).
She can whine all she wants, can't she? You don't have any obligation to
listen.
- Ron ^*^
Dusty
No, not I. But she loves to tell our kids how it's my fault that they can't
have what they want... Try living with that.. You catch it from all
angles.
Werebat
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> > > news:g1ytc.13274$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.
> > > >
> > >
So it isn't HER fault for not getting up off of her lardasche and finding
a job?
Are your kids male or female?
- Ron ^*^
Bob Whiteside
"Dusty" <No....@Home.Org> wrote in message
news:YeCdnfd6e8H...@adelphia.com...
> "Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:g1ytc.13274$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > Sure you do. Current CS payments are applied against current TANF
> benefits
> > currently being paid. Arrearage CS amounts collected are applied
against
> > previously paid TANF benefits. When a CP is on welfare and an NCP is
> > garnished for current plus arrearage CS, 100% of the payments go to the
> feds
> > and state until the old welfare debt is paid off.
> >
> > That's why NCP's get complaints from their exes on welfare about not
> getting
> > all the CS money paid. Both parties need to understand CS money paid
does
> > not flow to the family until the old welfare debt is paid off.
>
> OK, Bob. But what about those CP's that aren't on TANF? What then?
All collections go to the family. See 42 U.S.C. Chapter 657(a)(3). The
timing requirement is different. Collections in non-TANF cases must be sent
to the family within 15 calendar days of the date the state receives it.
See 42 U.S.C. Chapter 654(c). Tax intercepts must be distributed within 30
days of the state receiving the money. See 45 CFR 302.32(f)(3)(i), (ii),
and (iii).
Just explain to your ex the delay is caused by the state holding the CS
payments in their bank account for up to 15 days collecting interest. And
if she doesn't like it, she should write her congressman and state
representatives to get the federal laws changed.
The irony, of course, is the state charges interest if you don't pay on
time, and the state collects interest when you do pay on time.
Werebat
> The irony, of course, is the state charges interest if you don't pay on
> time, and the state collects interest when you do pay on time.
Or if you're me, the state collects interest when you pay on time, then
claims on the very same system that you didn't pay yet and charges
interest too.
- Ron ^*^
madmother
hurt by dead beat dads are the kids! They dont have enough to eat, they
dont have the love of a good dad and all you can do is whine and say that
they are taking away a passport so you cant travel and spend the money on
a trip when you should be spending it on your kids. or taking away a
drivers license to drive some fancy car when the money for that car should
have gone for your kids. Have you ever heard of public transportation, it
is alot less than the expensive cars you need to buy!
Bob
> I think all you whining dads should understand that the only ones who are
> hurt by dead beat dads are the kids!
I think all you whining moms should understand that the only ones who
are not hurt by the radical feminazi social experiment called "absentee
child support" are the moms.
So-called "child support" is a payment to moms for breaking up a home
and destroying a family. It hurts the children badly. It has been
demonstrated to have harmed millions of children.
The only one who benefits, and even that is questionable, is the mother
who uses her children as chattel to bind a man into indentured
servitude, a form of slavery.
> They dont have enough to eat, they
> dont have the love of a good dad and all you can do is whine and say that
> they are taking away a passport so you cant travel and spend the money on
> a trip when you should be spending it on your kids.
YOU are 100% responsible to support the children that YOU exercised your
exclusive "choice for women" and chose to bear. If YOUR child doesn't
have enough to eat, YOU are fully responsible. Blaming anybody else
instead of getting off your fat lazy ass and going to work is inexcusable.
It's all about the money isn't it. He has some, and you greedy bitch
want it. Sorry, toots, money has NOTHING to do with supporting a child.
> or taking away a
> drivers license to drive some fancy car when the money for that car should
> have gone for your kids. Have you ever heard of public transportation, it
> is alot less than the expensive cars you need to buy!
If you care about the child you would take the child to his father as
mothers have done for a million years before feminism. But all you care
about is money. Men-pay, women-get-paid. How totally sexist of you.
Pound sand.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
Phil #3
fathers are forcibly removed from their children, not to mention their lives
as they knew it, and are charged for the privilege.
If children don't have enough to eat, it's because their mother won't feed
them. If they don't have the love of a dad, it's because the mother prevents
it. Then on top of it all, you demand $ while devising new ways to prevent
his earning.
Fathers are not allowed to support their children, all they are allowed to
do is partially support the child's mother and hope she feels like the
children deserve at least some of the money. Of course, mothers are
'presumed' to be partially responsible for supporting their children but
I've yet to hear a custodial mother complain about the mothers who won't do
as they expect and demand that the father to do.
Go buy a clue and get back to me.
Phil #3
"madmother" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9360579cbfb73d31...@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com...
teachrmama
"madmother" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9360579cbfb73d31...@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com...
How do you define "deadbeats", mad? Those who are able to pay, but don't?
Those who have lost their jobs and can't pay at the moment? Those who have
child support orders, who have lost their jobs and had to take lower paying
ones, but can't get their order modified, and now can't pay the amount
assigned, but pay what they can? Those that find out about a child they
fathered when the child is 6--8--10, or more years old, and are hit with
arrearages plus current support? Which of these do you consider to be
deadbeats?
As for losing driver's licenses--do you really think that public
transportation is available everywhere? There certainly isn't any in our
small town. Should the men just accept the losing of their licenses, accept
jobs at McDonalds, and sink further and further into arrears? Or do you
think that, perhaps, they should keep their licenses so they can get to and
from their jobs? Even if the job isn't providing quite enough to meet their
court-ordered abligations, as mentioned above?
And how about deadbeat moms--how would you define them? Custodial moms who
refuse to work, but live off of dad's child support payments? Are they
deadbeats? How about the moms who use the support paid by one man for his
child to provide for several children, because she only receives support for
that one? Is that OK, mad? I would like to hear your definition of a
deadbeat mom.
Don
I pay $18,000 child support for my 16 year old son. There are no
extenuating issues concerning his care, he is healthy. His mother,
college-educated and able-bodied, certified as a high school teacher
only wants to work at a "fun" job.
I recently paid $5,000 for an occupational expert to testify that her
earning $0.89 per hour from her job painting pastel portraits was
below her earning capacity. This entire matter was in response to a
suit she filed against me to increse my child support beyond the
excessive "guidelines."
BTW, I am current with my extortion and was forced into bankruptcy
when I was laid off from my job several years ago. The court readily
acknowledged that the layoff was no fault of my own. But Massachusetts
as many other states do not allow a reduction of child support due to
loss of job. Show me one intact family that would not make an effort
to reduce expenses while new work is sought. And I do regularly take
public transportation.
Enjoy your spoils while they last.
Don
"madmother" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9360579cbfb73d31...@localhost.talkaboutparenting.com>...
The Dave©
> drive some fancy car when
> the money for that car should have gone for your kids.
Does that same standard apply to still-married fathers? Does it apply
to the money that mothers get as CS, also?