DissoMaster Dialogue

[CJane]

The advice wasn't asked for, but here goes....

While I'm unsure what state stupidhead resides in, there are plenty of California decisions (and published) that support the argument that stupidhead must maximize his income for the support of his children. If he elects not to, the court can impute income (Wage Assignment Order) equal to that which he could make if he chose to.

It's difficult, requires lots of evidence, and likely an vocational evaluation, but I'm just a lowly Pro Se litigant, yet I caused my ex to undergo two evals, which successfully got her back to work.

We're in MO. Stupidhead actually has a job now, making decent money, and I have never requested that they include his investment income for CS purposes. So, our situation is different.

I'm just saying that NW's scenario only works if 'all other things' are equal income-wise. And they oh-so-rarely are.

 

[nextwife]

We're in MO. Stupidhead actually has a job now, making decent money, and I have never requested that they include his investment income for CS purposes. So, our situation is different.

I'm just saying that NW's scenario only works if 'all other things' are equal income-wise. And they oh-so-rarely are.

My point is that, if we ARE exempting retirement money for some we should for all, or vice versa. Either count pension in CS calculations when employer provided, or don't count it when it must be employee provided. or at least a reasonable substitution of what many are getting from employer-provided plans. It IS a form of work compensation. It is only TRULY voluntary if it is a SUPPLEMENT to an employer plan. If there is no employer plan, it should be considered a necessity.

 

[CJane]

don't count it when it must be employee provided.

But it never MUST be employee provided. It's 100% voluntary whether or not contributes to a 401K or IRA, and the amounts are voluntary as well.

Is it necessarily SMART not to? Maybe not - though don't and haven't in a very long time. But no one is making me contribute.

Voluntary expenses are not included in CS calculations and there is no way they ever will be. It opens the proverbial can o worms, and the beauracracy is not a fan of worms.

 

[nextwife]

But it never MUST be employee provided. It's 100% voluntary whether or not contributes to a 401K or IRA, and the amounts are voluntary as well.

Is it necessarily SMART not to? Maybe not - though don't and haven't in a very long time. But no one is making me contribute.

Voluntary expenses are not included in CS calculations and there is no way they ever will be. It opens the proverbial can o worms, and the beauracracy is not a fan of worms.

IF there is NOT an employer plan provided, there should be a reasonable allowance for the NECESSARY retirement deferral. People who ARE provided retirement money are NOT paying CS on that compensation.

 

[CJane]

IF there is NOT an employer plan provided, there should be a reasonable allowance for the NECESSARY retirement deferral. People who ARE provided retirement money are NOT paying CS on that compensation.

I understand that people (like Asshat) who are provided a pension do not pay CS w/that figured into their income.

I also understand that currently Stupidhead pays CS with his income figured before he makes his IRA contribuitions.

What I'm saying is that there IS no necessary retirement deferral as a retirement fund is not necessary legally.

 

[nextwife]

I understand that people (like Asshat) who are provided a pension do not pay CS w/that figured into their income.

I also understand that currently Stupidhead pays CS with his income figured before he makes his IRA contribuitions.

What I'm saying is that there IS no necessary retirement deferral as a retirement fund is not necessary legally.

Yup, if we all die young, it's not at all necessary.

Look, we ALLOW those folks who DO NOT have a qualified employer provided retirement plan to make IRA contributions pretax up to a certain amount. It's not unlimited. A similar provision for those who don't have an employer retirement plans to make a pre-CS contribution could be made.

Everybody should be treated equally as to their RIGHT to an eventual retirement
- not some people get retirement and not pay CS on it, and some must pay CS on the same compensation dollars put into retirement. Simply because of how the compensation is formatted..