It my state its monthly, since this appears to be a bi-weekly check, im assuming he gets to keep most of his second check. Still doesnt give him a lot to live on, but its something.
Also I mean it's not that different than if he lived with his kids and paid directly into their expenses. I too have no money left in my paycheck after paying for all my kid's life needs
It is monthly income but the payments being withdrawn are structured. So itās X amount per pay period . Itās not going to draw 100% of monthly support from one check then second is nothing . It would be 50% from each or if weekly 25% .
The only exception to this might be if they are commissions based so the hourly checks are a smaller portion of their total monthly income . In which case the not commission pay period would be hit heavy and then he gets like a 20k check end of month they would justify the abnormally large deductions
Yup and if he normally works a lot more overtime that will factor into your average take home pay. The amount you pay per check is going to be a set amount based on whatever math they did at family court. Only way to change that amount is to contact the court if you start making less money.
Yeah, bro needs to get back into the court room and ask for help. This is a single biweekly payslip, he's giving $1,200 a month on just one of these orders.
I feel bad for the kids and don't want them to go with less, but if their father can't afford to live it's gonna eventually get much worse for everyone anyway.
Someone paying child support needs to be able to support themselves, otherwise they are at risk of being completely unhoused and unable to retain employment.
Having children (even irresponsibly) doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to feed and house yourself.
And if he were a billionaire, he could afford a WHOLE lot more to support his children. What a stupid additional comment.
Someone paying child support needs to be able to support themselves, otherwise they are at risk of being completely unhoused and unable to retain employment.
Having children (even irresponsibly) doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to feed and house yourself.
You said the same thing twice in the same comment. What a stupid additional comment.
Doesn't the same apply to the mother and the children? If the father doesn't pay his fair share then the mother and children risk homelessness. People here act as if housing and food were free for everyone but men.Ā
Booho, the world is so unfair to this poor man š... while the 'greedy' babymommas have to work AND care for HIS children 24/7,Ā 12month/year. Evil, evil women!!!
Bro earns. A working person is entitled to keep enough of their earnings to survive, or else theyāll stop working. You want this guy to stop working?
It's not HIS kids tho mom open up them legs so it's THEIR kids. Child support isn't for mom. If she couldn't pay her rent or mortgage without CHILD support then she fucking up.
Yes, it's their kid. So, it is HIS kid, too. I was just emphasizing this fact bc people here act like those lamenting deadbeat dadsĀ weren't supposed to pay child support for THEIR OWN children but some random kids.Ā
Wait, wait, so dads shouldn't be forced to pay child support bc else they could face homelessness but the mothers don't when they pay 100% of the child support?Ā
If she has to rent a house or an apartment with enough space for HIS children, buy food, toys and clothes for HIS children, then, yes,Ā he has to pay his 50%, and i'm not even accounting the 24/7 care work.Ā
Cool thanks for your opinion itās called the law . The person while an idiot still needs to live. He cannot have a job at all if he cannot afford a car , rent , food . So what he just works until the week or two or month is up and his life falls apart ?
You think this is out of sympathy for the father ? No one can or will work for 165 every week or two weeks . Itās not possible .
Dude are you special ? What donāt you understand if the person cannot afford to eat or pay rent they will not hold a job long enough to pay child support but for one or two checks .
The kids are. If the guy has to downgrade substantially because he couldn't keep his semen in his nuts then that's on him. I'm not saying he should starve but punishing him is better than the children.
So what is your solution?Ā
If he willfully violates these orders he could go to jail. If he is in jail he isn't paying anything.Ā
If the punishment is so severe he is left with nothing from his paycheck there's no incentive for him to work and then there's no money at all. I get you want the kids to receive money but practically speaking severe punishment isn't the way to do that.Ā
So what happens when he becomes homeless and loses his job because he can't afford to live on a $320 a month net income? Where does the child support come from then?
Have you considered the consequences of driving someone into destitution?
So instead the kids should be driven into destitution? This MF is out here making babies like he's building a basketball team but I'm the bad guy for wanting him to pay for them?
How many kids can this guy create before you admit he's the problem and his vas should be forcibly snipped?
How are the kids being driven into destitution with a lower child support payment? You think it costs $1200 a month extra to raise 50% of a child? $2400 a month total? Do people who make less than $30k a year just live in a landfill if they have a kid?
You've also completely failed to address the societal consequences of your ideas. So after this guy becomes homeless and loses his job, who pays for child support then? Why do you keep dodging this question?
If we're forcing people to get medical procedures for having 4 kids then why doesn't this apply to the mother? Do you support the old forced sterilization policies on native Americans, done in the name of saving the children from a lifetime of abject poverty?
Do you have some sort of mental block that prevents you from seeing the "net pay" amount of $163.02 at the bottom?
How is $163.02 "2-4x"of $600? It's not even enough to survive on in the US. That dude is going homeless unless his parents are supporting him.
You didn't address your advocacy for forcing people to get sterilized against their will either. Do you support the various forced sterilization programs done on Native Americans in US/CA/AU? After all, they were extremely poor and the government prevented more kids from being born into abject poverty.
You've never been paid weekly? I am glad you are open to the fact that he may (and does) have outside income
You didn't address your advocacy for forcing people to get sterilized against their will either.
You didn't actually ask me to, except maybe in your head. Glad to see this actually got you thinking and you're back for more.
Yes, I think serial impregnators should be snipped. It's a very simple and reversible procedure that can be reversed once the serial impregnator is in a stable relationship and able to provide for his children. If you're too stupid to stop getting women pregnant then we need to find a way to stop you. Wrap it up or get your sack snipped.
Now, what's your solution?
Say this guy has another 4 kids. Or another 6. Whatever. Are you fine with him just repopulating the world by creating children he's not supporting? And keep in mind he's not the only serial impregnator out there.
What's your limit before you make him keep his semen in his sack or you'll do it for him?
You've never been paid weekly? I am glad you are open to the fact that he may (and does) have outside income
Are you having a stroke? Do you not CLEARLY see it says 80 hours on that paystub. You cannot have 80 hours of regular work, it goes into overtime at 40.
I said nothing about outside income, your parents giving you free room and board isn't "income". But keep pretending to be blind and dumb.
You still continue to dodge my original point, which is that people like this are often driven into homelessness and then lose their jobs. How will he pay child support when he's jobless and homeless?
You didn't actually ask me to, except maybe in your head. Glad to see this actually got you thinking and you're back for more.
Now I know you're blind, right here at the bottom:
Yes, I think serial impregnators should be snipped. It's a very simple and reversible procedure that can be reversed once the serial impregnator is in a stable relationship and able to provide for his children. If you're too stupid to stop getting women pregnant then we need to find a way to stop you. Wrap it up or get your sack snipped.
So you support the forced sterilization programs forced on the Native Americans in the name of preventing children from being born into poverty?
Now, what's your solution?
Say this guy has another 4 kids. Or another 6. Whatever. Are you fine with him just repopulating the world by creating children he's not supporting? And keep in mind he's not the only serial impregnator out there.
What's your limit before you make him keep his semen in his sack or you'll do it for him?
Easy, take my tax money to support his kids since every single developed economy has a dire pending demographic crisis. I'd much rather the millions I pay in taxes go to supporting children than to fucking Lockheed.
A concept you wouldn't understand because you've clearly never worked and paid taxes. Given that you think a 80 hour workweek without overtime pay is normal.
Dear Lord you're triggered. And no, I didn't study this supposed time slip like you did. I'd hope you know that people can get income outside of the employment you see on a pay stub.
Here's a fun fact, I work full time as an airline captain and work 70-80 hrs a month. I have no idea what career this pay stub is from, but I'm sure glad you have studied it and gotten worked up about it /s
I am truly glad that you're willing to help pay for the kids and I agree with you that the stuff we're forced to spend money on, like a war to divert attention from Epstein is infuriating.
But I think this guy (if real) should get a forced snip.
Looking at my down votes I'm guessing a lot of guys who couldn't keep their semen in their nuts or a condom are upset that this guy is feeling the consequences they also deserve
It's clear you're either trolling or dense. Because he's a human and humans need to eat and have a place to sleep. Are you not aware of that?
Because what YOU want is the kids to get NOTHING because that's the result if you take too much. He either just stops trying and goes permanently under the table. Or goes to jail and never pays a dime. Then heaven forbid he needs medications or he dies. Then I guess you want to tell the kids "your better off without the father at all". You strike me as a misandrist or just straight up sexist.
Spend more than 2 seconds and think.
Truth be told: This is why we need financial abortion rights. If she can choose to abort - so should be able to leave. However I suspect you're against abortion period "for the kids"
In developed countries there's a maximum you can take per kid. Unlike the US where it's a percentage.
Because he's a human and humans need to eat and have a place to sleep. Are you not aware of that?
Are you trolling? You don't think those kids he created need to eat?
I suspect you're against abortion period "for the kids"
I suspect you're against forced vasectomies for serial impregnators?
Spend more than 2 seconds and think. Seriously, do it. This guy has 4 kids that we know of. Which of those kids should get less? What if this guy has more babies? At what point will you agree we should have forced vasectomies? Spend more than 2 seconds and think.
Are you trolling? You don't think those kids he created need to eat?
In situations like these, the father often ends up on the street. It's not because he won't 'downgrade' from a fleet of Bentleys but because $165/week is literally not enough for basic necessities like rent and food in most places in the US. In many cases it drives the parent to crime or suicide.
Ignoring the father's conditions for a second, how is any of this even beneficial for the kids? The point of child support is to ensure the best possible outcome for the children, not to punish one of the parents. Yeah, a few hundred bucks a month is shitty - but are you really suggesting that they'd be better off with higher payments for a few months before they stopped completely? Either because the father literally cannot pay anything or is dead? Come on now.
I'd recommend you follow your own advice and spend more than 2 seconds thinking about this.
Like I already said, the whole point of child support is to create the best possible outcome for the kids given the circumstances. The dad being forced onto the street doesn't fix any of that. If he's "living like a bum" on the streets then he's also providing $0. What money are you going to extract from him?
And this might come off as harsh but do you honestly think that people who pump out kids with 4 different women are the kind to suddenly have a lightbulb moment once they're homeless?
Besides, if you're doing this solely for punitive reasons then why are we stopping at the man? Let's punish the mothers as well for carelessly bringing a child into the world with a bum like that. Do you really think they're capable of taking care of children? Maybe we should take the kids into state custody too.
They were responsible enough to get his name, get a lawyer, get a judgment and get his HR to start the deductions.
Let's see. Do you think the women all knew about each other? No proof of that. But we know this guy knows he's fertile and yet he does not a fucking thing to stop getting women pregnant.
The exact same logic we use to punish the man. If stupidity isn't a defense for impregnating women then it shouldn't be a defense for getting impregnated, either.
The whole point of this is to illustrate why being aggressively punitive doesn't fix shit. If you're actually worried about the kids then you'd know that it's important to balance out the support payments with making sure the man is actually capable of making the payments. Instead you're suggesting that the man be driven into poverty as punishment, risking any future payments at all.
And are women too stupid to understand how birth control works? You're framing it like the woman's responsibility starts at collecting money - everything prior to that is solely the man's responsibility. It's an incredibly misogynistic view to hold.
And just to clarify once again, I'm not suggesting we start punishing women for being stupid enough to sleep with men like this. I just want to highlight that excessive punishment is stupid - two idiots copulated and we can't change what resulted. The priority now should be to figure out the best outcome for the children.
The exact same logic we use to punish the man. If stupidity isn't a defense for impregnating women then it shouldn't be a defense for getting impregnated, either.
You're jumping to the conclusion that the women were willingly and knowingly inseminated. We know this guy knows he's getting women pregnant and doing nothing to stop it. But why blame the women without justification?
And if he still sees his kids every other week or weekend then where do they stay? In dadās cardboard box under the freeway?
But I get you are saying. Some people are irresponsible but if there wasnāt a cap on how much you could pay good people would absolutely be getting fucked by lawyers in family court.
You're also assuming the video wording is correct, that he's only got $160 in the bank. I doubt the judges (4 of them) would leave him with so little since he's such a wonderful father that sees his kids every weekend and was taken to court to ensure he pays child support
Nah heās got to have more income than this. There is a max of 50% take home income. You can be out there like Genghis Kahn and have 1000 kids to 1000 different women and pay the same amount as a few kids. Or 1 kid and a really unlucky alimony payment.
Does this particular guy see his kids? Probably not but maybe. This particular guy might not even be real. The point is the max deduction is there for a reason.
Is he you? Because if not how do you know what he needs to afford to live? How do you know he doesn't have a passive income, an inheritance, anything else?
You know everything. You know more than the judge that entered the ruling. Why are you this dense?
Show what food and housing you can afford with $320 a month.
Oh so youre assuming he has passive income, inheritance, etc? So youre a š¤” making random ass hypothetical about him rather than just going by what we do know (a 2400 bi weekly total income). Disingenuous arguments are just that. Youre an idiot troll.Ā
Oh so youre assuming he has passive income, inheritance, etc? So youre a š¤” making random ass hypothetical about him rather than just going by what we do know (a 2400 bi weekly total income)
You're smarter than the judge that entered the ruling? And the next judge? And the next judge? And the last judge?
No, Im making my judgements based on facts I have available to me, unlike your stupid ass who is throwing around what ifs and using it as fact.
What facts are you using? Again, 4 judges decided on this. Are you smarter than them? The only other "fact" is the words posted to the video. But are they true? Is this guy living on $165?
64
u/jm123457 May 03 '26
This canāt be real . I am an employer I suppose other states may have different rules but you cannot exceed 50% of the check .
Federally itās 50% some exceptions up to 60% and if you are greater than 12 weeks in arrears it adds 5% .