I've recently had a discussion with co-workers in reference to this topic. I understand that supporting your children is the obligation of any parent but....Would making CS deductible on taxes:

Help the NCP maintain a suitable environment for visitation? (by allowing them to benefit from public services if eligible)

Encourage more consistent payment of child support?

Help the NCP to further their educations (if necessary) by helping the NCP qualify for educational assistance thus improving the financial status of both the parent and the child?



Just throwing this out there for your thoughts.

I've recently had a discussion with co-workers in reference to this topic. I understand that supporting your children is the obligation of any parent but....Would making CS deductible on taxes:

Help the NCP maintain a suitable environment for visitation? (by allowing them to benefit from public services if eligible)

Encourage more consistent payment of child support?

Help the NCP to further their educations (if necessary) by helping the NCP qualify for educational assistance thus improving the financial status of both the parent and the child?



Just throwing this out there for your thoughts.
Yes, I believe that a NCP should be able to deduct at least a percentage of CS paid.
Quite often the CP is the one who can claim exemptions, so CP is getting a break on taxes 2 ways- first the exemption, second the CS recieved is not taxable. On the other hand the NCP has to pay taxes on the CS before it's paid. BOTH parents are supporting children, but only one parent pays the taxes AND doesn't get a deduction.

Although I don't believe that it would be fair to make a CP claim CS as income, because it's already been taxed.

I believe that allowing the NCP a tax break would as you said would actually improve the financial status of both parent and child. I also believe that it would give incentive to the "border line" NCP's, the ones who are just a paycheck away from refusing to pay. Alot of NCP's get real upset at tax time because they are helping to support thier kids but only the CP gets any tax breaks for it.

There are so many things that are really unfair in the CS system as a whole and our lawmakers need to realize that NCP's are more than just bank accounts, and that NCP's need the basics of life also. I see it as a win-win situation. But alas, I'm not a lawmaker, all I can do is give my opinion and hope that the powers that be will do something.
Xena :)

I think that it should be federally mandated that the parents alternate the dependent exemption tax so everyone wins.

I have to disagree with alternating years. I have my daughters majority of the year (This year it will be close to 300 days). I included in my divorce that I have the exemption every year.

I think it should count as income towards the children. Not income on the CP. The CP cannot spend a dime on themselves with it. Therefore it could be a tax deduction for the NCP. The CP gets the exemption and the NCP could deduct some of the CS if there is payment.

I agree with Xena that it could give the NCP a break. There is no reason any parent should have the living conditions diminished because the quality for the children also declines.

I have to disagree with alternating years. I have my daughters majority of the year (This year it will be close to 300 days). I included in my divorce that I have the exemption every year.

I think it should count as income towards the children. Not income on the CP. The CP cannot spend a dime on themselves with it. Therefore it could be a tax deduction for the NCP. The CP gets the exemption and the NCP could deduct some of the CS if there is payment. I considered situations such as yours, i was thinking more on equal physical custody, i guess that's why it is so hard for the state to streamline the guidlines and make it fair all the way around. But to your reply, do you think that will be fair to non-divorced people whom only gets the benefit of one deduction between them? , unless you've considered the cp receiving less of a dependent credit then a two parent family?

I've recently had a discussion with co-workers in reference to this topic. I understand that supporting your children is the obligation of any parent but....Would making CS deductible on taxes:

Help the NCP maintain a suitable environment for visitation? (by allowing them to benefit from public services if eligible)

Encourage more consistent payment of child support?

Help the NCP to further their educations (if necessary) by helping the NCP qualify for educational assistance thus improving the financial status of both the parent and the child?



Just throwing this out there for your thoughts.



I think cs should be tax deductible, just like it was stated, the cp gets paid twice for the kids. The cp gets the cs every month and then they claim the kids on their taxes and get money for that. The ncp pays the cs but they only get back the money they earned, they get nothing back for taking care of their kids like the cp's do. It's understandable that the cp gets money back for the kid(s) living with them and when they get paid, the kid(s) are cared for, that's their tax incenitive. But the ncp get no tax breaks and I think it's not fair. It should be required that when the cp files taxes, because the ncp payed the cs the year before, the amount that they paid should be looked at and half or a portion of the money should go to the ncp. And then if the ncp owes arrears, the cp gets paid 3 times. The cp gets the tax break for the kid(s), they get the arrears and they got their cs for the year before.

I have to disagree with alternating years. I have my daughters majority of the year (This year it will be close to 300 days). I included in my divorce that I have the exemption every year.

I think it should count as income towards the children. Not income on the CP. The CP cannot spend a dime on themselves with it. Therefore it could be a tax deduction for the NCP. The CP gets the exemption and the NCP could deduct some of the CS if there is payment.



What do you mean the cp can't spend a dime of the cs money on themselves? Are you kidding, there's many cp's who spend their kids cs on themselves, for the own bills or their clothes. I didn't know that the ncp pays taxes on cs, how does that work? Why are they paying taxes on cs, that's stupid.

Yes, I believe that a NCP should be able to deduct at least a percentage of CS paid.
Quite often the CP is the one who can claim exemptions, so CP is getting a break on taxes 2 ways- first the exemption, second the CS recieved is not taxable. On the other hand the NCP has to pay taxes on the CS before it's paid. BOTH parents are supporting children, but only one parent pays the taxes AND doesn't get a deduction.

Although I don't believe that it would be fair to make a CP claim CS as income, because it's already been taxed.

I believe that allowing the NCP a tax break would as you said would actually improve the financial status of both parent and child. I also believe that it would give incentive to the "border line" NCP's, the ones who are just a paycheck away from refusing to pay. Alot of NCP's get real upset at tax time because they are helping to support thier kids but only the CP gets any tax breaks for it.

There are so many things that are really unfair in the CS system as a whole and our lawmakers need to realize that NCP's are more than just bank accounts, and that NCP's need the basics of life also. I see it as a win-win situation. But alas, I'm not a lawmaker, all I can do is give my opinion and hope that the powers that be will do something.
Xena :) I wouldn't rule out the cp paying income tax on support, especially since support is considered by most financial institutions as income, there making it possible for cps to get financing with favorable rates and terms. In addition, income tax is assessed on any monies aquired and used to advance ones livelyhood( that is if it is reported). The ncp is taxed on the support with no real benefit to themselves, it also decreases their chance of benefiting from the " take home" rule that most creditors consider, not to mention the credit reporting agencies tracking systems. Although that's another issue that hurts the ncp

What do you mean the cp can't spend a dime of the cs money on themselves? Are you kidding, there's many cp's who spend their kids cs on themselves, for the own bills or their clothes. I didn't know that the ncp pays taxes on cs, how does that work? Why are they paying taxes on cs, that's stupid.Their gross income is taxed before the support is taken out. It is highly unlikely that support will be a pre-tax.

I think cs should be tax deductible, just like it was stated, the cp gets paid twice for the kids. The cp gets the cs every month and then they claim the kids on their taxes and get money for that. The ncp pays the cs but they only get back the money they earned, they get nothing back for taking care of their kids like the cp's do. It's understandable that the cp gets money back for the kid(s) living with them and when they get paid, the kid(s) are cared for, that's their tax incenitive. But the ncp get no tax breaks and I think it's not fair. It should be required that when the cp files taxes, because the ncp payed the cs the year before, the amount that they paid should be looked at and half or a portion of the money should go to the ncp. And then if the ncp owes arrears, the cp gets paid 3 times. The cp gets the tax break for the kid(s), they get the arrears and they got their cs for the year before. So you are saying that the cp should list support as income on their taxes?

do you think that will be fair to non-divorced people whom only gets the benefit of one deduction between them? , unless you've considered the cp receiving less of a dependent credit then a two parent family?

Equally shared would get sticky with one at 49% and another at 51% And most cases are not 50/50.

If I take an assumption that we have two households:
A: one parent with child
B: two parents with child

Case A: would pay higher insurance costs (Medical, Auto) for a family plan because of a one income parent rather than (assuming) Case B: having two incomes. The child credit benefits equally because it should not (in theory) cost any more or less for the child. A firm does not change prices if your a single parent.

The tax benefit would be less for the NCP than the savings of a two income family. According to the BLS, an individual who is single and divorced typically make less than Case B.

BTW, I think this is a great thread you started Ohio!

Equally shared would get sticky with one at 49% and another at 51% And most cases are not 50/50.

If I take an assumption that we have two households:
A: one parent with child
B: two parents with child

Case A: would pay higher insurance costs (Medical, Auto) for a family plan because of a one income parent rather than (assuming) Case B: having two incomes. The child credit benefits equally because it should not (in theory) cost any more or less for the child. A firm does not change prices if your a single parent.

The tax benefit would be less for the NCP than the savings of a two income family. According to the BLS, an individual who is single and divorced typically make less than Case B.

BTW, I think this is a great thread you started Ohio! In case A: If you were considering monetary figures only, the percentage will differ, causing the expense ratio to appear higher for case A. Theorematically it would not be fair to case B, because that would be punishing them for their income level by reducing there return, assuming that we are still talking about a child/ren between cp, ncp and the example of two parent families. Hope that makes sense to you, i think i confused myself. Ha,ha,ha.

I see where you are going with it (I think, LOL), I will assume same tax brackets for the case to keep it simple. I am not an accountant (nor do I play one). I excluded 401-k, 403-b, 529's, and any other deduction to keep the brackets simplified. I would make a guess that Case B would make larger contributions to such plans than the NCP would be willing and able to. In A and B comparisons, the brackets in theory could be the same.

I see where you are going with it (I think, LOL), I will assume same tax brackets for the case to keep it simple. I am not an accountant (nor do I play one). I excluded 401-k, 403-b, 529's, and any other deduction to keep the brackets simplified. I would make a guess that Case B would make larger contributions to such plans than the NCP would be willing and able to. In A and B comparisons, the brackets in theory could be the same. I see.... Then it would make sense to tax the cp ( if the support substantially raises their income and allowed them to enjoy the benefits as if they personally earned it) and reduce the liability of the ncp. The tax is applied to actual income, not people. Whoa... im gettin dizzy now. Thanks for the examples and replies

I believe CS should be tax deductible and claimed as income by the parent receiving CS. In general, CS is paid to the parent with lower income in any kind of joint custody and the majority of cases where sole custody is awarded. If that is indeed the case, as it is with me having primary 60/40, but joint, custody. I pay to my ex who has a lower income (but a higher net income as a result of CS). I pay higher tax on my gross income than she would even having to claim the CS. Thus she would pay less tax than I would if she were to pay the taxes instead of me. The government would get less. The formula could be adjusted to compensate her for the tax cost, I pay her more, but it costs me less as I don't pay the tax. She would keep more or the same (depending on how one tweaked the formula) , but the government (again in general) would get less. I believe that is how the math would work out if that were the case.

It seems that the yeas are leading. So, if by this minuscule sampling of random people, those who are directly effected by CS and the unfairness of the taxation system who taxes a person on income for which they personally do not benefit (and credit system that works in reverse for these same persons), can we assume this bit of legislation should be further investigated?

How would you try to begin the process of making this a reality?

I do believe that the CS system is totally messed up and I am a CP. In reality for it to be changed, we need to call attention to it. The best way imo would be having a sitcom about it. "Ellen" helped the gay movement and paved the way for "Will and Grace". "Murphy Brown" caught the attention of the VP. It is using media, but it does not have to bring out the extremes. If Sally Struthers used a sitcom rather than infomercials, the children would have been remembered and not her. It is sad that most people get their news from "Jay Leno" or the Comedy Channel.

It seems that the yeas are leading. So, if by this minuscule sampling of random people, those who are directly effected by CS and the unfairness of the taxation system who taxes a person on income for which they personally do not benefit (and credit system that works in reverse for these same persons), can we assume this bit of legislation should be further investigated?

How would you try to begin the process of making this a reality?
Write letters to your state lawmakers, research to see if any gongresspersons are willing to sponser a bill, just write and write and research. Hopefully someday things will change.