you say some of the dumbest shit. BLAH BLAH. espy you made a dumb ass statement and you got busted. let it go
Alicia Key's Hubby Swizz Beatz Has Russian Baby Mama
- Thread starter Kid Rasta
- Start date
you say some of the dumbest shit. BLAH BLAH. espy you made a dumb ass statement and you got busted. let it go
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
Well the convo was about Swiss but I'll go common man route and say someone like myself two years ago who was earning around 60000. 10800 is more than enough to cover half the rent and food of where a kid lives because remember its child support not spousal support. And I know someone will say that having the kid the majority of the times makes you the one the school calls in case of an emergency or the one that might have to stay home if the kid is sick. But you're also the one who gets to have family meals and build a bigger bond with the kid since you're the one who sees them more. To me thats worth the risk of being called out of work early or having to use a sick or two if the kid has the flu.
But hey that's just me.
they should make the person pay child support it should be up to the individuals to decide and if they cant decide then a mediator and then the judge. the point I stated and andrebba was making but you guys didnt get because your schema is stuck on other things and want to assimilate and not adapt to the new view is why it went over your heads.
fact: divorces breaks everyone financially. men and women. marriage financially is a wealth builder if you have two mature and fiscally minded people.
when you get a divorce-atty get involved -money. average person will probably pay 10-20,000 to get out of a marriage. then on top of that child support.
if you didnt get married you more than likely get the courts and atty involved for CS.
because swizz will get high powered atty it will cost out the ass. more than likely they will make him pay her atty fees. because of his stupid decisions it will or could break his ass. divorce is the number one reason after hospital cost that people go bankrupt.
they dont want to hear you.
they personlize everything
I don't know about there but here you can't just say I only want to rent 1/2 of this apartment. It's all or nothing.
That would be like going to the grocery and saying I only need 1/2 a banana for this recipe so I am ripping this one in half sell the other part to someone else. They would say get the fuck outta here.
And I am putting it in these terms because you are acting like all these baby mammas are living the high life on support. Not possible.
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
I don't know about there but here you can't just say I only want to rent 1/2 of this apartment. It's all or nothing.
That would be like going to the grocery and saying I only need 1/2 a banana for this recipe so I am ripping this one in half sell the other part to someone else. They would say get the fuck outta here.
And I am putting it in these terms because you are acting like all these baby mammas are living the high life on support. Not possible.
Really funny smart ass lol. You know what I meant.
told you. they dont want to hear you. LOL.
If people was halfway smart they would cut out the atty because that is where the bulk of the money goes. the only time you should get an atty involved is when the assets come in and even with that you can hire a mediator. NOW HERE COMES THE WOMAN BASHING: women want to go to court just to prove shit. hell I had a dave ramsey (radio show host)judge ,cop and atty say people will fight for the dwelling and they get it then let it go into foreclosure. thousands of dollars could have been saved and the women could have gotten bigger child support if they would have gone to court. think on it. the average guy and woman spends about 10000 to 20000 on atty and court cost. that could have gone back into your pockets and the guy would have gave you more money per month on child support. the problem....women and they want to prove shit. women get hit the hardest after a divorce. why ? because they spent all their money on atty and court cost. its a racket.
thus they spen all that money on something they really didnt want or couldnt afford. look at steve harvey. his wife was on youtube bitching about him making her go broke. he took her ass back to court and the court sided with him and told her to stop her bitching. her shit came because of her.
I think what you are on to, and most importantly, is that Swizz may be able to pay for lots of kids but can he really father them and give them the time/attetion. It really is hard for the parent not living in the same house.
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
I think what you are on to, and most importantly, is that Swizz may be able to pay for lots of kids but can he really father them and give them the time/attetion. It really is hard for the parent not living in the same house.
Thank you. Exactly.
TreePixie
New Member
Taking care of his child. Like every other parent on the planet.
Man oughta use condoms, or get it snipped.
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
Yeah but as a parent don't you think there's such a thing as giving a child too much
TreePixie
New Member
Keeping it simple: If I had not had a kid, I'd have had lower water, electric and gas bills, a smaller apartment, lower health insurance, fewer medical expenses, not to mention food, clothes, etc. Kids do not have predictable growth spurts - my son, dear sweet boy that he was, also lost 3 winter coats one year - I went without a winter coat, commuting 3 hours a day in Boston because I couldn't afford one for myself after that. He spent several years going through the knees of his jeans almost weekly. School trips, school lunches, school expenses - there are a million little things it would be nearly impossible to account for without visiting an accountant and putting in 30 hours a week on record keeping, which, after working for 60 and spending time with/on/taking care of the child, is a bit much.
In MA when I divorced, I got no provision for college education for my son (not that I ever collected a dime of support from my ex anyway, but). It was law that because some parents do not choose to pay for college, non-custodial parents could not be held responsible for any college costs. A friend of mine divorcing at the same time was smart enough and had the resources enough to force her ex into a divorce agreement which included him contributing to the kid's college education. I wish I'd done that.
Sure, DK, you don't want to spoil your kids, but the point is that if you had this guy's kind of money you *could*, and would be entitled to do so. The court's making sure he takes care of his children to the best of his financial ability to do so. I think that's fair. If, in the agreement he wants to outline that X amount gets put into a trust for the child when 18, or 30 or whatever, that's for the lawyers to hammer out.
My ex BF paid more than the court decreed because he felt it was right, especially as his ex wife had to take care of their special needs (Asperger's syndrome on the autism spectrum) daughter and work. She made a good living and was able to put *all* of the child support into a savings account for almost 15 years until she experienced a setback herself. But that money is there and will help the girl for a long time. I thought the fact that my ex bf contributed more than his share was a really a wonderful thing, and the fact that his ex wife was able to tuck it away for their daughter was equally terrific. It doesn't *have* to be an enemies thing, or anyone taking advantage of anyone else.
You don't have kids yet, so you don't know that when they put that squirmy little thing in your arms for the first time, you know you'd go without food yourself for the next century if it would keep your baby safe & happy. I think most parents feel that way.
TreePixie
New Member
I think that a child is entitled to life the lifestyle their parents can afford. If you are a laborer making $25K a year, that's not much. If you are a multi-millionaire, and can afford a fancy home, traveling, good clothes, private music lessons, etc, your child should be able to live that well, too. I'm not suggesting diamond encrusted water wings for a 3 year old, but I'm suggesting that living in a mansion and doing whatever the hell you want while your kid lives in a 2 bedroom condo and can't manage any of the extras you enjoy with your income is also wrong.
Imagine how the kid would feel seeing you live that lifestyle. Like you obviously didn't value him or her very damned much if you're living high off the hog and the kid is not.
Some folks think I was wrong for paying for 5 years of college for my son. I felt it was my duty, since I could do so with some pinching back on my own needs. His needs came first, he's my kid.
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
You may have misunderstood what I was trying to say love (btw that was anything but simple lol).
I agree with taking care of your kids in fact I think alimony should be rolled over into child support. I would much prefer half of what I make go to my kids than to a person I no longer love but that's a discussion for another thread.
My point was based on extreme wealth like the subject of this thread. When you have a person who earns yearly incomes of tens of millions of dollars that means your kids are entitled to that?
There's taking care of his/her needs and then there's setting them up to be weak entitled out of touch douche bags.
Not to mention I think a parent is only responsible for food clothes a roof over your head and education and whatever other tools to make it in this world. Giving someone millions of dollars just because they're alive sucks all the incentive to work hard out of most people.
By what I'm being told here his kid is entitled to 17 million dollars this year alone. That's more than enough to take care of every want or desire that little person will have for the rest of their life but that's not enough they deserve more until their 18. Just doesn't make sense to me especially if the kid lived with their dad they wouldn't be getting 17 mill put into a bank account for them each year. That's just excessive.
TreePixie
New Member
There's a formula because - who decides what's excessive? One parent? Two? The judge? It's a subjective thing as to how much is too much for a child, so they use a set formula to take the subjectivity out (btw, in MA there was a set formula up to a certain income level, after that it was different). There is no societal agreement on how much is enough for the child of wealthy parents (or there wouldnt be the Paris Hilton's of the world)
I think my previous post sort of hit on what you were getting at.
For the record, on the topic of attys, my lawyer did my 2 year long divorce process (with court visits every 6 weeks because my ex was in contempt for not paying support) for a total of $500. That's what I gave her as a retainer. My ex so pissed her off (he tried coming on to her, to get her on "his side" and screw me over the first time they met, and it really ticked her off) that she said "That's it. I'm doing the rest of this divorce for free."
Yes, you would. I think good parents feel that way, but sadly all parents do not. There is nothing I wouldn't give up for my children. I think when you make the decision to have a child, that involves knowing that your life is going to take a backseat to theirs for at least 18 years... and that's how it should be.
I agree with you Pixie. I have a deal with both my children, I'll pay for college and provide their first car. That way when they graduate they have no student loan debt, and a paid for vehicle. What they do from there is on them.
I get what you're saying here, and I do agree that 17 mil a year is more than sufficient to handle every possible need and want a child would have. However a child can grow up to be a weak, entitled, out of touch douche bag, with or without money. That's in how you raise the child, not the lifestyle you raise them in. I'm a parent and I love my children, and I have always worked my butt off to ensure they were raised with better opportunities than I had. Some members of my family have tried to criticize me for 'spoiling' my children, and while it is true they want for very little, they are honestly two of the best people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. They cause me no grief whatsoever, they appreciate the value of money, and they do not exhibit entitlement... and that's because of how they were raised.
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
Trix we all know what excessive is. I layed it out pretty well I think. Like I said beyond the things needed to make one self sufficient nothing should be owed to you and if I amassed a large amount of wealth why is it anyone's choice who I leave it to. As long as I've fulfilled my obligations I don't get why my kid is entitled to what's essentially the GDP of a small third world nation. And only because they didn't live with me. If my kid lives with me and I don't give him/her a red cent outside of the basics that's cool but if they don't live with me I owe them millions?
Seriously how does that sound?
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
True but I notice a more previlent trend amongst the wealthy.
Esp no offense but you don't count since your kids saw you as a single mom working her ass off. Not a celebrity who buys maybachs and bentlies. While I'm sure you did incredibly well especially with your circumstances we're talking about a more extreme case here.
I've technically only been a single Mom for the last 2 1/2 years, and their personalities were well formed prior to that. But still, even if you buy expensive things, you can still teach a child to appreciate the value of money. My ex is a spend-thrift and always has been, he never met a material possession he didn't want to own. Yet neither of our children are like that. The saving grace is likely that he took no interest in their upbringing, and that I recognized that as a negative attribute of his and made sure to counteract it. So I maintain that regardless of how much you have, or how much you spend, you can still teach a child responsibility.
I am curious now, for the purposes of discussion, what do you consider wealthy?