There comes a time for CHANGE
And I ain't talking about Prez O...
I think it's time for a change in the laws.
I would like to institute a salary cap...kinda like the NBA...on child support.
There should be a cap on the maximum amount that one can receive for child support despite of their parents earnings. Let me preface my comments by saying that this post ain't about those dead beat dads (baby daddy's) who pay little or nothing towards child support.
This post is for those "high priced babies." You know...the ones who costs more than my kids and your kids. The kids who are born to these celebs who need "special treatment" as a result of a divorce settlement or paternity test. In July, a judge ruled that the hip hop star NaS would have to pay his ex-wife, singer Kelis, nearly 40k/month in "support" (30k in spousal support and 9k in child support). Are you kiddin me? 40k per month? That's 480,000 a year. During their divorce proceedings, Kelis told the judge that she had not received any money from NaS during her pregnancy and she "only made nearly 21k per month." Kelis, who recently gave birth to the couples first child, asked the judge to make sure that she nor the child would not have to have a change in their lifestyle.
The judge ruled in her favor and granted that NaS pay her 9k a month for their child.
I have a HUGE problem with this. Kelis is not the first celebrity to cash in the child support dollars. Kim Porter, former model and the mother of 3 children to mogul Puff Daddy, cashed in for nearly 40k/month per child a few years ago. Porter and Puffy were never married. Fashion mogul Kimora Lee Simmons receives more than 100k/month from her ex husband hip hip mogul, Russell Simmons for their 2 daughters.
I think these amounts are insane. I understand that the "child support" numbers are determined by how much their fathers earn. I don't think any judge would ask NaS, Puffy, or Russell Simmons to pay "child support" that they couldn't afford to pay. I also understand that 40k per month for a multi-millionaire is like us paying 40 bux a month for a credit card. Do you really think that money is being used to "support the child?" Do the kids need Cristal in their Captain Crunch? Do the kids need platinum pampers? Do the kids need to be driven to school in a Bentley? What happens when these dudes don't earn this kinda money any more? Will these women still have the money that they should have set aside for the kids? Hell no
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know Kim Porter personally. However, I have run in the same circle as Ms Porter and we've been in some spots here in Atlanta. I don't know what she does with her money but I find it every time I've seen her...she and her girlfriends are pissy-drunk. I wouldn't call buying out the bar at a club a sound investment. But hey...that's just me.
I hereby propose salary cap on "child support." The new cap number is 7k per month. That is the max no matter how much the parent earns.
I think the cap is necessary because...quite frankly...if you can't raise a child on 84,000 per year...you prolly shouldn't have kids. If you can't raise a child on 84k, send em to me...I'll take care of em and you send ME the 84k.
17 comments:
That is a ridiculous amount of money.
Come on, Kyle, they have "lifestyles" to maintain...lol
I can agree with u on this one, there should be a cap for celebs and non-celebs. My hubbys has to pay suport for his oldest and the courts dont care that he has a wife and 2 kids at home to take care of too plus his baby momma still lives at home with her mother. anything over the absolute necessities i.e. regular food and regular clothes needs to be itemized to the courts so they can see how the money is being spent on "lifestyles".
@ BorednTalkative
It's magnified even more when you look at the state of the economy.
@ CurvyGurl
LOL. You know what I say about lifestyles. The problem is that if NaS can't sell another record, is she gonna get off her ass and get a job to "support" the child? Nope
@ Anonymous
That's crazy. That is when the courts should use some discretion. Who wants to pay money when it is clear that the other parent maybe exploiting the situation?
@ Irene
Honestly, you could prolly raise your child on less than that...if you had to. These people are spoiled and they are really taking advantage of the system.
Now you know I am anti "my uterus hit the lottery"
but i will have to dissent here.
Now I'm not talking about spousal support but I disagree. Child support needs, in my humble opinion, to be based on a specfic formula that is void of external influences. A man should have to pay a set amount of money for his child's upbringing. If a man (or woman) earns 3 billion dollars, then that is what should be used. What should be argued here is how the money is being spent. The lifestyle shouldn't be just about a child wearing burberry sneakers or having a stokke crib, but factor in the cost of private schooling and such. The parent receiving the money ought to be able to show that the money being labeled as child support is in fact being used on the child. We also can not forget that child support is support is suppsed to help the cusodial parent with the expenses of raising a child which does include rent and groceries and other such necessary expenditures.
there are some courts that will allow a man to show that child support is a burden and should be lessened and I can not disagree with this idea at all. Child support is such a small fraction of a man's income where as the custodial parent has to (in most cases) dig deeper to support thier child. For example, some mothers receive 1000 a month in childsupport i pay that in day care.. what about food, shelter and clothing, and those are needs, not to mention allowing your child to go to the movies or the zoo.
I think we (people who don't earn that kind of money) can't fathom the lifestyle these people are reffering to and thus look down on women who believe thier children ought not be deprived of such lifestyle. After all, it isn't the child's fault that they are not married.
sorry for the monologue
WHOOO its Electric boogie woogie woogie.....ok I'm going back to read the post now hahah
ok now:
I personally do not believe in spousal support AT ALL. If these women need to be supported they need to get their catwalking, one hit wonder singing asses up and support themselves. If you made 21K a month you should get back on your grind and make that again... That's BS and the judge should be fired for enforcing such BS.
If a lifestyle is what you want then provide it for yourself. And use the child support for what it is designed for SUPPORTING YOUR CHILD. Some of these celeb baby mama/wives think they deserve more because they put up with whatever they did in the relationship. Well I disagree.
Now I am going to say Kimora was paid for more than just the child support she was paid to keep quiet...HOW YOU DOIN' Russell? HAHAHA
Word is bond. Send them to me too. I got a wife and 3 kids at the crib and one in college and we make do on one income and it's less than what they receive and we don't live poor.
This is some straight ridiculous stuff. Send me the petition, I'm signing it.
LOL! Kyle, you crack me the hell up! But you're right, these celebs are absolutely insane for the ridiculous amount of money they seek to "take care of the kids". Gold digging at it's finest.
i don't know how child support became baby mama support, but thats what it is. If it's really about the child, then do an itemized list and make the dude pay for that. tuition, diapers, etc.. make them show what the money is going for.
I agree, a cap should be set for child support. But there should also be room for adjustments and special circumstances. I mean we are talking about a child, who might need medical attention and other special scenarios that might come about. Good post with a valid point, I'm still puzzled by Kimora and the support you recieves.
I don't know if I agree with the salary cap...I'm saying...what am I going to do if my career in healthcare doesn't work??
LOL, I just noticed I said "salary." I meant to say "child support."
I am not a firm believer of spousal support...it's not something i chose when my marriage ended...that's for the celebrities i guess...but child support is needed. From what you posted here, Kelis was supposed to get 40k of spousal support and 9k of child support. i don't know what her child needs, but i will give her the benefit of the doubt and think that daycare, nannies, pampers, and Similac is worth the 9k, not to mention private schools and such. I barely get enuf to send my son to school and dress him appropiately...not even enuf to pay the bills or feed him. The rich and celebrities really benefit from this law...not the everyday people...we just keep doing...we just keep caring and loving our own...becaue even if we never received a dime...we would do such. Men and women should take care of their children, just because you brought them into this world and it's not their fault...as to what price...we know that that is decided by the courts, but if we step up and say i am willing and able to give this or that, and stand by our profession then this would be a mute point. Kelis and Nas have alot of money, like others they will be beset with problems that involve their money and not necessarily spousal or child care.
A man and a woman should care for their child until they are grown...that is just it. If you are making 6 or 7 figures the courts have a basic formula to ascertain what you should give...but if you think it's not fair you can protest and agree on another amount...i did...and the funny thing is, even after i did...he didn't want to pay that. So, Kyle hands up, what are we supposed to do?
@ Kingsmomma
as usual, great points. i understand that we can't fathom that kinda money b/c we aren't in that tax bracket. lol. however, there may come a time that the money stops coming in like it used to. no hits, a couple of lawsuits, and bad investments and these celebs could be in a position to where they can no longer afford those payments. what happens then? i know that the courts may allow the father to pay less b/c he earns less. but what about the $ that she earned over the years for the kids. where did it go? was it really for the kids? was it in a trust fund? i think people can really set themselves up for a huge financial downfall.
@ The F$%K it List
At last...we agree on sumthin! lol
@ Rich
I feel you. That's what you gotta do to make it happen and you've found a way to do just that. We're not into throwin away money
@ L
LOL! You are so right, L. This is Gold Diggin 101
@ Rashan
I'm with you 100%. Let the courts see that you're spending 4k for a nanny so that you can party!
@ Laughing808
Heyy stranger! Good to see you back.
I think Kimora's child support was like 50k per child. That's crazy to me when you consider that she's a millionaire WITHOUT Russell Simmons' money
@ Beautifully.Conjured.Up
I think these celebs don't even worry about stuff like that
@ Miz
Good question. He didn't wanna pay b/c he was being greedy. Most men, are greedy too some degree. He knows what he COULD have paid and he should just let it go.
Kyle,
Unfortunately the courts don't mandate that the parents exercise sound financial judgement. ANy responsible parent would want to ensure the continued security for thier child but sometimes that is not the case. I actually think that all money not specifically used for child support should be put in a trust fund or savings account for the child. Some divorce decrees include the stipulation that one parent pay for college which I think should be necessary in all decrees becuase it considers more than just the here and now.
When the father or non custodial parent for whatever reason sees a decrease in his salary then his payments (if requested ) would decrease as well. In that light, child support is quite fair.
Now here's my biggest problemo with your response...
"but what about the $ that she earned over the years for the kids."
The word earn is the problem with the way child support is viewed. Mothers don't earn money for thier children. it is our right to ask that our child be taken care of. There are several cases where it is obvious that a woman is trying to take advantage of procreating with a high paid sperm i:e the mother of TI's first child's mother. Regardless of the fact that these men are earning millions of dollars, the mothers are entitled to a percentage of that for their children, whether we agree with what they are spending that money on is beside the point. Tyrese's ex wife itemized what she was spending the child support on which basically boiled down to her daugher not wearing the same outfit twice. Stupid? definitely.
If I were a father and my wife, ex wife, child's mother kept stating that she needed more money to take care of my child I would ask that I be the custodial parent. It's not about being vindicative, its about the best interest of the child.
It's funny how no one really brought up Mel Gibson's case but we scoff at Kelis for asking for these requests.
Child support is cut and dry, one income, one percentage. Quite frankly as a single mother I would not care if my son's father had another family b/c his child still has expenses. Lessening your burden presents a further hardhsip on me. I never can understand complaints about taking care of one's parental fiscal responsibilities. I have much more compassion for men who are doing what they are supposed to be doing and are victim of some overzealous woman.
sorry for the LONG monologue. Perhaps i'll have to do my own post :)
Kyle even I agree, and in some cases these paying dads dont even see the kids they are paying out for. Its a silly amout of money.
Post a Comment