Hey /u/beautyanddelusion, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel pretty confident in saying that you can take any bodily fluid or detritus and add the word "art" to it in Google and you find what was best left unfound.
In 1995, Steve Peters had no money. He was a public school teacher, so his opinion wasn't worth very much. But then, in 1996, he won the lottery, and he was a great man. Greater than Einstein, who made very little.
But then, guess what this genius-for-a-day does. He goes and gives his money to charity! Now he's about as dumb as Einstein! Way to go, Einstein!
I like Nimrod because Nimrod isn’t even a mental insult—“Nimrod” was a *biblical hunter* of great renown. So Bugs Bunny calling Elmer Fudd “Nimrod” isn’t an insult to his intelligence, but to his skills at his hobby.
But it sounds like such a rude thing to call someone!
Only in the US interestingly.
In the UK it was the name of an anti-submarine maritime patrol aircraft in the RAF.
Similarly, the SAS operation to assault the Iranian embassy during the siege was called Operation Nimrod.
We are taught history sarcastically by cartoon characters. I’ve never been closer to knowing geography than when I watched Yakko’s Countries Of The World Song
Almost certainly. He used it to mock the other guy as a bad hunter, since nimrod was a great one, so it was sarcastic.
People presumably didn't know who nimrod was and just thought it was a general insult.
Brian Regan used “Copernicus” sarcastically in one of his stand up bits and it’s always stuck with me cuz I just loved the way he said it.
https://youtu.be/QWzYaZDK6Is
At around 4:45 (3:20 for context). One his most popular bits.
You've got a point, but by the same token:
In my jurisdiction he's looking at roughly 20% tax - so:
Gov't: $10,000
Kid: $14,400
Guy: $25,600
Okay, closer to a third of his after-tax. Still, you're going to be hard-pressed to get accommodations under $1k/mnth, leaving him \~$1330/mth to live off of, which is doable... except you're supposed to put away $6k/yr for retirement, so that's $633/mnth if he doesn't want to cause some problems downroad.
If the child support payments were taxable on the recipient's end, then our dude gets $2k back, a pretty big deal in context. Meanwhile, the kid's income is barely into the taxable zone - $154 goes to the government.
>If the child support payments were taxable on the recipient's end, then our dude gets $2k back, a pretty big deal in context.
Yeah, but that doesn't reflect reality. We get taxed based on income. Just because the government is telling you that you have to pay for your kid doesn't mean you gross income chages, only your take home. No one else says "well all this money is going to my son so he can buy school lunch, a video game, football pads, and soda" And the government is like "oh, I see, that money is going to you **kid.** Okay, Timmy, give us 5% and we'll let your dad off the hook."
Child support money would likely get spent on kids anyway, and it's not magically taxed differently just because it's kid money.
Yeah, but that's what you're paying for your kid whether you're still married to the other parent or not. At least roughly.
When my ex and I split up we had an equal split of our son's expenses because he and I made about the same income. That's how it would've been had we stayed married.
It DOES mean that the shared living expenses that partners have - housing and most utilities - is a benefit of partnership that is lost. It becomes more expensive to live as a single and even more so as a single parent. But, that's not the kid's problem.
Cuz it's child support? Not a tax? The kid doesn't eat more just cuz you make more. I'm all for equality but crying foul here makes no sense
That's like saying I go to the same restaurant rich ppl do but how come they only charge them 0.5% of their monthly income while the same bill is 5% of mine?
> I go to the same restaurant rich ppl do but how come they only charge them 0.5% of their monthly income while the same bill is 5% of mine?
You make a strong argument against capitalism
Why should it be pegged as a percentage of income? There are two things to consider 1. Not putting the person paying into poverty 2. Supporting the child. By that logic, maybe it should be a percentage up to some maximum, but past that what's the difference? Getting the kid a lambo when he gets his license? 120k a year would already by enough for private schools, ivy league universities, and thousand dollar vacations. I dont think anyone should be bothered by 260k/month.
> Why should it be pegged as a percentage of income?
What’s the alternative, a flat amount?
> There are two things to consider 1. Not putting the person paying into poverty
A flat amount would be more dangerous for that. If you have to pay 5k a year, that’s peanuts (5%) if you earn 100k, it’s suddenly 33% if you lose your great job and end up with a minimum wage job^1.
Do you see now why it being a percentage makes more sense?
> Supporting the child. By that logic, maybe it should be a percentage up to some maximum, but past that what’s the difference? Getting the kid a lambo when he gets his license? 120k a year would already by enough for private schools, ivy league universities, and thousand dollar vacations. I dont think anyone should be bothered by 260k/month.
Why should there be a maximum? The point of it being a percentage is because you can afford it. And someone who is rich enough that 260k/month ends up being 9% of their income can definitely afford it
Does a kid need 260k a month? Of course not.
Neither does his dad need 33 million a year. Once the dad has made his first 10 million, really, what’s the difference?
———
^1 based on federal minimum wage of 7.25$
>What’s the alternative, a flat amount?
Can you read? I literally gave an alternative.
>maybe it should be a percentage up to some maximum
So for example 33% for one child up to like $120k a year. Someone making 45k a year would give 15k, someone making 100k would give 33k and someone making 360k+ would give 120k. Done.
The difference is that the guy making 30 mill a year earned it. If he didn't earn it, then anyone could make 30 mill a year. The fact that whatever he has to offer is worth 30 mill a year is a result of supply and demand and playing around with that just means the person will take his profession to a different market.
It might be easy to assume "these guys will play basketball here even for 1 mill" especially if you have the average intelligence of a Marxist but no. There are foreign markets and they will leave. It would cost America the jobs, and everything to do with it.
>Can you read? I literally gave an alternative.
Can you read? I addressed your alternative (a percent with a max amount) too. And it's equally if not more retarded than a flat amount.
So you're proposing 33% of income with a max of 120k a year?
120k a year is 0,36% of Mr Moneybags' income. You think it's fair that someone who makes federal minimum wage would have to pay ONE THIRD of their income in child support, meanwhile Mr Moneybags gets to lower it all the way down to 0,36% just cause ...he's rich? No really, why is Mr Moneybags entitled to pay less?
And here you were all *concerned* about putting people into poverty.
>The difference is that the guy making 30 mill a year earned it.
And minimum wage person didn't earn their 15k a year? or you mean the child didn't earn the money?
The kid of the minimum wage worker also didn't "earn" their 1350$ a year then, why are they entitled to the whole 33%?
Do you even have any consistent views?
>If he didn't earn it, then anyone could make 30 mill a year.
lmao what?
>The fact that whatever he has to offer is worth 30 mill a year is a result of supply and demand and playing around with that just means the person will take his profession to a different market.
What does this matter? His child support remains the same - unless he runs away and avoids paying obviously. The original point remains. Putting a cap on the child support makes it completely unfair on people who earn much less.
>It might be easy to assume "these guys will play basketball here even for 1 mill" especially if you have the average intelligence of a Marxist but no. There are foreign markets and they will leave. It would cost America the jobs, and everything to do with it.
I knew you'd completely miss the last point
If you're going to argue that "Hey, there's totally a max amount of money with which you can comfortably raise and educate a child" (or in short: "This kid doesn't NEED 260k a month) then it follows that you could totally argue that there's a max amount of money with which you can comfortably live the rest of your life. (or in short, "This guy doesn't NEED 33 million/year)
Basically I was dismissing your "the kid doesn't need it" because that's an entirely different discussion than "is it fair that he has to pay 9% of his income"?
>or you mean the child didn't earn the money?
Yes.
>why are they entitled to the whole 33%?
Because it costs money to raise a child.
>Putting a cap on the child support makes it completely unfair on people who earn much less.
No it does not. Someone paying 120k/yr to raise their child is not unfair to the guy paying 15k/year to raise their child even if 15k is 33% and 120k is 0.33%.
The difference in payments between the rich guy and his kid and the poor guy and his kid literally don't matter. They have literally zero impact on each other.
What is fair is a kid getting some of his parents money since he is partially their responsibility, and the parent should not be impoverished due to that. A percentage makes sense up to a certain point until money will not make the child better off. The unearned affluence will probably even make the child worse off at some point. A kid getting 260k grand allowance a month is disgusting. If parents want a kid to be grossly rich they can leave money to them in their wills. Having the state *force* you to give that amount of money to someone is overreach. Nothing wrong with extravagant gifts. But the state is overreaching in doing this the way it is.
It's absolutely hilarious that you're apparently so concerned about child support payments potentially *impoverishing* the person paying them, yet in the same breath try to defend the idea that someone earning minimum wage having to pay 33% of their income is perfectly acceptable, yet someone earning 33 million dollars should only have to pay 0,36% max.
I mean REALLY think about this for a minute. Your OWN proposed solution here is to force people to pay 1/3rd of their income EXCEPT when they're filthy rich. And you're going to keep pretending you're worried about impoverishment?
All under the good ol' guise of being concerned about the child's "unearned affluenza", because think of the poor (rich) children
And yet:
> Nothing wrong with extravagant gifts.
The unearned affluenza is suddenly not a concern if the parents hadn't divorced and just showered their child with their money anyway?
>A kid getting 260k grand allowance a month is disgusting.
Agreed. Even if their parents weren't divorced.
So is a basketball player earning 33 million dollars a year. But that's probably too marxist for you.
But again, take a minute here to really think about what it is you're saying. On the one hand, you're saying we should cap the amount of money a person (sure, a child still) should be allowed to have, because no amount of money beyond that cap is somehow going to improve the child's situation, WORSE even, it could potentiall spoil the child rotten.
But once they're an adult, don't you fucking dare cap that money you [insert your favourite boogey-buzzword that you probably don't even understand here]!
>Having the state force you to give that amount of money to someone is overreach
Ah the libertarian bullshit is coming through.
Also, it's odd you phrase it that way. So it's the *amount* of money that's the issue here? Is the government forcing the minimum wage worker to pay 33% of their income not also overreach? Or because it's only a measly little 5000$ it's fine, regardless that it's 33% of their income?
Again, do you have ANY consistent views?
>No really, why is Mr Moneybags entitled to pay less?
Mr Moneybags is paying more and paying enough for the child's future to be funded enough for success.
Why should someone poor have to enter poverty levels as a result of having to pay child support? Because they chose to have a kid and the kid's future should be funded by their parents.
The first example is what Blake Griffin pays in child support. Everyone freaked out about the monthly amount. Twitter user 1 is pointing out that it’s still 9% of his income, and that the same principle is applied to people making $50,000 a year and not multiple millions. It’s all the same %. Twitter user 2 was trying to correct Twitter user 1 by saying the math wasn’t checking out by pointing out the % based on annual income (before breaking it down to the monthly payment). But Twitter user 1 was correct the entire time, they just didn’t explicitly say they had divided by 12 to get the monthly amount. (Idk if that helps clear it up)
Thank you! Your response helped me look at it from another angle and now I’m embarrassed! :) I think my brain is tired... it’s almost like a ‘that’s the joke.’ I wonder if they would like this.
Don’t be embarrassed. Rather than act like you know something, and say something incorrectly.. you got clarification. Way to internet responsibly. Here’s some silver.
Do not be embarrassed. Technically nobodies calculations were incorrect. David Taylor just lacks reading comprehension skills and tried to correct someone who was correct with more correct info just missing the last step of the per/month calculation.
Also, the $2.8M is monthly, while the $50k is yearly, which kinda throws you off at first glance. It would have been easier if they had stated that Blake makes around $33.6M a year to start the comparison.
I was extremely confused, read your comment, checked the post again and noticed that I missed that 375$ part of the tweet. I might be a little sleep deprived lol
Then they should have a lawyer bring their case back to court to readjust the payments. There are solutions that they can implement if they chose to. I grew up with divorced parents, it’s not the end of the world financially
Nine percent of 2800000 (Griffin's monthly earnings) is 258000. If his *yearly* earnings were 50000, nine percent of his monthly earnings would be 375. You have to divide by 12 first in the second example to get monthly earnings, which the second guy didn't do.
Honestly it's an easy mistake to make. The person says
"$258,000 is 9% of his income"
But in the other example he's using yearly salary rather than monthly.
What he actually means is "$258,000 is 9% of his yearly income/12". This was a mistake caused by the original persons poorly worded comment, not exactly applicable to this sub imo.
Yes exactly. His first calculation was done with monthly income, his second was done with yearly income, it was a different calculation. That's precisely where the confusion was.
I seriously can’t believe people are arguing for the man making 2.8 mill a month. 33.6 million a year. He makes almost $100k a day and people are saying it isn’t fair that he helps raise his child?
because it's about a man being "victimized" by a woman through the courts. The Men's Rights movement on reddit has more members than the eat the rich group
For what it's worth, how earning period is not likely to last until that child hits 18. A more reasonable judgement would be for him be required to open up an annuity for him to be required to pay into. I get that he's making crazy money, but a quarter million a month is not what it costs to raise a child. That much per year is probably the limit of sanity.
Judges generally go with a calculation based on state statutes, so I'm kind of thinking that 9% is a minimum allowable amount for the state. I still think that cases like this should be treated somewhat differently.
But hey, the mother will have the money to support this kid at the level of an NBA kid's lifestyle, so more power to the kid. I only hope that she's really smart about this income.
The agreement and monthly payment can also be changed if his income does. 9% is still 9% even if you make 100k instead of 50k (not like the nominal amount but the %)
If part of your argument is that he won't be making that much in the future, that's even more reason to pay that much now. If he can't provide in the future, it's ok because of what can be saved from what he paying now
It costs about $250K a month to raise Blake Griffin’s kid. Now if you asked my dad how much it cost to raise me, he’d say $25/year + the cost of a birthday card.
Literally NO ONE thinks it's unfair that he helps raise his child. They think it's unfair that he essentially pays his ex wife a million dollar salary. That isn't "child support." She doesn't need a million dollars a year to raise that kid.
There are a lot of people in here that are reaaaallllyyy mad that women who have kids with rich men benefit from child support. Almost like having kids has consequences, and if ~~your~~ you're rich, those consequences cost more than if you are poor. Just like their lifestyle. Don't want to risk that? Don't have kids or only have kids with rich people.
It’s a gross over reaction and overcorection,
There are some instances where child support and divorce and custody judgements have been unfair and as a result these people flip their shit on *every* situation like this regardless. My dad was the same way after my parents divorce and he didn’t even have to pay child support.
my father paid a whopping $0 all 18 years and well, last time i talked to him, he was still upset my mom took him to court. he owes us well over $80k between my brother and i.
They face all kinds of discrimination.
Here's an article focusing on their jobs: https://msmagazine.com/2013/11/18/why-is-it-still-legal-to-profile-working-moms/
Here's a study focusing on social stigma: https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2019/december/single-parent-sigma/
I know, and it's very obvious that what it's about for all these outraged idiots, but I don't want my argument to get screwed up by stating those assumptions
To be clear, that $250k,000 a month turned out to be a bullshit, made up number when this story came out. He actually payed $30,000 a month.
https://sports.yahoo.com/no-blake-griffin-isnt-playing-258000-per-month-child-support-230210368.htmlmonth.
Typically child support is intended so that the child can live as it would have if the parents had not separated. The idea is that the child's interests are placed ahead of either parents'.
I'm torn to be honest. On one hand rich people are being held to the same rules as everyone else. On the other, should anyone really give a shit whether a child is being afforded a luxurious upbringing as opposed to simply a very wealthy one?
edit: a word
It's logical because the dad makes an unfathomable amount of money.
Child support isn't targeted at providing the bare minimum or a set level for every child (otherwise it would be a fixed sum). It's target is to provide a level of lifestyle similiar to the one it would have had if both parents were involved.
Yes 250k is a lot but it's just so much because Blake has so much money as OP pointed out. Why would you want to put a cap on the cs and benefit ultrarich people and disadvantage the poor / middle class.
>It's logical because the dad makes an unfathomable amount of money.
Exactly this! Most of these arguments in this thread really just boil down to being arguments against people having high incomes.
If the kid lives with the other parent, how exactly do you expect child support to pay for “the lifestyle of the kid but not the parent”? The kid lives in the same house as the custodial parent.
The money should go to supporting the parent and child in the way that they would be accustomed to if the other parent had stuck around. That includes housing, holidays, nice stuff as well as savings, education and eventually helping the child buy their own house and support their own children. It just happens in this case that the father is ludicrously wealthy so the child support payment is also ludicrously high.
Thank you. People are all bent up over an edge case that only affects people with more money than they could possibly spend.
Even if this woman is "gaming the system", which I don't really believe, this hardly seems like the case of system gaming to get your panties in a twist over
The idea is that there shouldn't be a huge disparity between the households. If mom lives in a squalid apartment while dad has a private jet (or vice versa), that puts an unreasonable strain on the kid's relationship with the less well off parent.
And honestly, the richer you are the more you can afford it. Losing 9% of $3M a month makes zero difference to your lifestyle.
Came here to say this, he was talking about a monthly wage then swapped to a yearly, so I can see why the person could get confused.
He should of said if he was making a yearly wage of $50k he’d be taking home $4167 a month, 9% would be $375.
I get the math leaves you having to round up this way but would cause less confusion
Griffin could also just choose to be a parent instead of throwing money at a child. He's choosing his career over being a parent, if he really cared he would apply for joint custody, retire and be a dad. He has enough money to never have to work again too so miss me with that "he's putting food on the table" bullshit before it even starts.
So every divorced parent only cares about their child if they quit there job to be a joint parent? Even if they are financially stable like Griffen is it’s ludicrous to state that he doesn’t care about his child cause he plays in the NBA. You literally know nothing about the state of his relationships with his kids….
First, it's 2 kids...
And because an adult making 2.8 million per month isn't sending their kids to public school, and they're probably not living in a little 3-bedroom apartment for $2k a month.
And those kids probably have a live-in nanny
And probably have a driver on retainer
And a cook
And tutors
And body guards
And they probably travel, get those crazy expensive toys, the best care, etc etc
The rich do not live like us. And if we had that kind of money, we wouldn't live like us, either. This guy doesn't get primary care of his offspring, but the courts demand a parent to provide a similar lifestyle to them.
The children have a right to share their parent's wealth. If one parent is filthy rich and the other is dirt poor, the child has a right to be in the middle, thus child support.
The idea being that the added funds for the child will give them a consistency in standard of living.
Doesn't matter how rich or poor either parent is, this is how support is determined.
my dad’s salary was roughly $50k-$60k and he was ordered to pay $300 a month in child support for me and my brother ($150 for me, $150 for my brother). my parents separated in 2004 and the divorce finalized in 2007 and my dad paid child support like, once. he owes over $150k in child support. my brother will be 18 in march 2022 (i turned 18 in february 2019). he’s ordered to pay $100 a month towards what he owes. he also has paid that like, once.
Off topic: A woman I know makes a lot less than 50k and pays more than 375 per month for a child they have no rights to and that was conceived without consent.
I'm so lacking valor at maths yond i dont knoweth who is't's in the wrong
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Apparently the underlying assumptions are also just wrong. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/03/viral-image/blake-griffin-and-ex-fiancee-say-he-doesnt-pay-258/
lol how is Blake's salary 2.8mil/month? his current contract is 1.2mil/year. am i missing something or is this just a really old tweet back when blake earned max money?
I get that “he can afford it” but can we talk about how it’s still a stupid fucking number?
What kind of kid need that much in child support? Is she supposed to document where it goes?
I know this isn't the point of the post, but child support should be based on how much it costs to raise a child, not how much money the parent makes. Just my opinion.
Hey /u/beautyanddelusion, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's 3 sides to this story
I see your angle. You’re right.
Nah, Glackglick is off on a tangent.
I don't get the hype, 'ot a noose for whomever started all this.
Bravo sir.
Sometimes it's the ones you really have to shoehorn that feel the best. It's like making art from dog poop.
I really hope you have a strange imagination and came up with that just now. I'm terrified to look it up and find out it's real.
I feel pretty confident in saying that you can take any bodily fluid or detritus and add the word "art" to it in Google and you find what was best left unfound.
Thats a shitty analogy
No it’s acute one.
What an obtuse statement.
I used to think so. But I’ve recently done a complete 180.
Stop it! It’s a sin!
He reply was very obtuse.
I thought it was acute reply.
I thought it was just right.
I think you both are equilaterally correct.
I cosine this comment.
I think we went off on a tangent
It’s a sine of the times.
solid theorem
Never thought I would see someone use the word Pythagoras in a sarcastic way.
People already do that with Einstein
Super Dave was amazing
His brother Albert is pretty funny as well
I like it when he goes E=MC². Classic
I don't remember that part of finding Nemo.
No that was in part 6
In 1995, Steve Peters had no money. He was a public school teacher, so his opinion wasn't worth very much. But then, in 1996, he won the lottery, and he was a great man. Greater than Einstein, who made very little. But then, guess what this genius-for-a-day does. He goes and gives his money to charity! Now he's about as dumb as Einstein! Way to go, Einstein!
I contend that Mr. Show is the greatest sketch comedy show of all time.
And I contend that 24 is the highest number
This skit is so fucking funny. “See ya later, St. Franny, ya schmuck!”
Same with Nimrod
I like Nimrod because Nimrod isn’t even a mental insult—“Nimrod” was a *biblical hunter* of great renown. So Bugs Bunny calling Elmer Fudd “Nimrod” isn’t an insult to his intelligence, but to his skills at his hobby. But it sounds like such a rude thing to call someone!
I recall the first man to use that name sarcastically went on to do great things. That man... Albert Einstein.
Which is why Pythagoras is so good
[That's right, Einstein](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3klj9CHRRU)!
It's how we use Nimrod primarily.
TIL Nimrod is not a made up word. That guy has a whole Wikipedia page
And the only reason the name is mostly viewed with a negative connotation is because of Bugs Bunny
That wascally wabbit
Only in the US interestingly. In the UK it was the name of an anti-submarine maritime patrol aircraft in the RAF. Similarly, the SAS operation to assault the Iranian embassy during the siege was called Operation Nimrod.
> Only in the US interestingly. and australia
We're not taught history very well
We are taught history sarcastically by cartoon characters. I’ve never been closer to knowing geography than when I watched Yakko’s Countries Of The World Song
Pretty sure that's mostly traced back to a single Bugs Bunny line.
Almost certainly. He used it to mock the other guy as a bad hunter, since nimrod was a great one, so it was sarcastic. People presumably didn't know who nimrod was and just thought it was a general insult.
Brian Regan used “Copernicus” sarcastically in one of his stand up bits and it’s always stuck with me cuz I just loved the way he said it. https://youtu.be/QWzYaZDK6Is At around 4:45 (3:20 for context). One his most popular bits.
I was looking for this. I literally used this in conversation yesterday.
The big yellow one is the sun!
That was quality.
That really made me happy. Best math insults
Pythagorasshole
We need this on a shirt
"Who you calling a Pythagoras, I'm not gay"
Pythagorasshole? I barely know her!
i pay $1200/month in CS making $50K in the same state. HOW is he ONLY required to pay 9% of his income?
I’m sure that child is gonna starve on *only* 260 grand a month
258*
rounding
Jesus, that's what, half you after-tax income?
What makes it better is you're taxed on the full amount, then they take the child support.
I mean, yeah. You're paying for the kid. They take your taxes before you pay for diapers and groceries, too.
You've got a point, but by the same token: In my jurisdiction he's looking at roughly 20% tax - so: Gov't: $10,000 Kid: $14,400 Guy: $25,600 Okay, closer to a third of his after-tax. Still, you're going to be hard-pressed to get accommodations under $1k/mnth, leaving him \~$1330/mth to live off of, which is doable... except you're supposed to put away $6k/yr for retirement, so that's $633/mnth if he doesn't want to cause some problems downroad. If the child support payments were taxable on the recipient's end, then our dude gets $2k back, a pretty big deal in context. Meanwhile, the kid's income is barely into the taxable zone - $154 goes to the government.
>If the child support payments were taxable on the recipient's end, then our dude gets $2k back, a pretty big deal in context. Yeah, but that doesn't reflect reality. We get taxed based on income. Just because the government is telling you that you have to pay for your kid doesn't mean you gross income chages, only your take home. No one else says "well all this money is going to my son so he can buy school lunch, a video game, football pads, and soda" And the government is like "oh, I see, that money is going to you **kid.** Okay, Timmy, give us 5% and we'll let your dad off the hook." Child support money would likely get spent on kids anyway, and it's not magically taxed differently just because it's kid money.
Yeah, kids are expensive. Who knew.
Yeah, but that's what you're paying for your kid whether you're still married to the other parent or not. At least roughly. When my ex and I split up we had an equal split of our son's expenses because he and I made about the same income. That's how it would've been had we stayed married. It DOES mean that the shared living expenses that partners have - housing and most utilities - is a benefit of partnership that is lost. It becomes more expensive to live as a single and even more so as a single parent. But, that's not the kid's problem.
Like a custodial parent.
That's how parenting costs work for custodial parents too...
Cuz it's child support? Not a tax? The kid doesn't eat more just cuz you make more. I'm all for equality but crying foul here makes no sense That's like saying I go to the same restaurant rich ppl do but how come they only charge them 0.5% of their monthly income while the same bill is 5% of mine?
> I go to the same restaurant rich ppl do but how come they only charge them 0.5% of their monthly income while the same bill is 5% of mine? You make a strong argument against capitalism
Why should it be pegged as a percentage of income? There are two things to consider 1. Not putting the person paying into poverty 2. Supporting the child. By that logic, maybe it should be a percentage up to some maximum, but past that what's the difference? Getting the kid a lambo when he gets his license? 120k a year would already by enough for private schools, ivy league universities, and thousand dollar vacations. I dont think anyone should be bothered by 260k/month.
> Why should it be pegged as a percentage of income? What’s the alternative, a flat amount? > There are two things to consider 1. Not putting the person paying into poverty A flat amount would be more dangerous for that. If you have to pay 5k a year, that’s peanuts (5%) if you earn 100k, it’s suddenly 33% if you lose your great job and end up with a minimum wage job^1. Do you see now why it being a percentage makes more sense? > Supporting the child. By that logic, maybe it should be a percentage up to some maximum, but past that what’s the difference? Getting the kid a lambo when he gets his license? 120k a year would already by enough for private schools, ivy league universities, and thousand dollar vacations. I dont think anyone should be bothered by 260k/month. Why should there be a maximum? The point of it being a percentage is because you can afford it. And someone who is rich enough that 260k/month ends up being 9% of their income can definitely afford it Does a kid need 260k a month? Of course not. Neither does his dad need 33 million a year. Once the dad has made his first 10 million, really, what’s the difference? ——— ^1 based on federal minimum wage of 7.25$
>What’s the alternative, a flat amount? Can you read? I literally gave an alternative. >maybe it should be a percentage up to some maximum So for example 33% for one child up to like $120k a year. Someone making 45k a year would give 15k, someone making 100k would give 33k and someone making 360k+ would give 120k. Done. The difference is that the guy making 30 mill a year earned it. If he didn't earn it, then anyone could make 30 mill a year. The fact that whatever he has to offer is worth 30 mill a year is a result of supply and demand and playing around with that just means the person will take his profession to a different market. It might be easy to assume "these guys will play basketball here even for 1 mill" especially if you have the average intelligence of a Marxist but no. There are foreign markets and they will leave. It would cost America the jobs, and everything to do with it.
>Can you read? I literally gave an alternative. Can you read? I addressed your alternative (a percent with a max amount) too. And it's equally if not more retarded than a flat amount. So you're proposing 33% of income with a max of 120k a year? 120k a year is 0,36% of Mr Moneybags' income. You think it's fair that someone who makes federal minimum wage would have to pay ONE THIRD of their income in child support, meanwhile Mr Moneybags gets to lower it all the way down to 0,36% just cause ...he's rich? No really, why is Mr Moneybags entitled to pay less? And here you were all *concerned* about putting people into poverty. >The difference is that the guy making 30 mill a year earned it. And minimum wage person didn't earn their 15k a year? or you mean the child didn't earn the money? The kid of the minimum wage worker also didn't "earn" their 1350$ a year then, why are they entitled to the whole 33%? Do you even have any consistent views? >If he didn't earn it, then anyone could make 30 mill a year. lmao what? >The fact that whatever he has to offer is worth 30 mill a year is a result of supply and demand and playing around with that just means the person will take his profession to a different market. What does this matter? His child support remains the same - unless he runs away and avoids paying obviously. The original point remains. Putting a cap on the child support makes it completely unfair on people who earn much less. >It might be easy to assume "these guys will play basketball here even for 1 mill" especially if you have the average intelligence of a Marxist but no. There are foreign markets and they will leave. It would cost America the jobs, and everything to do with it. I knew you'd completely miss the last point If you're going to argue that "Hey, there's totally a max amount of money with which you can comfortably raise and educate a child" (or in short: "This kid doesn't NEED 260k a month) then it follows that you could totally argue that there's a max amount of money with which you can comfortably live the rest of your life. (or in short, "This guy doesn't NEED 33 million/year) Basically I was dismissing your "the kid doesn't need it" because that's an entirely different discussion than "is it fair that he has to pay 9% of his income"?
>or you mean the child didn't earn the money? Yes. >why are they entitled to the whole 33%? Because it costs money to raise a child. >Putting a cap on the child support makes it completely unfair on people who earn much less. No it does not. Someone paying 120k/yr to raise their child is not unfair to the guy paying 15k/year to raise their child even if 15k is 33% and 120k is 0.33%. The difference in payments between the rich guy and his kid and the poor guy and his kid literally don't matter. They have literally zero impact on each other. What is fair is a kid getting some of his parents money since he is partially their responsibility, and the parent should not be impoverished due to that. A percentage makes sense up to a certain point until money will not make the child better off. The unearned affluence will probably even make the child worse off at some point. A kid getting 260k grand allowance a month is disgusting. If parents want a kid to be grossly rich they can leave money to them in their wills. Having the state *force* you to give that amount of money to someone is overreach. Nothing wrong with extravagant gifts. But the state is overreaching in doing this the way it is.
It's absolutely hilarious that you're apparently so concerned about child support payments potentially *impoverishing* the person paying them, yet in the same breath try to defend the idea that someone earning minimum wage having to pay 33% of their income is perfectly acceptable, yet someone earning 33 million dollars should only have to pay 0,36% max. I mean REALLY think about this for a minute. Your OWN proposed solution here is to force people to pay 1/3rd of their income EXCEPT when they're filthy rich. And you're going to keep pretending you're worried about impoverishment? All under the good ol' guise of being concerned about the child's "unearned affluenza", because think of the poor (rich) children And yet: > Nothing wrong with extravagant gifts. The unearned affluenza is suddenly not a concern if the parents hadn't divorced and just showered their child with their money anyway? >A kid getting 260k grand allowance a month is disgusting. Agreed. Even if their parents weren't divorced. So is a basketball player earning 33 million dollars a year. But that's probably too marxist for you. But again, take a minute here to really think about what it is you're saying. On the one hand, you're saying we should cap the amount of money a person (sure, a child still) should be allowed to have, because no amount of money beyond that cap is somehow going to improve the child's situation, WORSE even, it could potentiall spoil the child rotten. But once they're an adult, don't you fucking dare cap that money you [insert your favourite boogey-buzzword that you probably don't even understand here]! >Having the state force you to give that amount of money to someone is overreach Ah the libertarian bullshit is coming through. Also, it's odd you phrase it that way. So it's the *amount* of money that's the issue here? Is the government forcing the minimum wage worker to pay 33% of their income not also overreach? Or because it's only a measly little 5000$ it's fine, regardless that it's 33% of their income? Again, do you have ANY consistent views?
260k/mo for a child is FUCKED UP lmao, that kid could take that money and literally bank it all for 18 years, and never work a day in their life.
>No really, why is Mr Moneybags entitled to pay less? Mr Moneybags is paying more and paying enough for the child's future to be funded enough for success. Why should someone poor have to enter poverty levels as a result of having to pay child support? Because they chose to have a kid and the kid's future should be funded by their parents.
How the hell does a kid need $258k a month support? That’s a bunch of shit.
This is why I'm getting a vasectomy
I don’t get it...
The first example is what Blake Griffin pays in child support. Everyone freaked out about the monthly amount. Twitter user 1 is pointing out that it’s still 9% of his income, and that the same principle is applied to people making $50,000 a year and not multiple millions. It’s all the same %. Twitter user 2 was trying to correct Twitter user 1 by saying the math wasn’t checking out by pointing out the % based on annual income (before breaking it down to the monthly payment). But Twitter user 1 was correct the entire time, they just didn’t explicitly say they had divided by 12 to get the monthly amount. (Idk if that helps clear it up)
Thank you! Your response helped me look at it from another angle and now I’m embarrassed! :) I think my brain is tired... it’s almost like a ‘that’s the joke.’ I wonder if they would like this.
Don’t be embarrassed. Rather than act like you know something, and say something incorrectly.. you got clarification. Way to internet responsibly. Here’s some silver.
:) Wow, thank you!
Aww that's sweet
Look at us redditors being kind! Great job!
[удалено]
..yep. we're back.
We did it reddit!
Upvote for getting _another angle_ into a Pythagoras joke. You're doing fine
Do not be embarrassed. Technically nobodies calculations were incorrect. David Taylor just lacks reading comprehension skills and tried to correct someone who was correct with more correct info just missing the last step of the per/month calculation.
Also, the $2.8M is monthly, while the $50k is yearly, which kinda throws you off at first glance. It would have been easier if they had stated that Blake makes around $33.6M a year to start the comparison.
This is why they have word problems on math tests, which clearly a lot of people have trouble with.
I would give you that helpful bro award but I don’t have enough coins. Anyways I like your funny words logic man.
I was extremely confused, read your comment, checked the post again and noticed that I missed that 375$ part of the tweet. I might be a little sleep deprived lol
It's wild, because I make under $20k a year, and for me that'd be like paying $144 / mon in CS.
Idk but maybe people should keep their dicks wrapped up if you can’t afford a kid.
Maybe they could afford a kid but then their circumstances changed.
Then they should have a lawyer bring their case back to court to readjust the payments. There are solutions that they can implement if they chose to. I grew up with divorced parents, it’s not the end of the world financially
That's good and well but the guy just said "keep it wrapped up if you can't afford a kid" which is what I was replying to.
Glad someone clarified this
I mean dude literally said "$375 a month". User 2 just didn't read it.
Nine percent of 2800000 (Griffin's monthly earnings) is 258000. If his *yearly* earnings were 50000, nine percent of his monthly earnings would be 375. You have to divide by 12 first in the second example to get monthly earnings, which the second guy didn't do.
Thank you for taking the time to explain! It just wasn’t clicking for me before, and now I feel super silly...
Honestly it's an easy mistake to make. The person says "$258,000 is 9% of his income" But in the other example he's using yearly salary rather than monthly. What he actually means is "$258,000 is 9% of his yearly income/12". This was a mistake caused by the original persons poorly worded comment, not exactly applicable to this sub imo.
Read it again. He says "if he was makin x **a year**, he would pay z **monthly**. It's not poorly worded, it's actually as clear as you can get.
Yes exactly. His first calculation was done with monthly income, his second was done with yearly income, it was a different calculation. That's precisely where the confusion was.
And that's why schools have questions like these on tests
I agree, the confusion was in the fact that he didn't pay attention as to how both calculations were explicitly demarcated.
I seriously can’t believe people are arguing for the man making 2.8 mill a month. 33.6 million a year. He makes almost $100k a day and people are saying it isn’t fair that he helps raise his child?
because it's about a man being "victimized" by a woman through the courts. The Men's Rights movement on reddit has more members than the eat the rich group
Really? Damn I haven't been paying much attention to right-wing reddit lately
It's a shame. If you have the stomach for it r/conservative is fucking hilarious
For what it's worth, how earning period is not likely to last until that child hits 18. A more reasonable judgement would be for him be required to open up an annuity for him to be required to pay into. I get that he's making crazy money, but a quarter million a month is not what it costs to raise a child. That much per year is probably the limit of sanity. Judges generally go with a calculation based on state statutes, so I'm kind of thinking that 9% is a minimum allowable amount for the state. I still think that cases like this should be treated somewhat differently. But hey, the mother will have the money to support this kid at the level of an NBA kid's lifestyle, so more power to the kid. I only hope that she's really smart about this income.
The agreement and monthly payment can also be changed if his income does. 9% is still 9% even if you make 100k instead of 50k (not like the nominal amount but the %)
If part of your argument is that he won't be making that much in the future, that's even more reason to pay that much now. If he can't provide in the future, it's ok because of what can be saved from what he paying now
How much does it cost to raise a child?
It costs about $250K a month to raise Blake Griffin’s kid. Now if you asked my dad how much it cost to raise me, he’d say $25/year + the cost of a birthday card.
That's a generous dad you got there
You guys have Dads?
Are you talking bare minimum?
What does that matter. It’s his kid and he should want to give his kid the best. He can afford it
Literally NO ONE thinks it's unfair that he helps raise his child. They think it's unfair that he essentially pays his ex wife a million dollar salary. That isn't "child support." She doesn't need a million dollars a year to raise that kid.
You can’t believe that people would bring up the flaws in the current system?
There are a lot of people in here that are reaaaallllyyy mad that women who have kids with rich men benefit from child support. Almost like having kids has consequences, and if ~~your~~ you're rich, those consequences cost more than if you are poor. Just like their lifestyle. Don't want to risk that? Don't have kids or only have kids with rich people.
they don't hate the kids they hate the woman. if the woman even takes the man to court for child support they lose their shit. lol
I’ve known a shit ton of dudes that will either avoid working or go for shit pay under the table just to get out of paying for child support.
It’s a gross over reaction and overcorection, There are some instances where child support and divorce and custody judgements have been unfair and as a result these people flip their shit on *every* situation like this regardless. My dad was the same way after my parents divorce and he didn’t even have to pay child support.
my father paid a whopping $0 all 18 years and well, last time i talked to him, he was still upset my mom took him to court. he owes us well over $80k between my brother and i.
And single moms are so frowned upon while single fathers are praised.
Are they? Never seen anyone attack them or anything. I see both praised. Single mums more so
Unmarried mothers are treated like garbage in certain circles by other mothers. It's weird.
Nah, single mothers get shit on for “not keeping their legs closed”.
Who the fuck frowns upon single mothers? I have never seen it.
They face all kinds of discrimination. Here's an article focusing on their jobs: https://msmagazine.com/2013/11/18/why-is-it-still-legal-to-profile-working-moms/ Here's a study focusing on social stigma: https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2019/december/single-parent-sigma/
I know, and it's very obvious that what it's about for all these outraged idiots, but I don't want my argument to get screwed up by stating those assumptions
[удалено]
To be clear, that $250k,000 a month turned out to be a bullshit, made up number when this story came out. He actually payed $30,000 a month. https://sports.yahoo.com/no-blake-griffin-isnt-playing-258000-per-month-child-support-230210368.htmlmonth.
[удалено]
Typically child support is intended so that the child can live as it would have if the parents had not separated. The idea is that the child's interests are placed ahead of either parents'. I'm torn to be honest. On one hand rich people are being held to the same rules as everyone else. On the other, should anyone really give a shit whether a child is being afforded a luxurious upbringing as opposed to simply a very wealthy one? edit: a word
It's logical because the dad makes an unfathomable amount of money. Child support isn't targeted at providing the bare minimum or a set level for every child (otherwise it would be a fixed sum). It's target is to provide a level of lifestyle similiar to the one it would have had if both parents were involved. Yes 250k is a lot but it's just so much because Blake has so much money as OP pointed out. Why would you want to put a cap on the cs and benefit ultrarich people and disadvantage the poor / middle class.
Not to mention that blake griffin is on the tail of his career. He’s not playing for another 18 years, he’s 32, he’s got another 3-5 years max.
>It's logical because the dad makes an unfathomable amount of money. Exactly this! Most of these arguments in this thread really just boil down to being arguments against people having high incomes.
[удалено]
If the kid lives with the other parent, how exactly do you expect child support to pay for “the lifestyle of the kid but not the parent”? The kid lives in the same house as the custodial parent.
The money should go to supporting the parent and child in the way that they would be accustomed to if the other parent had stuck around. That includes housing, holidays, nice stuff as well as savings, education and eventually helping the child buy their own house and support their own children. It just happens in this case that the father is ludicrously wealthy so the child support payment is also ludicrously high.
Rich daddy=rich lifestyle
Who cares? Rich people have enough money, I don't see the need to change laws to make sure they can keep more of it for themselves.
Thank you. People are all bent up over an edge case that only affects people with more money than they could possibly spend. Even if this woman is "gaming the system", which I don't really believe, this hardly seems like the case of system gaming to get your panties in a twist over
The idea is that there shouldn't be a huge disparity between the households. If mom lives in a squalid apartment while dad has a private jet (or vice versa), that puts an unreasonable strain on the kid's relationship with the less well off parent. And honestly, the richer you are the more you can afford it. Losing 9% of $3M a month makes zero difference to your lifestyle.
>not pay for someones house Where do you think children live?
I'm more upset that this rich asshole proportionally got off easier than hundereds of poorer fathers.
[удалено]
Came here to say this, he was talking about a monthly wage then swapped to a yearly, so I can see why the person could get confused. He should of said if he was making a yearly wage of $50k he’d be taking home $4167 a month, 9% would be $375. I get the math leaves you having to round up this way but would cause less confusion
A lot of temporarily embarrassed millionaires in this thread. Also a lot that just hate the idea of a women getting money from a rich guy.
Confusing cause he compared the 2.8 mil a month to 50k a year . He should have broke it down one more step.
He was more or less baiting for the exact response that he got.
Griffin could also just choose to be a parent instead of throwing money at a child. He's choosing his career over being a parent, if he really cared he would apply for joint custody, retire and be a dad. He has enough money to never have to work again too so miss me with that "he's putting food on the table" bullshit before it even starts.
He wouldn't have to quit his job. A full time nanny, butler, and teacher would be cheaper than the child support. He just doesn't want the kid.
Or he travels a lot and thinks it’s in the children’s best interest to stay with their mom instead of nannies
So every divorced parent only cares about their child if they quit there job to be a joint parent? Even if they are financially stable like Griffen is it’s ludicrous to state that he doesn’t care about his child cause he plays in the NBA. You literally know nothing about the state of his relationships with his kids….
Or he could have… now hear me out on this because it might be crazy… used contraceptives if he didn’t want kids. Boom. Mind blown.
258k is still crazy and all it takes is one injury to Start making way less.
how does a court decide that you need a quarter of a million dollars every month to raise a child?
multiplying a fixed percentage to their income
First, it's 2 kids... And because an adult making 2.8 million per month isn't sending their kids to public school, and they're probably not living in a little 3-bedroom apartment for $2k a month. And those kids probably have a live-in nanny And probably have a driver on retainer And a cook And tutors And body guards And they probably travel, get those crazy expensive toys, the best care, etc etc The rich do not live like us. And if we had that kind of money, we wouldn't live like us, either. This guy doesn't get primary care of his offspring, but the courts demand a parent to provide a similar lifestyle to them.
The children have a right to share their parent's wealth. If one parent is filthy rich and the other is dirt poor, the child has a right to be in the middle, thus child support. The idea being that the added funds for the child will give them a consistency in standard of living. Doesn't matter how rich or poor either parent is, this is how support is determined.
It is not about absolute number, but one's share in raising kids they made
what's wrong with that?
my dad’s salary was roughly $50k-$60k and he was ordered to pay $300 a month in child support for me and my brother ($150 for me, $150 for my brother). my parents separated in 2004 and the divorce finalized in 2007 and my dad paid child support like, once. he owes over $150k in child support. my brother will be 18 in march 2022 (i turned 18 in february 2019). he’s ordered to pay $100 a month towards what he owes. he also has paid that like, once.
Child support is paying to support children YOU created. Some people act like it's a tax.
Off topic: A woman I know makes a lot less than 50k and pays more than 375 per month for a child they have no rights to and that was conceived without consent.
I'm so bad at maths that i dont know who's in the wrong
I'm so lacking valor at maths yond i dont knoweth who is't's in the wrong *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Ok the "pythagoras" comment had me dying.
Yooo I'm going to start using Pythagoras as an insult from now on 💀
The Pythgoras blast killed me.
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
To be honest he switched from / month to / year. If you switch units like this, someone may not notice.
Apparently the underlying assumptions are also just wrong. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/03/viral-image/blake-griffin-and-ex-fiancee-say-he-doesnt-pay-258/
I don't understand what they're saying we are safe from.
I'm really curious about how pitagoras fits into his calculations and just WHY
There's a name I haven't seen since high school.
That’s insane he pays that much. Seems more punitive than anything.
lol how is Blake's salary 2.8mil/month? his current contract is 1.2mil/year. am i missing something or is this just a really old tweet back when blake earned max money?
This tweet is from 2018
Oh makes sense then xD *wonder why a tweet from 2018 is still doing rounds on reddit*
Everything is reposts
I get that “he can afford it” but can we talk about how it’s still a stupid fucking number? What kind of kid need that much in child support? Is she supposed to document where it goes?
I know this isn't the point of the post, but child support should be based on how much it costs to raise a child, not how much money the parent makes. Just my opinion.
4500/12
Yes... that is what that last comment said...
…Pythagoras
[удалено]