Re: OT: Random Rant

In article <MPG.21b68f43e8a5c599989c78@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mister_exador@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
In article <8arnk39r9jrcaqqk7semhbstsrhujtgu89@xxxxxxx>,
Colin.Irvine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:06:45 GMT, Fred Bloggs
<mister_exador@xxxxxxxxxxx> squeezed out the following:

In article <9lmnk3lij1dppe4uci9pao7mftlhdfu0ak@xxxxxxx>,
Colin.Irvine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:43:50 GMT, Fred Bloggs

Not at all. Do try to understand the difference between "before-tax" and
"after-tax" income.

I think we'll leave it there.

Why? Are you confused?

I'm an FCCA.

I'm glad you don't do my books.

If the CSA were to take 60% of pre-tax income,
followed by the tax department taking their share, which is about 30% of
pre-tax income, then I would be left with approximately 10% of my pre-
tax income with which to support myself and my children (for the 50 % of
the time that they are with me). Sadly, I don't earn enough for that to
cover anything like the costs associated with the task, let alone the
additional costs incurred to subsidise their time spent with the mother.
Clear now? Perhaps you could tell me in what way my complaint about that
represents clouded judgement?

Specifically, 30% of 40% is 12%, so you would be left with 28% of your
pre-tax income, not 10%.

No, both are calcualted on the gross.

Generally, your posts strike me as being long on emotion and short on
balance - which I suspect reflects your current state of mind. I'm the
reverse, which is why I see no point in arguing with you - much as I
sympathise with your predicament.

I don't seek sympathy for myself as I've long-since come to arrangements
which suit me and my children(if not the CSA or the ex). I'm not trying
to "argue" with youeither, merely to point out the inequitable situation
which obtains for many, not just me. The fact that you and others
persist in trying to "prove" me wrong in the face of the facts is a
typical response, probably based on the fact that we all have women or
girls in our lives we want to protect from harm. It is only when one is
forced to confront the iniquity that exists in Family Law personally
that it becomes unavoidably apparent that sometimes women are not the
ones in need of protection.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BUSH IN ISREAL
    ... The primary function of government is to serve and protect the vital interests of all the people. ... No, the transfer of income is secondary, it serves the primary goal, to protect citizen's rights. ... Almost inavriably people putting forth the kind of sophistries like Joe Long wrote above are not currently vulnerable to financial disaster or worse resulting from a health crisis. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: WGA
    ... you are just being an anti Microsoft grumpy bag. ... However ms, and other such companies, have the right to protect ... Protecting their source of income does not give them the right to install ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)
  • Re: WGA
    ... However ms, and other such companies, have the right to protect ... their source of income, while at the same time, the consumer as the ... Protecting their source of income does not give them the right to install ... MCNGP 22 ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)
  • Re: Do Biopsy Potentiate Cancer?
    ... >> I wonder if Steph has read the by laws of the AMA the made purpose is to ... >> protect the income of its members and the biggest income is made with ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: Shipping Charges
    ... we'd be spending that time posting in newsgroups which produces no income. ... How about the time spent with your kids? ... It must be a real PIA to be worthless for 2/3 of your day. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
Loading