Welcome to PatsFans.com

I Gotta Get The Hell Out Of This State.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by shirtsleeve, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    What are you objecting to? What Patrick is proposing is simply a payment method, one that is used widely by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I can understand that perhaps you're against healthcare for those who can't afford it, but that issue was decided in MA several years ago. Your link simply refers to changes aimed at cost containment. I assume you're not against cost containment.
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    There are a number of solutions to your problem:

    1. Mass Pike west to New York and the rest of the country
    2. I-91 North to Vermont and Canada
    3. I-91 south to Connecticut and the rest of the country
    4. I-93 North to New Hampshire
    5. Rt. 146 south to Rhode Island

    See ya!
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,812
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -7

    The day I retired I left Massachusetts, I lived in a beautiful Towne House my last days in that state, they turned it into "low income" within 6 months it was a f-cking zoo, the familys that had lived there for years took off like they were shot out of cannons, today it is a drug infested war zone, even the cops sh!t their pants when they have to drive in there.
    None of the socialist do-gooders that created it live there, they all live out in Wellsley.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  5. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Funny. Ha. Ha. I am against the government, at any level, sticking its big nose into my health care. But I am all for the People's Republic of Massachusetts running its state akin to Soviet Russia in the 80's. Its called state's rights. I vote again and again against every person and idea like this, and lose. So when my ties to this state are finally severed, I'm out. Texas looks nice. Maybe Florida.
  6. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It would take longer to take 91, I think from here. I'll prolly go Rt 20 west to I 90, or to I 87, depending if I am heading S or W. But thanks for the directions!:singing:

    The second the Probate court no longer holds me hostage..buh bye.
  7. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Your sole reason for chosing a place to live is politics and budgets? If so, then you're right. You'll love Texas and Florida. As long as you can live with all the other wonderful things these, er, places have to offer like the awesome weather and scenery...not to mention you'll be watching Pats games all by yourself. What's keeping you here, anyway?
  8. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,242
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Your saying it went from this

    [​IMG]

    To This in Six months

    [​IMG]


    Someones fibbing........:nono:
  9. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Not the only reasons. I am sick of cold and winter too. And I have NO ties to the Berkshires. I might move to NH and snowbird to the keys. I thought I said what holds me. I am a non custodial parent. One who cares, and does not play 1099 games and hide from my financial responsibility to my kids (well, kid now, one has emancipated). So I get hammered by the probate court with child support. 35% of my gross for a while now its down to 30%. So I work for 27 cents on the dollar and I cannot claim them and I cannot write off the support. Further, she doesn't have to claim the income. So I am in effect in the 72% tax bracket.

    That aside, if I chose to leave the state, I lose all parental legal custody rights. So I am trapped here.
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,596
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +140 / 1 / -8

    If you're saying your wife can claim your children but not have to declare the support you provide, we MUST change that ASAP! That's just plain wrong no matter how you look at it.

    If you support your children financially, then you should be able to claim them.

    If a $100K/yr earner gives $35K to his ex for child support, then he/she damn well deserves to claim the children on his/her taxes. I'm speechless that your wife gets to not only claim your children, but doesn't have to declare the money you give her.

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.....:mad:
  11. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    EX-wife. Other than that your post is 100% correct. That is why so many non custodial parents deadbeat and go under the table, thereby burdoning all of us with more taxes to support them. I wont do that. So I suffer.
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,596
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +140 / 1 / -8

    "Oh, the children....!!" boo-hoo-hoo is the rallying-cry that works against you and those like you. and that's sad.
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    PR, child support is usually negotiated and, in theory, taxes are factored in. The person who cares for the child, in theory, is contributing heavily to the child's well being and thus is the one who gets the deduction. And, let's face it, there are many different reasons for these situations to occur, some of which would probably make you more sympathetic to the parent who cares for the child. (And, shirtsleeve, I don't mean to imply anything at all about your situation.)
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,596
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +140 / 1 / -8

    Patters, I am referring the way in which the system is "supposed to work". Basically, the LAW. So let's not use poor or irresponsible fathers as a means of justifying this structure/law.

    If I'm a good father who is divorced with 2 children and I'm providing $35K annually for their support, the FACT is, my ex would adding that $$ onto whatever other income she has.

    So let's say she earns $100K annually and has re-married to someone who also earns $100K. So the way it works (the law) is that her household income would be $200K PLUS $35K that she doesn't have to claim.

    And here I'd sit with $35K take-home income of my $100K salary. The fact that it's often negotiated is not relevant to what the law states. And the fact that deadbeats exist is no consolation to the unfairness of the law.
  15. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I have known countless people who have lived both in Massachusetts and out of Massacusetts, including myself. Between work, school, other pursuits, it has got to number in the hundreds.

    Out of all those people, I only met one who actually preferred living in Massachusetts versus living elsewhere.

    (Now all this forum's moonbats are going to chime in with how wrong I am and how they just looooooooooooooove Massachusetts, but we all know it's a load of crap.)
  16. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I know you are not speaking personally, so dont sweat it.

    That said, you are wrong here in Mass. There is a formula. A number is a number is a number is what you will hear in court. Unless the primary caregiver makes over $20000, and most dont when they hit court, The percentages are 27% of the gross for one child. 30% for two. It goes up with more similarly. Then you need to factor in age allowances for when the oldest hits 7 (10% surcharge in support) and 12(15%) So when you have two kids, the primary caregiver is not making more than 20K and the oldest is 12, you are expected to pay 35% of your gross income. AND you cannot claim the children. And you cannot write off the support, even though its deducted from your gross earnings and never enters your control. And he/she both CAN claim the children AND not report the income. Patters there is no justification for this. None. All this system does is create millions of dead beat parents and a burdon on society. The system here is broken. Let the non custodial write off the full amout he/she pays in child support on both the federal and state income taxes. I know if I could, I would be in the no tax bracket.
  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,814
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +145 / 2 / -1

    shouldn't 2 or 7 do the trick fastest? ;)
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    But, then the problem would be that those who pay child support would pay less in tax than intact families would pay in many cases. I think a person can petition the court if his (her) or the ex's financial situation changes significantly.
  19. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,830
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    Child support is based on a predetermined formula in the Court and there is little deviation that can occur, without a subsequent court hearing..

    Child Support is not tax deductible, tried to argue my case with the revenuers, but it is the law. Interestingly alimony paid is deductible.. go figure.

    There are no tax advantage for the person financially supporting children.. except it is the right thing to do.

    What can happen is that the Court can determine which parent can claim the child on income taxes, and for the most part this is not very fair..
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    As I said to PR, if Bill was still with his wife, he'd be paying say a 30% tax rate and get some deductions. If Bill leaves his wife and pays child support, he'll still be paying the same 30% tax rate, but she'll get the deductions because she's also contributing heavily towards the child's welfare. You can't have both people claim deductions on the same child. That would be unfair to couples that are still together.

    It seems to me that the problem may lie with the formula. It eithers needs to be more sophisticated to take into account variables or needs to be more flexible so that a judge or jury can consider modifying the terms. For instance, if you're ex earns a lot more than you, perhaps it would be unfair for you to contribute so much.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>