[type_Ben_struct]

I wonder if this has anything to do with Elon Musk removing his ban on Twitter.

He’s now got a much larger platform than Parler to spread his hate, which depending on his motivations for the purchase might make the need to buy it redundant.

I also imagine the recent termination of brand deals, and the high amount of child support he’s been ordered to pay can’t help with the financial feasibility of the purchase.

[goldenchrome]

Pretty comical that he’s being forced to pay child support to a billionaire. What’s the logic?

[LinuxBender]

What’s the logic?

It's the law. The law uses a formula.

[someNameIG]

Child support ifs for the child, it has nothing to do with how much money the other parent has.

[Bubble_Pop_22]

Sure but once parent A is a billionaire then receiving money from parent B who is also a billionaire is kinda like pushing on a string.

[asdff]

The principle is that parent A should not be disproportionately financially responsible for the kid no matter how much money they make if parent B has the means to contribute.

[someNameIG]

I think it would be a bit weird to make an exception in child support laws that would on effect a fraction of a singe percent of the population.

[altec3]

I think they spend a ton of money on their kids each month - chefs, nannies, private schools, etc.

[wilg]

Yeah but why bother having an exception for this?

[nicbou]

I thought the same until I read the comments elsewhere.

As someone there wrote, it's still your child after the divorce. You're still supposed to contribute to their life.

[gregjor]

The child may not have billions. Child support is for the child, not the other parent.

[waste_monk]

As it was explained to me by a lawyer relative (for my jurisdiction, perhaps the theory is different elsewhere), it is to reimburse the custodial parent for expenses that would normally be shared if the parents were not separated. That is, they would be spending the same amount on clothing, food, lifestyle, etc. for the child either way, and are being reimbursed for the non-custodial parent's share of the expenses.

This is why the non-custodial parent cannot demand their child support money be used for certain things, or to give money directly to an older child (teenage or so) who could in theory manage their own funds. The money has already been spent by the custodial parent and they are simply being made whole with child support funds.

(I have heard of many cases where parents become unreasonably angry about not being able to dictate how child support money is spent, to the point of being censured by the judge. And similarly petty / spiteful behaviour e.g. parents quitting their jobs to try and reduce their child support obligation based on their income, and then promptly having the judge verbally tear strips off them - and not reduce the child support as it based off of their demonstrated, not current, earning capacity)

It doesn't really matter if both parties are obscenely rich and the child support will probably never matter in any meaningful sense. The custodial parent should still not be out-of-pocket due to the separation.

Family law is a wild place sometimes :)

[gregjor]

Unfortunately one of my daughters is going through this exact nightmare. I have had to learn more about child support, custody, and family law (and lawyers) than I ever wanted to know.

[scythe]

Is the child of (raised by) a billionaire at some significant risk of financial difficulties?

I think it would be easier if we just admitted that child support is a punishment for not raising your kids. The government used to pay for it, but it was seen as parasitic, so we invented (Edit: expanded [1]) child support. I don't object to this policy, I just think that the "interest of the child" ends up following a bunch of mental gymnastics to ensure that practically all non-custodial parents pay (which again is fine).

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_Sta...

[rasz]

https://twitter.com/kanyewest ?