[dataman85]

As someone not familiar with divorce laws and alimony, I was shocked to read that he has to pay $4k every month for child support. That makes a $120K salary almost a $50 - 60K salary after taking into account progressive taxation.

[patrickg-zill]

If my understanding is correct, the $4K is paid after taxes and the ex-wife pays no taxes on the money received. That is, he is going to pay $48K per year in child support but has to earn maybe $70K pre tax.

[bwd]

Not correct, the taxes are actually paid by the receiver and not the payer. If the receiver is in a lower tax bracket, then they pay taxes at that rate. This is basically all factored in to the process of setting alimony by the courts, so pretax and post-tax don't really make any sense here unless the tax brackets are different. Note, IANAL or an accountant.

[jellicle]

Actually, alimony is taxable to the recipient but child support is taxable to the payer.

That is, if the $4K/month is actually $3K child support and $1K alimony, the father's taxable income will be reduced by the $1K, but he's paying taxes on the rest. The ex-wife will pay taxes on the alimony received but not on the child support received.

This is one of the several reasons why women seek child support rather than alimony in divorce proceedings.

[unexpected]

Yes, i found this incredible. My question though was- why was his new wife not receiving any alimony? She, by all accounts had younger kids as well.

Seems like he needed a better divorce attorney.

[tjic]

> why was his new wife not receiving any alimony?

You mean "child support".

Alimony is a payment directly to the ex-spouse, for the ex-spouse's enjoyment / benefit.

[furyg3]

eeeeh, "enjoyment / benefit" is sometimes true but not always.

Sometimes in a relationship both parties agree that it is best if one party (usually the mother) puts aside her career in pursuit of raising the children. This party is at a disadvantage after a divorce, and in some cases it may be reasonable to compensate for it.

Ideally this should be a tiered system when payments wind down over time (but usually isn't).

[randallsquared]

It could be that her ex-husband made so little that the added money wasn't relevant, and the author chose not to bring him into it. That seems reasonable to me.

[falien]

Based on the way he described her spending habits for her children and household, that doesn't seem particularly plausible to me.

[bwd]

The duration of alimony is probably very dependent on the state. One example that I am aware of is that alimony is typically paid for half the duration of the marriage. If his new wife is beyond that period, then she may only be receiving child support.