I know the guy makes alot of money, but $55,000 a month to just one ex-wife in child support is a shit ton of money for just 2 kids.

Once in a while you see something like that and its a window into how the other half live.

I can't even imagine a life where I would have that kind of disposable cash to make a payment like that every month and think nothing of it.

Cocaine is expensive!

TIGER BLOOD!

IggyPride00;1443344 wrote:I know the guy makes alot of money, but $55,000 a month to just one ex-wife in child support is a shit ton of money for just 2 kids.

Once in a while you see something like that and its a window into how the other half live.

I can't even imagine a life where I would have that kind of disposable cash to make a payment like that every month and think nothing of it.

I'm sure he thinks a lot of it. $55K a month is one fewer suitcases of coke for him.

It's obviously way more money than those kids need. You're not entitled to your parents money, and beyond very comfortable basics (even including private school, which doesn't cost that much for a year) it should be up to the parent to decide how much support they want to give.

The problem is this is abused by the mom as a supplement to alimony. Sad part is, I'm sure she gets a decent alimony payment or a very nice settlement. Even if you had a full-time nanny for each kid this amount is simply obscene.

IMO child-support should be capped at something below $100k per year for each kid. If dad wants to be a jerk and have his children hate him, that's his right. But what if he wanted simply not to spoil them ridiculously (not that Sheen is a good example)? He has no control over that with that kind of dough going to the mom's discretion.

Basically what this is saying is that because you are rich, your -ex and kids have to be put up in a mansion. I mean, let the guy give $50k a year to his kids because that's what he wants - don't make the kids believe it's only because it's court ordered.

Kids are entitled to the same level of lifestyle as their parent. By law, morally, and ethically.

I'd be looking for a good Mexican kidnapper.

The crazy part is that is just to the one ex-wife.

I am sure he is making a sizable monthly support payment to Denise Richards as well for his other 2 kids.

Couple that with his "entertainment budget" for blow and porn stars and it is a marvel the guy has 2 nickels to rub together right now.

queencitybuckeye;1443355 wrote:Kids are entitled to the same level of lifestyle as their parent. By law, morally, and ethically.

Lol. Wut?

ernest_t_bass;1443376 wrote:Lol. Wut?

Did I use a word too large for you?

queencitybuckeye;1443378 wrote:Did I use a word too large for you?

Kids are entitled to be taken care of. Not spoiled. They need necessities and normal luxuries when feasible. Nothing more.

ernest_t_bass;1443376 wrote:Lol. Wut?

I agree with this.

When a child is separated from a wealthy parent, he is legally entitled to continue to live at the same economic level as before. Sorry that bothers you. That means if your wife dumps you, the kids get to continue to be spoiled by living in a double-wide, not a single.

queencitybuckeye;1443389 wrote:When a child is separated from a wealthy parent, he is legally entitled to continue to live at the same economic level as before. Sorry that bothers you. That means if your wife dumps you, the kids get to continue to be spoiled by living in a double-wide, not a single.

You also said morally and ethically. I imagine reasonable minds might disagree as to whether a parent is morally and ethically obligated to provide some "luxurious" standard of living regardless of what current law states as some have suggested in this thread.

$50,000 a month is $600,000 a year in child support. $575,000 of that (probably more) is not going to the kids. That money is going to support the mother's lifestyle. This is stupid.

queencitybuckeye;1443355 wrote:Kids are entitled to the same level of lifestyle as their parent. By law, morally, and ethically.

LOL!!!

BoatShoes;1443400 wrote:You also said morally and ethically. I imagine reasonable minds might disagree as to whether a parent is morally and ethically obligated to provide some "luxurious" standard of living regardless of what current law states as some have suggested in this thread.

I agree, but presumably the law is based at least in part on some moral and ethical considerations.

That's why the law is the worst

Charlie Sheen is fine. He is pulling in close to $100 Million in syndication for 2.5 Men and his FX show Anger Management is going to be in syndication pretty soon, while still being live. Its a lot of money to be shelling out for child support, and I agree its a broken system that needs fixed. But Charlie Sheen is not even thinking twice about those checks he is writing.

SportsAndLady;1443437 wrote:That's why the law is the worst

No shit. Know a guy who had to pay to his ex wife and pay for the 4 kids. He made almost $30 an hour, but still only brought home about $200 a week for 40+ hours. Completely ridiculous. The law doesn't give a shit about him being able to support his own damn self.

Fab1b;1443346 wrote:Cocaine is expensive!

[video=youtube;wDoIM1dRzGo][/video]

LJ;1443432 wrote:LOL!!!

Did he type too big of a word?

IggyPride00;1443360 wrote:The crazy part is that is just to the one ex-wife.

I am sure he is making a sizable monthly support payment to Denise Richards as well for his other 2 kids.

Couple that with his "entertainment budget" for blow and **** stars and it is a marvel the guy has 2 nickels to rub together right now.

From what I understand Denise Richards has guardianship of his other two kids as well.

rmolin73;1443567 wrote:From what I understand Denise Richards has guardianship of his other two kids as well.

yes that is true. thats a good woman right there. not only does sheen have the syndication money for 2.5 men but he was making millions per episode for years while he was on the show

ernest_t_bass;1443545 wrote:Did he type too big of a word?

Yep, I am not sure of his definitions of "ethically" and "morally" because a woman getting $600k per year in child support has nothing to do with ethics or morals