Terrell Owens is Broke

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Vaporub83

That all makes sense in theory. I believe he has 3 or 4 children. Under your what if scenario. What if he has a 3rd child after his NFL career is over now obviously he can't provide the same to this last child as he did for the 2nd one. Since he doesn't have as much money now should all 3 of the children get an equal amount, meaning child 1 & 2 get less? For this reason I don't understand why child support is determined by parents income. There are studies done every year that say how much it costs to raise a child. Why can't we use those to determine how much "support" is needed?

Under my scenario and thats how it works in Maryland where I live. In MD, you can petition the court to lower your child support if your finances significantly change. Hire an attorney who argues that "TO was poor with his finances, no longer is an NFL WR, has 3 other children to support and without a significant reduction runs the risk of not being able to support any of his children." If he's truly broke, he will have the financial statements to back that up and will have a good chance that it will be reduced. I've seen it happen to several of the people I'm close to and some professional athletes.

One other point: TO made 10 mil in 2006. He had 3 kids at that point. According to the article he pays around 120k a year for each kid. Are you guys really trying to argue that its wrong for him to spend a little over 3% of his salary to his kids? Really?

My mom spent WAY more than 3% of her salary to raise me and she made less than 70k most of her life.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by ubernoob

If only we lived in such a sing song happy Communist world. I won't go on my diatribe about child support here. Its long winded, full of cursing, and probably not politically correct. Tap'd in from the GNex

Communism has nothing to do with it. Just a cute line with no substance. This is about fairness.

Most people have siblings here, right? Most would be pissed if their sibling got opportunity after opportunity because their parents sent the sibling to private school, tutors, etc and they didnt get the same choice. Its about fairness.

[iAM-IncReDiBLe-]

Here's a perfect example of child support. My dad pays 160 every week in child support for me an my sister. My mom hasn't worked in 5yrs because she doesn't have to due to the child support. Me an my sister don't see any of that money because it pays the bills. I feel bad for my dad because I know how much he makes an I never want to be in his position. Child support will end once my sister graduates this summer. My mom just told me that an she says she's going to have to start looking for a job.........that pissed me off an that's why child support is ridiculous most of the time.

Sent from Jesus EVO

[aholbert32]

Rob,

Saw ur deleted post before you deleted it. Even at the taxed rate (5.5 mil), less than 10% of his income is going toward his children's welfare. Less than 10%. So even after child support, he had more than 5 million to burn that year.

[Senator Palmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by iAM-IncReDiBLe-

My dad pays 160 every week in child support for me an my sister. My mom hasn't worked in 5yrs because she doesn't have to due to the child support. Me an my sister don't see any of that money because it pays the bills.

Strictly speaking from a legal standpoint, that's the way it's supposed to work, i.e. you did see (benefit) from the money if you were fed and housed:

Support monies collected are expected to be used for the child's expenses, including food, shelter, clothing and educational needs. They are not meant to function as "spending money" for the child.[9] Courts have held that it is acceptable for child support payments to be used to indirectly benefit the custodial parent. For example, child support monies may be used to heat the child's residence, even if this means that other people also benefit from living in a heated home.[21]

Now I'm not going to pretend like there aren't women who take advantage of the system (all the more reason to be judicious about who you have kids with), I get where your frustration may be coming from in that I'm guessing you feel your mom could have done more, and your lifestyle could have had more extras (please forgive me if I read that wrong)... but courts aren't there to distinguish between the golddiggers and the honest women who were caught in a relationship gone bad. In fact, it's not about the women at all. In a family court setting, it's only about the child and making sure that the non-custodial parent is supporting the child at a level that will provide a comperable lifestyle to the one said parent is living.

So, of course a child doesn't need $12,000 a month, but that's not the point if your father is a multimillionaire. The courts have to look at the situation from the paradigm of a traditional family structure and take into account what the child would be provided with if he/she lived with said multimillion dollar parent. If baby momma benefits from that too, then that's part of it. In a lot of situations the courts look at that the same way they would a stay-at-home mom which is often interpreted as being a job in itself.

[N51_rob]

Yeah, but child support is to support the child, not allow the mother to support herself with the money as well. That is why every dime should be audited so see how that money received benefited the child. If someone gets $11,000 or $640 a month, every cent should go towards the child. Not paying the mothers expenses. That is my bigger beef with child support. Which I think is where ubernoob is coming from.

Yeah, I think TO's CS payments are extravagant, but I honestly could care less, my bigger beef is with the child support system. But this is a thread about TO being broke, so I will try to keep my posts on that.

TO is dumb, but I hope that he can be smarter with his money going forward no reason to have earned $80 million and tell GQ that you are broke and blame everyone but the guy who was cashing the checks. I literally could tell you where every dollar I spent has gone since 2010, and all I did was make a simple spread sheet.

[Bellsprout]

I just assumed he was broke when he signed with an Indoor Football League team.

Turns out I was right. Yay me.

[ComfortablyLomb]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Communism has nothing to do with it. Just a cute line with no substance. This is about fairness. Most people have siblings here, right? Most would be pissed if their sibling got opportunity after opportunity because their parents sent the sibling to private school, tutors, etc and they didnt get the same choice. Its about fairness.

Pissed? Sure. But should I be able to do anything about it legally? Nope. I'd be even more pissed if the government stepped in and started telling families what to do in that situation. There's nothing fair about literally handing a woman $120,000 a year just because she managed to get knocked up by TO. I'm not saying child support shouldn't exist and she should be on her own but there should be a pre-determined range to cover the cost of the child and excessive wealth of the father should have nothing to do with it.

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Rob, Saw ur deleted post before you deleted it. Even at the taxed rate (5.5 mil), less than 10% of his income is going toward his children's welfare. Less than 10%. So even after child support, he had more than 5 million to burn that year.

It could be 1% but I don't think that's relevant. Generally I think any argument based off (well, that's just not that much!) has a lot to do with the person making the argument not having "that much."