New York state will be implementing the federal law that requires each state to charge an annual fee of $25 for child support services [in cases where the family has never received Temporary Assistance for Needy Family benefi ts and child support payments are more than $500 a year]. This has to be one of the most ridiculous fees the federal government has come up with so far. I currently receive child support for two children that I have had trouble getting from my ex, and now it’s subjected to an annual fee of $25 for the services of the support unit. The federal government is now taking food right out of the children’s mouths. We are not even able to pay it when we want. Now they will automatically take it right out of the children’s money. If this government is not in need of a major fix, then I don’t know what is. The politicians and government policy makers who make $100,000 a year plus sit around and think of different ways to stick it to the American people and steal right from the children. It’s time the citizens spoke up for their rights.
Ok...first I absolutely hate when the government comes in and will tax anything and everything, which will now include a so called child support fee.
However...Michele really could have done a better job for pleading her case against this fee. Saying that they will be taking food from the children was just plain ridiculous. The $25/year = less than $.50/week or approx. $.07/day. Hardly taking food out of the children's mouths.
The argument is to cut spending, cut spending, cut spending... so taxes/fees can be lowered or new ones can not be implemented.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Re Sept. 30 letter, “Fee on child support collections a bad idea”: Who benefi ts from this $25 annual fee? Does this put more food in the child’s mouth? I believe every parent who receives child support should be angry at the suggestion that money used to help feed, clothe and shelter a child should be subject to governmental charge. The person being charged the $25 should be the person paying the support. This is outrageous. I bet the people who voted for this law do not struggle to support their children — or receive child support.
OTDA explains new child support service fee 10/14/2008 05:26 PM By: Ryan Peterson
A new federally mandated service fee for child support cases has a lot of New Yorkers asking, why do I have to pay to get paid? Ryan Peterson asked state officials just that and brings us some answers.
ALBANY, N.Y. -- At first glance, the new child support annual service fee looks as though you're being forced to pay $25 just to get the money that's owed you. State officials from the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance want you to know that's not the case.
OTDA Executive Deputy Commissioner Elizabeth Berlin said, "We recognize, with a change in any program, there's always some time that individuals need to understand what the change is and to what extent it's going to impact them. It's not a fee that New York State would have pursued on its own. It's a federal requirement that was imposed on states, and we're just adhering with that mandate."
A letter from the OTDA was sent out at the beginning of the month outlining the fee.
OTDA explains new child support service fee A new federally mandated service fee for child support cases has a lot of New Yorkers asking, why do I have to pay to get paid? Ryan Peterson asked state officials just that and brings us some answers.
It reads: This notice is to advise you of a new, federally required annual service fee for "never assistance" recipients of child support services. Meaning, if you have never received any cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, you will be required to pay the $25 per year fee.
We received quite a few emails from outraged New Yorkers who thought this was just another unnecessary charge being passed along by the state. Again, it is a new federal law and it only applies to individuals seeking assistance from the state in tracking down the child support that's owed them -- services that used to be available free of charge.
Berlin said, "It is a one-time fee on an annual basis. With the resources that we bring to bear in order to bring in the additional child support revenue, they'll understand that it really is a small investment in receiving quite a bit of services."
And the state sees very little of that $25 in return -- 66 percent of that $25 goes to the feds and the remaining 34 percent is then split up amongst different state and local agencies.
The state has set up a hotline for anyone seeking further information.
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE Of all things to tax: child support Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.
I have heard from a number of women who receive child support payments, asking me what’s going on with a new $25 deduction from the money they get. Well, I didn’t know anything about this until I inquired, but it’s true, as of Oct. 1, the government takes a oncea-year deduction of $25 from the child-support money that a mother (or occasionally a father) receives. What for? Officially, to help reduce the federal deficit, if you can believe that and also to help defray the cost to states and counties of pursuing those parents who owe child support and making them pay. It was passed as part of the Defi - cit Reduction Act of 2005 and is just now kicking in. So never mind Joe the Plumber. If we’re going to talk about taxation, let’s talk about Angela the Mother. She works at a low-wage job, she does her best to raise her young daughter after her husband skipped, and she very much depends on childsupport payments from the absent father, which come to $5,500 a year, let’s say, that being the average in New York state. This month she gets a little surprise, that $25 deduction, and she doesn’t know what it’s for. The Division of Child Support in the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance maintains a Q&A section on its Web page to answer frequently asked questions, but the question that most frequently gets asked of me is not there. Anthony Farmer, spokesman for the office, graciously answered it for me. The $25 will go 66 percent to the federal government, 17 percent to the state and 17 percent to the county. So as not to hurt mothers who live close to the edge, the hit will not be made against anyone who has ever been on public assistance. And so as not to hurt mothers who are getting stiffed by deadbeat dads, it will not be made until at least $500 in child support has actually been paid. So a mother won’t find herself having to hand over $25 out of her pocket when she has not actually received the payments she is due. How much money will be raised in this fashion? Farmer told me that 170,000 to 200,000 child-support recipients in this state will be hit, so, at $25 per, that will mean a total haul of $4.25 million to $5 million, of which $3.3 million will go to the federal government (out of $5 million). How do you like that for a creative way to raise money — levying a fee, or tax, on child-support payments? “I just want to know why they think it’s OK to take money from a child … that’s food out of her mouth, outfit off her back, roof over her head,” one distraught mother wrote to me, and I cannot disagree.
“I just want to know why they think it’s OK to take money from a child … that’s food out of her mouth, outfit off her back, roof over her head,” one distraught mother wrote to me, and I cannot disagree.
No different than the boomers shoring up their 401ks via the mess the X's made with credit........
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Fee would hurt children, families First published in print: Saturday, October 25, 2008
I recently stumbled across a notice online that there would now be a fee for child support services. No notice has been sent in the mail. There are many things wrong with this, most importantly, that this fee is coming out of the child support payments that most people depend on to make ends meet.
How can a state agency charge a fee for services that our tax dollars are already paying for? How can they justify taking food out of a child's mouth and clothes off their backs? Granted it's not a large fee, but for some it really is the difference between a gallon of milk versus a quart of milk. It's shameful and should not be allowed. Child support should never be subject to any fees.
Whoever agreed that this was a good idea obviously does not depend on child support. New York residents are already burdened with overtaxing and now their child support is getting chipped away. Enough is enough.
First published in print: Thursday, November 6, 2008
New York state is collecting $4.25 million from its children, $25 at a time. This new, $25 annual fee on child support is coming out of the pockets of some state residents who can least afford it. And the office that is collecting the money says there is nothing they can do about it, absent a new state law.
Billie Jean McGinn, 29, is a single mother living in rural Warren County, and one child support recipient who will be affected by the new law. She is pursuing an English degree at the University at Albany and she has two children at home, ages 6 and 2. She receives $170 per week in support for her 6-year-old.
McGinn, who is considering becoming a high school teacher, received a letter from the state office of Temporary and Disability Assistance which explained that because of a federal law signed by President Bush in 2006, the state must now collect a $25 fee out of the support payments her child receives each year.
The fee only kicks in after the parent has received $500 in support for the year. It does not apply to anyone who has ever been on welfare. About 170,000 New York families are subject to the fee. It wasn't the dollar amount that irked McGinn the most, but the state's explanation.
"They told me it was a federally imposed fee and they had no choice," said McGinn, who said she enjoys doing research and arguing. So she dove into the issue herself.
She discovered the state, in fact, has several choices about how to collect the money, some of which goes to the federal government.
The fee is part of the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It is designed to generate revenue by raising user fees for government services. Among them is the new fee on child support. The law, McGinn discovered, said that states can collect the fee either from the parent receiving child support or the parent paying the child support. A state may also choose to just pay the money out of general revenues. Of course, since New York's theme song this year might be "Brother, Can You Spare $2 Billion?" that seems unlikely.
So why is the state taking the money directly from kids?
Michael Hayes, a spokesman for the ODTA, said that while the federal law does allow the state to collect the $25 from the absent parent making the support payment, there is nothing in state law that allows ODTA to force those non-custodial parents to pay.
The Paterson administration, Hayes said, would rather not collect the fee at all. But when I asked him, he said, yes, a change in state law could allow ODTA to take the fee from the parents who pay support rather than those who receive it for the child. I called several lawmakers over the last few days to ask their thoughts. It's tough to find a legislator the morning after Election Day, even someone who won. I also requested a comment from the governor's office, but didn't immediately hear back Wednesday.
I did manage to find Marcia Pappas, who is the president of the New York State Chapter of the National Organization for Women. She first heard of this fee when someone in her office became subject to it last month. She finds it outrageous the state doesn't have authority to collect this money from the absent parent.
"But they do have the authority to take food out of children's mouths?" she said. "What happened to 'no child left behind?"
She wonders how hard the state fought against this policy. I wonder if anyone was thinking that $25 could mean a pair of boots at Payless, or a couple pairs of jeans at Sears.
Well, when you take money directly from children, they tend not to fight back.
First published in print: Saturday, November 8, 2008
Pay millions to bail out executives but charge a fee and take away food from children? Where could this happen?
Right here in New York state. Effective Oct. 1, a federally required annual service fee of $25 is being charged to the custodial parent who is receiving child support.
Child support is intended to feed, clothe and shelter children. By passing this fee onto the custodial parent the net result is to take away $25 from the innocent victims of divorce, the children.
I personally do not have any problem with charging a fee for the processing of child support. I do not feel that the taxpayer should be burdened with this expense. I feel the state has it all wrong when the non-custodial parent is not required to pay this fee. The primary reason that the custodial parent is utilizing the child support payment unit is that the non-custodial parent has demonstrated a lack of responsibility in making timely payments on his or her own. In other words, it is because of the non-custodial parent's irresponsibility that the support collection services have to be utilized. It should be the non-custodial parent who should pay.
Some may argue that an annual fee of $25 is not that much. Trust me, as a social worker having had contact with numerous single parents, $25 can become a significant amount of money when the support being received is, for example, the paltry sum of $100/week for two children.
If the federal government can spend billions to bail out CEO's, government could also think outside the box and relieve custodial parents of this newly imposed burden.
Ya know, isn't it amazing how when people think of child support, they think of the recipients who are living in projects, on medicaid and every other public program available.
What people fail to mention, is about the child support recipients who receive thousands in child support, who 'got the house'and the estranged husband is still paying the mortgage on it, who have full medical paid for and continue to live in the lap of luxury that the 'husband' previously provided for them while married.
I'm not for any additional fees of taxes drummed up by NYS, but please let us stop victimizing all child support recipients!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Right here in New York state. Effective Oct. 1, a federally required annual service fee of $25 is being charged to the custodial parent who is receiving child support.
someone do the math here.......
if we cant get it together civily we are sunk.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
First published in print: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
I read the Nov 6 article, "$25 state fee squeezes millions from kids" with interest and I have to say an article like this was long overdue. Finally, someone sees the audacity of New York state's "new tax plan."
The goal is to find ways to lower property taxes, income taxes, etc... but increase fees. What's the difference?
Professionals have to be licensed in New York, and they are forced to pay these large fees to be relicensed every few years. While I understand the importance of having a professional be licensed, I do not think it is necessary to have such high fees to accomplish this.
Now, the state is coming after single parents. It won't stop there. Everyone who sees a decrease in their taxes will see an increase in fees. Anyone who does not pay taxes, but receives benefits from the state will see fees for these benefits.
In the end, it means more payments to the government, more spending, no accountability, and no decrease in wasteful spending
liars liars liars,,,,cheats cheats cheats.......the elephant in the room needs to be taken down......and the monkey on our back needs to be murdered....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
