Wednesday's Dr. Phil

[lrjohnson]

Originally Posted by tinapbeana

it's like a horrible catch 22, isn't it? thre's debt that's worthwhile, or expected, or what-have-you, but at the same time you frequently have to have credit to get credit for those worthwhile items. a lot of lenders feel a record with no open credit is only slightly less risky than a record with a spotted history.

Well, I'm trying to play both sides a little. I do have a credit card; I just don't owe anything on it. I routinely charge on it and pay it off immediately. I have a pretty decent credit score. And I may end up with a mortgage. The only reason I don't already have one is the whole California real estate thing.

For years I was all cash all the time and had no credit; I know how that works. No debt, but no credit history.

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by lrjohnson

Well, I'm trying to play both sides a little. I do have a credit card; I just don't owe anything on it. I routinely charge on it and pay it off immediately. I have a pretty decent credit score. And I may end up with a mortgage. The only reason I don't already have one is the whole California real estate thing.

I'm trying to get to the point where I can do the same thing w/ my CC, except it will be my elec & cell phone bills that get charged every month. That'll keep it well below the 35% balance at all times. debating about epaying the CC half the balance the 1st and 15th of every month, which will pay the expenses in full every month, but make it look like I'm carrying a 'healthy' balance on paper.

As for the CA housing market... AAAACK!!! I can't imagine. Watched an episode of 'Flip that House' where they were selling a house in Watts. 3BR/2BA 1200 sf (which here is small for that # BRs). They made a point to mention that half the pop. were at or below the gov't poverty level & they reno houses to give something to the community, then they turn around and list the house for 400k!!! I guess they're giving the community higher property values, just not the ability to buy a house.

[Broken Arrow]

Originally Posted by poundwise

Also, the guy who wasn't paying child support made some good points. He was still in the wrong and was using his logic, in part, to avoid his duty. However, child support should go to the child(ren); it's not alimony.

What were his logics for not paying child support?

[Diolla]

Originally Posted by Broken Arrow

What were his logics for not paying child support?

Wasn't sure the money was being spent on HIS kid. Sorry but that is so totally bogus. He was also whining that it was too much based on what he makes now as opposed to when it was set. He can't afford to pay that much then at least pay SOMETHING. He helped make a baby, either take the kid and raise it or help pay for it. My heart goes out to those kids having parents like that.

BTW-I get child support and my kid came home after hearing Dad whine about it. We sat down and did a budget for all his expenses and found out I pay approximately twice what Dad pays I just don't write a check every month. I don't however separate the Child Support from any other money and make sure I spend it ONLY on the kid. I am lucky in that Dad is usually ready to help out with clothes and stuff when DS needs it and always pays his child support each month as agreed.

[boefixepa]

Child support is a catch 22. The father (usually the one paying) thinks the money should go for his kids. Well kids need to get to places, (car) kids need water, electricity, housing, food, etc...etc..etc.. So I don't buy into the line that the $$ is being used for 'bills' the ex creates. Um... granted she can take it to far, but the one paying is not at liberty to say HOW the money is spent! It's not like the one getting it can just tuck it away for college! They need that money to keep the household floating most of the time. That father was in the wrong, but the mom had issues too....and guess what...we ALL have our issues. And boy can it complicated when ex's are involved!