Blake Griffin Ordered To Pay Baby Mama $258K A Month In Child Support

$300k a month...man, he could have 3000 p*rn stars a month for that price for the next 18 years.

WOW.

 

On the one hand, athletes make such an obscene, disgusting amount of money that this barely moves the needle for him and he will never feel it if he has even a partially competent investment advisor.

But on the other hand, someone needs over 60x times the median US salary for the support of two kids? Nah. There's a sense of entitlement there that irritates me, even if Griffin is the biggest douche.

And thirdly, people running around having kids for fun is the root of so many socioeconomic problems, not just in the USA but in the world.

Happy Thursday everyone. lol.

 

lmao. well said.

 

What is BJ Armstrong, Blake's lawyer?

Trump just changed the tax rules on that.

 

I agree about the trust fund. The woman is obviously going to live a lavish life style, but the money should be for the kid. I'm sure a percentage of that money should go for basic necessities and entertainment for the kid, plus paying any house bills and such, but the rest should be put in a trust fund. The kid deserves the same lifestyle as his dad, even if he grows up being spoiled, since his dad should provide for him as if they were living together.

 

How much does Tilmann pay for child support?

 

and she'll make $36 million before the kid is 18!

If I'm Blake I ask the chick if she'll take $15 mil cash

 

**** that. No one is entitled to half of you worth just because you don't want to be with them anymore. That's worse than communism.

 

In Financial Trouble.

 

BREAKING: Baby mama signs $56m / 15yr contract.

I’ts probably double taxed - this is America we’re talking about. I wouldn’t be surprised if both of them get taxed on it.

 

The woman obviously knows her rights.

 

Without the worry of getting cut. And shell have a longer career making vet min than any fringe player ever.

I want to say shes a little smarter than J Smoove and knows how to manage her funds a tad bit better.

 

Seems odd that there's not a cap. Like anything over 50,000 a year seems ridiculous. That's a whole salary.

 

20%?? Probably 5%. What on earth do the kids need that is $50k a month (the 20%), much less $250k/month)? I don't think it would even be possible to spend it on them. Classic example of how messed up the system is.


It might be fun, though, to brainstorm what one could actually spend that money on, for their kids. CF...have at it!

I'll start: Official custom built Rolls Royce kiddie cars? Gold plated child seats? Diamond studded bibs?

You know, the things no child can do without.

 

There usually is, and in most places its $2k/mo/child. California notoriously doesn't have these restrictions, and I would imagine they get adjusted for really rich divorces.

Without the cap, the child support is usually 20% of salary for the first child, and then like an additional 6% or so for each additional child. It would seem that's about right where it landed, indicating no cap was applied.

The formula shows how messed up the system is. If the original 20% was actually justified, why does it only go up a few percent for additional children?

 

ROFLMAO! How do you give 50 likes to the same post!

And might qualify as the least politically correct post of the year, given the current #MeToo movement everywhere! So...more likes!

 

Unless she makes a solid living, she is getting half your stuff if you are married.