child support

Mielle said:
Ok well with that then you raise even more issues in and around who is "deserving" and who is not. So it's the universality Vs Selectivity quagmire.

Who would you have decide if one person is more deserving than another?
Click to expand...

Those who are deserving are those in a position of need, who are temporarily in a bad place ecnomically and need help so they and their child won't be homeless or hungry. If after a few months they're unable to a job, I don't see why they should treat the custodial parent any different than the noncustodial.
The non custodial they'll throw in jail for not being able to find a job in this time.

Now I don't know about you, but if I was a single parent unable to find a job, I'd rather be with my kid and getting cared for by the government than without my kid and thrown in jail.

The problem is they have the parents on opposite ends of the spectrum. One is cared for, and even compensation so that she can get some higher education, while the other you say, "GET A JOB NOW, OR GO TO JAIL!!!"

The system is supposedly for the best of the kid, but is it the only system that would serve a child well?
 
Fire
Technically you didn't really answer the question but I will let that pass.

Your system is unfair I actually never said it wasn't.

No, they arent throwing them in jail for not having a job they are throwing them in jail for not paying child support. Now, this is an unfortunate thing because what they ought to be doing is providing programs and employment initiatives so non custodial parents are more able to pay their share of supporting a child. having said that they might already have those programs over there.

"....If after a few months they're unable to a job, I don't see why they should treat the custodial parent any different than the noncustodial."

It is in the govts best interests to have children cared for by their parent/s because ultimately its cheaper on the govts purse. Your forgetting that the custodial parent is the one caring for the child/ren on a day to day basis, slap them in jail - who then does the caring?
For some reason caring for children is not given an economic dollar value and that makes it easy for debates like this.

What you saying or at least what it looks like is ; Custodial parents should be in paid work, ESPECIALLY if they are single parents. Lets see now, so custodial parents get to work full time, be parents full time somehow balancing it all so that the children are well nurtured and cared for. The Non Custodial parent does what? Oh right yes I remember they just do their paid work and contribute 30 %. That just doesnt seem to be a very even sharing of responsibilities.
 
It doesn't have to be all one way or the other, simply counting child support as a form of income, considering that welfare already compensates for children would remove the monetary incentive produced by the government to have children to increase support while at the same time leaving single mothers capable of balancing work and children.

The issue being, you equate parenthood as if it's a job, many responsible people either don't have children or only as many as they can afford. It's common sense. It's nobody's right to tell someone if they can have kids or not, but then it's nobody right to tell me that I have to pay for that kid.

If you can't afford to raise kids, you shouldn't be having them. If you go ahead and do it anyway, well then, guess what, it's your responsibility to live with the hard work you've created for yourself, not your government's! You make bad choices, you have to suffer, that's life! I don't see how someone can put all the responsibility on the father because he had sex while making the mother's responsibility all of the taxpayer's.
 
What you saying or at least what it looks like is ; Custodial parents should be in paid work, ESPECIALLY if they are single parents. Lets see now, so custodial parents get to work full time, be parents full time somehow balancing it all so that the children are well nurtured and cared for. The Non Custodial parent does what? Oh right yes I remember they just do their paid work and contribute 30 %. That just doesnt seem to be a very even sharing of responsibilities.
Click to expand...

you have to remember that if the custodial parent decides to take care of a child 24/7, it was their own choice to do so. that would be considered sole custody in my eyes. its not equal custody if one parent has the child for 24 hours a day 7 days a week. that kind of excuse is used by a majority of women as a way to get pity. i dont pity the ones that say that shit. they know exactly how they can resolve that issue.
if your not sure exactly how they could resolve it, maybe they need to look to the other parent to allow them what they are owed by allowing time with their child
 
Firestreak said:
It doesn't have to be all one way or the other, simply counting child support as a form of income, considering that welfare already compensates for children would remove the monetary incentive produced by the government to have children to increase support while at the same time leaving single mothers capable of balancing work and children.

The issue being, you equate parenthood as if it's a job, many responsible people either don't have children or only as many as they can afford. It's common sense. It's nobody's right to tell someone if they can have kids or not, but then it's nobody right to tell me that I have to pay for that kid.

If you can't afford to raise kids, you shouldn't be having them. If you go ahead and do it anyway, well then, guess what, it's your responsibility to live with the hard work you've created for yourself, not your government's! You make bad choices, you have to suffer, that's life! I don't see how someone can put all the responsibility on the father because he had sex while making the mother's responsibility all of the taxpayer's.
Click to expand...


Ok let me see if I can put this as simply as possible. People do not always choose the hand that life deals them. Have just a bit of a think about what you are saying. Most people assume when they are with someone they will be with them forever, raise children together etc. I doubt anyone actually understands the reality of having children and the emotional and economic cost until they do. You seem to be approaching this issue as thought it was a cut and dried issue.

Are you sure your country doesn't count child support as income when they factor the amount of income support that they are going to provide the custodial parent with? Our system does take that into account so in the end whatever child support you get is subtracted from the total of the govt payment you would recieve. You also here haven't explained how the balance between work and home is to be acheived.

Having a partner die isnt a choice.... having a partner decide they no longer wish to be with you is not a choice you made, having a partner that develops a mental illness and can no longer be a safe parent isnt a choice. Being a single parent is often not something one chooses.

All the responsibility is on the father ?? That I am afraid is not even making sense. It's been fairly clear throughout, that the dollar value of their responsibility for the child they assisted in creating is 30 %. As Kat stated that doesn't come anywhere near the total cost of raising children to adulthood. Again, I can't speak for your country but I still find it extremely hard to see where the monetry incentive is in having children.


Those children that you don't want to put a minute amount of your taxes towards are the ones that will be supporting you and your community in your old age my dear so give that some thought and while your at it do some homework on how much of your "personal" taxes get spent on the welfare dollar then break that welfare dollar down and see where its all going. Also research global aging as opposed to potential workers. By the way unless you can predict what the rest of your life is going to be like, better not have any kids because just maybe 20 years from now you "might not" be able to afford them.
 
All the responsibility is on the father ?? That I am afraid is not even making sense. It's been fairly clear throughout, that the dollar value of their responsibility for the child they assisted in creating is 30 %. As Kat stated that doesn't come anywhere near the total cost of raising children to adulthood.
Click to expand...

this is where i start having a problem. 30 percent is alot when you look at it. 30% to support only the child is an enormous amount of money. the reason why it doesnt seem so is because mothers think that 30% is for them. 30% to support a mother isnt shit. but we all know thats not what support is there for right?
lets analyze this a little...my support payments are about 250 bucks roughly. you mean to tell me to feed a child on 250 a month is impossible or even hard for that matter? i use less than that feeding myself.
the reason why it doesn seem like alot is because it cant support BOTH the mother and child. the mother wants to be able to pay bills with it too. well guess what...NO. that is not the reason why i pay support. child or no child, the mother would have to pay for a place to live, im not paying for that place to live for that person. before you overreact and call bs on that, think logically about that for a second.... if 2 people are married, they get divorced, is one person going to look to the other to pay for the living arrangements? no. thats the reason why most mothers bitch about not having enough child support.
250 bucks which is about 30% of 10 bucks an hour, is more than enough for a child to live off of. there is no need for a kid to have designer clothes and have the top shelf type food. you can get good clothes from walmart cheap, hell, salvation army for that matter. and store brand food.

before you make a rebuttle to this, think about this for a second. if your a 7 year old kid, would 250 bucks be able to feed you for a month? as a 28 year old man, 250 bucks could support me for near 2 months when it comes to food. and i dont wanna hear this bullshit about a mother needing to provide a place to live. because regardless of a child or not, the mother would need a place to live anyhow. so, if you have to rely on child support to help pay rent, well your just looking at child support as a way to live free.
 
Sorry Master, when you break your 256.00 per month that's $3072.00 per year. Break that down into 52 weeks per year. That's 59.08 per week. Steve and I spend $150.00 per week on groceries for the 2 of us. I am saying this honestly. If you don't think that there isn't more than $3072.00 per year being spent on your son, then you're a fool. You are not even covering one perscription for your child with that payment. You are not even covering one book fee for your child with that payment. You are not even covering any school tuition with that payment, and we're talking public school. Let alone hot lunches, school trips etc. You are not even paying for 1 doctor visit with that payment. You are not even covering one piece of clothing for that payment. You are not even covering 1 pen from purchasing school supplies with that payment. Need I go on?

Are you starting to get it now? $3072.00 per YEAR is not squat when it comes to raising a child full time. Furthermore, depending of the type of custody which is decided at the time of divorce, it's usually a LOT less than 30%. Lastly, most non-custodial parents BLOW these obligations off. That's why there are the strict laws. Again, if you cannot even pay (you being in general, and not 'you' specifically), a portion of your childs care per year, then you deserve every thing the state throws at you.
 
One more question Master. Who's claiming your son on their income taxes every year? I'm assuming since your wife is living off the state and therefore has no income to claim that would be you correct?
 
You are not even covering one perscription for your child with that payment. You are not even covering one book fee for your child with that payment. You are not even covering any school tuition with that payment, and we're talking public school. Let alone hot lunches, school trips etc. You are not even paying for 1 doctor visit with that payment. You are not even covering one piece of clothing for that payment. You are not even covering 1 pen from purchasing school supplies with that payment. Need I go on?
Click to expand...

your way out of the loop on the knowledge of this.

first off....there is a reason why you have to have medical insurance on the child during child support. void your answer number 1

second...no book fees and/or tuition for low income families..this also includes lunches. lunches are free for low income families....void your answer 2

third....clothes....hmm, well unless a kid gets clothes every month, you can void that answer too.

kat, just stop. you are not able to validate anything for the female gender. my mother did just fine WITHOUT child support. and that was with 4 kids and she made just over min wage. i really have stopped listening to your points because it has gone to nothing except trying to validate a reason for a woman to mooch off of the state and the ex.

last thing i wanna say is....150 for 2 ADULTS. factor in also during school, lunch is FREE. kids normally dont eat breakfast, however, when they do, some schools have free breakfast as well. so, try to make another excuse how a child cannot live off of 250 a month. OH WAIT, thats right. women would rather take 50-75% of the exs money to justify something. fuckin leeches.
think about kat. i guarantee i can make a financial plan that could cover expenditures for a kid for a month, let alone a year. and last time i looked, it wasnt only the male that is supposed to provide food and clothes. but i bet you forgot that its a joint venture. THIS IS MY NUMBER ONE POINT. IM BOLDING IT SO I MAKE SURE YOU SEE IT. CHILD SUPPORT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE NON CUSTODIAL TO PLAY ITS ROLE IN THE LIFE OF A CHILD. CS IS NOT MEANT TO BE THE OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR ALL OF THE SUPPORT. LIKE IT OR NOT, YOU KNOW THAT TO BE THE TRUTH. SO DONT FEED THESE FUCKIN BS STORIES...."OH PITY US WOMEN FOR THEE HAVE IT HARDER THAN THOU".....I DO NOT CARE. MALES PAY RENT, CAR BILLS, UTILITIES, AND CS. WOMEN PAY RENT, CAR BILLS, UTILITIES, AND AND AND AND PAY THEIR SHARE FOR THE CHILD TOO. END OF THE FUCKIN STORY. GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF
 
Kat said:
One more question Master. Who's claiming your son on their income taxes every year? I'm assuming since your wife is living off the state and therefore has no income to claim that would be you correct?
Click to expand...
ya, and who will get the money back on that too?
 
masterorion said:
ya, and who will get the money back on that too?
Click to expand...
but actually, she does since she technically has an income
 
Ya know what. You are an idiot. You are talking about right now. There are 18 YEARS minimum of a child being raised. That's IF the child doesn't go to college.

You're right, you cannot argue with someone who is so blind. Again, I'm done. You're starting to sound like a total loser in my eyes Master, and I used to have a ton of respect for you.

Again, good luck. Hope you quit your whining and take care of what you need to.
 
ps. you obviously dont know a whole lot about CS since every statement you make has a flaw in it. the last flaw, err one of the last flaws that you stated was child support is decided at time of divorce....WRONG AGAIN. when child support was decided for me, it was seperation. not legal seperation, not divorce, just seperation.
 
Kat said:
Ya know what. You are an idiot. You are talking about right now. There are 18 YEARS minimum of a child being raised. That's IF the child doesn't go to college.

You're right, you cannot argue with someone who is so blind. Again, I'm done. You're starting to sound like a total loser in my eyes Master, and I used to have a ton of respect for you.

Again, good luck. Hope you quit your whining and take care of what you need to.
Click to expand...
kat, this isnt the 80s anymore. things have changed. you know very little about this. think about it. your expecting a male to pay all the bills. it doesnt work that way
 
There are 18 YEARS minimum of a child being raised. That's IF the child doesn't go to college.
Click to expand...
WHAT? i went to college out of high school. did i require my mom to care for me? no. this has no bearing on anything
 
There is an initial amount set at separation yes. But the final payment amount that is over the lifespan of the child being with the custodial parent is set at the time of divorce. That amount can be higher or lower depending on what the judge decides when he grants the divorce.

Again, that amount can be changed at any time due to job change, income change etc., while a child is being raised to age of 18 if they don't become a full time college student and age 21 if they do.
 
Kat said:
Ya know what. You are an idiot. You are talking about right now. There are 18 YEARS minimum of a child being raised. That's IF the child doesn't go to college.

You're right, you cannot argue with someone who is so blind. Again, I'm done. You're starting to sound like a total loser in my eyes Master, and I used to have a ton of respect for you.

Again, good luck. Hope you quit your whining and take care of what you need to.
Click to expand...

also, its your type of attitude that makes the ex dislike you. your out to get even. you expect the male to pay all of the childs needs. shit dont work that way. a child was created equally, and it should be paid for equally. the way you want it is one sided
 
masterorion said:
kat, this isnt the 80s anymore. things have changed. you know very little about this. think about it. your expecting a male to pay all the bills. it doesnt work that way
Click to expand...

NO, I am NOT saying they should pay all the bills you dumbass. I AM saying if they cannot even pay their portion, then throw their asses in jail!!! Take their DL, whatever it takes so they pay THEIR PORTION OF RAISING THEIR CHILD!!!

Grow up.
 
Kat said:
There is an initial amount set at separation yes. But the final payment amount that is over the lifespan of the child being with the custodial parent is set at the time of divorce. That amount can be higher or lower depending on what the judge decides when he grants the divorce.

Again, that amount can be changed at any time due to job change, income change etc., while a child is being raised to age of 18 if they don't become a full time college student and age 21 if they do.
Click to expand...
you are totally wrong. AGAIN the amount you pay will vary based on the amount of income. its not a god damn car. there is no pricetag on it. and no, there has nothing to do with divorce at all in CS. if there was, well people like your daughter would be sol when it comes to being paid. there are people in the world that have kids and arent married.
 
Kat said:
NO, I am NOT saying they should pay all the bills you dumbass. I AM saying if they cannot even pay their portion, then throw their asses in jail!!! Take their DL, whatever it takes so they pay THEIR PORTION OF RAISING THEIR CHILD!!!

Grow up.
Click to expand...
your a fuckin retard. how many times have i said that they need to pay their support. furthermore, in the last 24 hours, have i even mentioned jail, DL etc? NO. get a damn clue. get your head out of your ass and listen to yourself. the whole point of my post this morning was totally different than what you changed your story to now?
this morngin, my whole post has to do with the amount a man pays and what its supposed to be used for. go back and reread my post from this morning before you come back and feed bs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top