child support

That's also some bad logic.

"IF you can prove to a judge that you can provide for your son better, then you take it to court. BUT, you yourself have said that you are within $100 of being homeless. How in the hell can you take care of your child then with the added cost of having him fulltime?"

He's within 100 dollars of being homeless because he's supporting his child. Masterorion does not = Mitch. Within the welfare, alamony and child support, being that Masterorion work and his ex does not, who would be able to prodivde for his son better?

The system creates the problem of making him poor and then the system uses the problem to keep him that way.
 
And in mine, and Kiere's case for example, we work our asses off for our babies while the men get away with stuff. I still hold to my original comment, IF it wasn't abused by the non-custodial parent in the first place, the laws wouldn't have gotten harsher.

IF you don't like the way it is as the non-custodial parent, then shit or get off the pot and do what you can on your part to change it.

Quit bitching about it and do something. The bottom line still remains, there is a child involved and both parents need to care for said child. If one parent is abusing the way the money is being spent then you get the proof you need to show that, and take it to court.
 
Kat said:
Whatever. It sounds to me like you are jealous cuz your ex sits on her ass all day and gets state aid. I'm sorry, but who the fuck cares. I know it's not right, but she's getting away with it.
Click to expand...

Well I am not in this situation, but I care alot. Where is that welfare money comming from. If it has to partially come out of my pockets, I'd like to know I'm not supporting a family just because someone is too "Busy" to look for a job. I'd rather my money replace/guarantee a child support check gets paid.

If mom doesn't find a job and isn't able to support the children without aid from the state, then she is no better off than dad. But dad goes to jail when he can't afford it, and mom gets a welfare check. Sorry, but thats fucked up. Mom can't pay he half? Toss the bitch in jail. There's your equality.
 
Anyway, I'm done guys. I know what my brother has gone thru and he provides for BOTH his daughters. I won't go into Jimmy's specifics, but let's say he is getting the shaft big time. Thing is, he cares more about his children's welfare than how he's being screwed over.

In my own case, I cared more about Heather having a healthy upbring than the money. If she needed something, I did what it took for her to have it.

Y'all can keep discussing this, but bottom line is, the system was made the way it is for a reason. I was goin' thru this crap at the beginning when they used to have private businesses who went after deadbeat dads. That was around 20 years ago. Then the laws changed. When those laws changed, men finally had to start paying up, or they would suffer the consequences. I still agree with it 100% and you won't change my mind.
 
Kat said:
Anyway, I'm done guys...I still agree with it 100% and you won't change my mind.
Click to expand...

Because congress couldn't possibly have missed the mark and gone overboard.

I guess all that matters is the good intentions, just forget about the unfairness that has resulted.
 
Kat said:
Anyway, I'm done guys. I know what my brother has gone thru and he provides for BOTH his daughters. I won't go into Jimmy's specifics, but let's say he is getting the shaft big time. Thing is, he cares more about his children's welfare than how he's being screwed over.

In my own case, I cared more about Heather having a healthy upbring than the money. If she needed something, I did what it took for her to have it.

Y'all can keep discussing this, but bottom line is, the system was made the way it is for a reason. I was goin' thru this crap at the beginning when they used to have private businesses who went after deadbeat dads. That was around 20 years ago. Then the laws changed. When those laws changed, men finally had to start paying up, or they would suffer the consequences. I still agree with it 100% and you won't change my mind.
Click to expand...

You don't think a system can be put in place that cracks down on deadbeat dads without allowing itself to be abused by deadbeat moms? Nobody is supporting skipping out on your child, moreso advocating a more intelligent system that doesn't make popping out kids a get out of work free card for women who UNLIKE YOU would abuse the system.

Just as the old system allowed deadbeat dads to get away with it, this newer system allows deadbeat moms. Isn't there a middle ground? Shouldn't we punish all deadbeats of all genders?
 
Kat said:
And in mine, and Kiere's case for example, we work our asses off for our babies while the men get away with stuff. I still hold to my original comment, IF it wasn't abused by the non-custodial parent in the first place, the laws wouldn't have gotten harsher.

IF you don't like the way it is as the non-custodial parent, then shit or get off the pot and do what you can on your part to change it.

Quit bitching about it and do something. The bottom line still remains, there is a child involved and both parents need to care for said child. If one parent is abusing the way the money is being spent then you get the proof you need to show that, and take it to court.
Click to expand...

yes yes yes. we all believe that you do work your asses off. and your argument is that your ex spouse doesnt. now turn that around and make yourself the non custodial parent but your still working your ass off while your ex spouse is doing nothing. your still going to be as bitter to him as you are with the situation now.
 
I think a fair solution is that a person on child support shouldn't be eligable to get welfare for more than 6 months after divorce.

This is because of the incentive structure. As child support isn't counted as income, if women get a job they lose their welfare check, so the only way to increase their income is to have more children. With welfare and child support you can survive. The idea behind giving mothers all that extra welfare is to provide for the kids. But it as a result gives less incentive to go out and get a job.

As Kat said, and I agree, there's no excuse to not be able to provide for your children, that equates to women as well. They can scrub toilets, or make Big Macs, or wait tables. If the state is so concerned she's unable and the kid is goin to starve to death, give the father custody, give it to a foster home.

Afterall, should the government encourage women to reproduce for monetary purposes?
 
granted, im only required to pay 256 a month, but i know of someone that is required to pay 600-800. thats alot of god damn money.

one thing i ask for is equality. im not making reason for why people shouldnt pay their support. because they should be held accountable. at the same time, it is no different of a standard for the custodial parent.

the word custodial and non custodial are being taken to literally. these terms are nothing except to determine who has absolute right over the child for making the decisions concerning that child. let us throw these terms out the window for a second and use man and woman. if the custody is split even between the man and woman to the point where the man gets the kid 6 months of the year and the woman gets it the other half(hypothetically). if this is the situation, whos required to pay? it wouldnt be the person that is housing the child, thats for sure.

lets delve a little deeper. lets ignore the child factor for a second. 2 people get divorced and they each live on their own. its common sense that if they are on even terms as far as income goes, one side isnt required to pay to house the other person. each person has to support themself. now, lets put the child back in. because of this example, the housing is already paid for, so now the one side cant use the "i have to pay for housing for your child" excuse because you would have to pay for housing regardless if you had the child or not. then you have food, well, thats where the CS comes in. now if the custodial blows that money, they have no excuse for saying they are hungry. but you know, there are no repercussion for those custodial parents taht do blow the money that is meant for the child. issue is, the state doesnt do anything about it. in florida, the state is the one that sends the money. the state should be worrying about where the money goes also. if they enforced that as much as they enforce the original payer to pay(not saying that the state wont do anything to deadbeat moms), they need to enforce it equally to the custodial.
 
i dont know about all states, but florida does count support as income. i think
dont quote me on that, but i think i have had my ex tell me that she wasnt eligible for something because she made too much? even if that were so, how is the income of 256 bucks a month too much? that doesnt make sense. i believe it may have been for food stamps?
 
masterorion said:
i dont know about all states, but florida does count support as income. i think
dont quote me on that, but i think i have had my ex tell me that she wasnt eligible for something because she made too much? even if that were so, how is the income of 256 bucks a month too much? that doesnt make sense. i believe it may have been for food stamps?
Click to expand...

nonono,. it was for medicade. thats right. thats what it was. its probably because i have insurance.
 
Y'all can keep discussing this, but bottom line is, the system was made the way it is for a reason.
Click to expand...
your right. it was made for a reason. but not all systems are set in stone. it is possible to make relevant changes to something that needs to be upgraded.
 
One last thing. That is why there is the thing called, Sole custody, Full custody, and Joint custody. Needless to say, if you get sole custody such as I did, then the non-custodial parent has to pay child I believe 30% of your gross income in support. If you fight for joint custody then there is no child support. Full custody I believe is where the non-custodial parent pays the child support, but it isn't as much as 30% of the gross income. Also I believe the non-custodial parent doesn't have to pay for health insurance etc. Again, the laws have probably changed a lot in the last 19 years so I'm goin' off what it was like in 1987.

Anyway, for those of you out there who are complaining about the way the system is set up, then you need to get your divorce decrees changed as far as the term 'custody' goes, and go for joint. If you want to share the responsibilty, then you should've fought harder in the first place. Again, I know of too many fathers out there who just abandoned their wives and children. I know too many fathers out there who then got remarried and put either the step children before their own blood or had children with their second wives and blew off their responsibilities. Now, 19 years later, there are these new laws, and people are whining.

Here's my question: Why did it have to get so bad in the first place to enforce these new laws? We parents of the past had to fight to make the non-custodial parent help pay for their children. Now it's up to you to turn the tables and prove you're worthy of these laws being lessened.

And now I'm truly done.
 
Kat said:
One last thing. That is why there is the thing called, Sole custody, Full custody, and Joint custody. Needless to say, if you get sole custody such as I did, then the non-custodial parent has to pay child I believe 30% of your gross income in support. If you fight for joint custody then there is no child support. Full custody I believe is where the non-custodial parent pays the child support, but it isn't as much as 30% of the gross income. Also I believe the non-custodial parent doesn't have to pay for health insurance etc. Again, the laws have probably changed a lot in the last 19 years so I'm goin' off what it was like in 1987.

Anyway, for those of you out there who are complaining about the way the system is set up, then you need to get your divorce decrees changed as far as the term 'custody' goes, and go for joint. If you want to share the responsibilty, then you should've fought harder in the first place. Again, I know of too many fathers out there who just abandoned their wives and children. I know too many fathers out there who then got remarried and put either the step children before their own blood or had children with their second wives and blew off their responsibilities. Now, 19 years later, there are these new laws, and people are whining.

Here's my question: Why did it have to get so bad in the first place to enforce these new laws? We parents of the past had to fight to make the non-custodial parent help pay for their children. Now it's up to you to turn the tables and prove you're worthy of these laws being lessened.

And now I'm truly done.
Click to expand...

divorce decrees wont always work. not all people that pay support are divorced
 
Kat said:
One last thing. That is why there is the thing called, Sole custody, Full custody, and Joint custody. Needless to say, if you get sole custody such as I did, then the non-custodial parent has to pay child I believe 30% of your gross income in support. If you fight for joint custody then there is no child support. Full custody I believe is where the non-custodial parent pays the child support, but it isn't as much as 30% of the gross income. Also I believe the non-custodial parent doesn't have to pay for health insurance etc. Again, the laws have probably changed a lot in the last 19 years so I'm goin' off what it was like in 1987.

Anyway, for those of you out there who are complaining about the way the system is set up, then you need to get your divorce decrees changed as far as the term 'custody' goes, and go for joint. If you want to share the responsibilty, then you should've fought harder in the first place. Again, I know of too many fathers out there who just abandoned their wives and children. I know too many fathers out there who then got remarried and put either the step children before their own blood or had children with their second wives and blew off their responsibilities. Now, 19 years later, there are these new laws, and people are whining.

Here's my question: Why did it have to get so bad in the first place to enforce these new laws? We parents of the past had to fight to make the non-custodial parent help pay for their children. Now it's up to you to turn the tables and prove you're worthy of these laws being lessened.

And now I'm truly done.
Click to expand...

Then those laws have drastically changed.

It's good the laws are helping mothers like YOU who work instead of just leech. The problem is there are women who will become mothers for the easy this new system provides.

Can't we cut these women off so that they don't ruin the system for all women, just as deadbeat men ruined the old system?
 
It is still a court ordered decision. It can still be reversed to a lessor amount or whatever. Whether is is thru marriage or just having a child, it is court ordered as far as 'custody' goes.

Again, excuses are like assholes, everyone has them. When it comes to the custody of the child, it is still sole, full, or joint, divorce decree or not. There are still legal papers as far as the child is concerned.
 
Kat said:
It is still a court ordered decision. It can still be reversed to a lessor amount or whatever. Whether is is thru marriage or just having a child, it is court ordered as far as 'custody' goes.

Again, excuses are like assholes, everyone has them. When it comes to the custody of the child, it is still sole, full, or joint, divorce decree or not. There are still legal papers as far as the child is concerned.
Click to expand...
but we also know that majority of the time, the system is prejudice against the male side
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top