Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Miss, you argue well with someone with whom you almost agree. We do agree, if they are out there making any money at all they should be paying, otherwise they are a douchebag and should be locked up. But I came here to argue, and I don't mean that in a bad way.
The question seems to have become - just what is fair ? The major factor here is that those kids need to eat every day. I'll stipulate to that and suspect that you'll stipulate that the current system is not working right, unless you take the point of view of the government. First of all there is always that processing fee, and then there are always fines and court costs. THEY are taking food out of these kids' mouths. THEY are destroting people's earning power. THEY are causing more problems than they solve, well maybe, but they do that all the time.
So what is fair ? Let's take the case of a couple sans all the bullshit, running up the utilities, selling his tools and all that. Under normal conditions just how would this be fair. The kids have to eat, but they don't have to eat filet mignon every day. However the non custodial Parent now has to pay rent and a whole nother set of bills. I almost wanted to say something to the effect that maybe it should depend on which screwed up, why the split up. However basing this on that factor is tantamount to punishing the kids for the actions of one or the other Parent, and I think we can agree that this would be wrong.
Ideally they should not split up, those kids do the best with two Parents in the home. Now their life is fucked up and then now ? they don't get fed either ? That is no option of course. As I said I would not allow the breakup in the first place, but that is me. Some people are different, some simply cannot commit to that level, to stay, even with someone they hate for the sake of the kids.
But the reality is that the breakup creates another set of bills and that money also has to come from somewhere. I used anecdotal examples of a few people who are not all that employable in the first place. (as if I am LOL) But someone who works in certain professions must have nice clothes, be clean and spiffy every day, and might even be REQUIRED to have a decent car, not just a beater. Those involved in sales for example. Seemingly frivolous, but necessary expenses for some.
How could this be made fair ? Say 35% of take home pay ? OK but then there must be some other factors. The non custodial Parent, if paying should get a deduction, which would increase take home pay. Similarly if there is personal retirement being dedected that only the one gets, that should be excluded unless the kids get a cut. Health insurance deductions should be included if it covers the kids. I mean, all this sounds reasonable to me.
And then, I still maintain that if she just fell out of love I would say she needs a fucking job. If he fell out of love that is a different story. But still, that lessens the priority number one, which is to support the kids.
Damn I got BIG cans of worms sometimes. But even if there is no breakup, if one Parent doesn't or can't work, it seems not to be an issue.
I don't expect the government to ever figure out such a complex issue. My main point was that they have such a propensity to destroy people it is as if it is on purpose.
Similarly, they should do away with food stamps. If a custodial Parent gets a check and it is found that the kids are not properly cared for, JAIL, just like a non custodial Parent. What's more they can't even figure out how to stop people from buying drugs e.g. with food stamps. The fact that food stamps even exist is indicative of this mess being the fault of the people, not the government. In fact the government did not make them fuck and make a baby they can't take care of anyway. But what I am saying is that their best solutions to the problem are still counterproductive and I think that should change.
Now don't even read on until you are done with the business for the day because your mind might go into a tailspin.
Two homeless people, without two nickels to rub together fuck and make a baby. Who pays then, the taxpayer ? Just what we need.
Now I seem to support requiring some sort of license to have a kid, but I would never do that. Is there simply no solution ?
T
|
RE: Child support - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread