2006-09-06 03:44:05 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
bet your as* they would leave no stones unturned
2006-09-06 03:50:32 · answer #1 · answered by aldo 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe it might encourage some states to be more aggressive in helping to collect child support, but at the same time, it would be unfair to other residents who pay taxes in the state, because state funding would have to be used to make up for the difference until the child support was collected. And ultimately, there would be some deadbeats who were uncollectible. They would probably be prosecuted and put in jail, but then we'd just be supporting them and their kids.
It's an unfortunate problem, but there's not really a great solution to it.
2006-09-06 10:53:55 · answer #2 · answered by JenV 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's a lot of factors in this question. Does your ex work? Does he make enough to pay your child support with the necessary net remaining? You can't garnish wages that don't exist. This problem is really between you and your ex. I don't think the taxpayers should be responsible for that.
2006-09-06 11:03:30 · answer #3 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, probably. That doesn't mean that they SHOULD pay child support instead of the legal parent. Besides, they do an awful lot as it is, they're just very overloaded.
2006-09-06 12:14:05 · answer #4 · answered by Milana P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would cost them too much to hire people to track down the deadbeats=== and --pay the child support. We all would end up paying more taxes.
2006-09-06 11:06:43 · answer #5 · answered by chriskaren.jordan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe, you should close your legs and get a job.
2006-09-06 10:47:06 · answer #6 · answered by neil r 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋