Politicians like to make noble claims about collecting Child support from Deadbeats Dads and use these figures for re-election campaigns.
Thuth is what they tell the public is false, so that everyone thinks a guy does not want to pay his $200/mth that anyone can easily afford.
The amounts collected are not based on income or an ability to pay the extortionate rates they set.
If Child support was reasonable, why are they trying to cover it up?
The numbers just don't add up!
http://pueblonative.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/a-mathetmatical-approach-to-dead-beats/#comment-14
2006-12-31 08:45:25 · 10 answers · asked by government slave 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I can only assume that most of the people answering this question have no experience with the Child Support System other than what they are fed by the polititians.
The idea that Child Support is based on a percentage of a person's income is a mix of a fantasy story and a half truth. Check this out....
The amount that is ordered to pay is a FIXED amount, set by a hearing master (not an elected judge), based on what he THINKS you MIGHT be able to make, behind a closed door (no juries or anything to check him out). It doesn't end there. He can tack on other things too, such as payment of health care, education, and special needs.
So, if you WERE making a certain amount one day, and as a result, you are ordered to pay $1400 and then the contract for that job ends, what happens? If you think it is automatically reduced, or there is a system in place for that, you are talking in ignorance.
The now jobless chap now has to pay an attorney (as if he could now afford one), wait several months for a court date, and ask the judge to lower payments. There is about a 10% chance this will happen. In the mean time, payments add up and the chap can be thrown in jail for non-payment. The amount owed during the unemployment period is NOT reduceable. He's stuck with it.
I know of many individuals who have been ordered to pay MORE than what they make. Since federal credit guidelines will not allow deduction of a paycheck over 55%, they put the rest in arrears where it collects interest and they have to continue paying (maybe their entire life) even after the child reaches of age.
On top of all this, courts are not even required to inform the non-custodial parent of a hearing taking place. As a result, a large amount of judgements are made by default without the NCP even knowing what happened. Then, several months down the line, he gets a nice little notice telling him they 'guessed' he made such and such an amount, and oh.. btw, we made a judgement against you while you were away.
The system of collecting child support is no longer one of requiring men to take responsibility for their offspring, as most people believe. The combination of “No fault” divorce and the new enforcement laws has created a system that pays mothers to divorce their husbands and remove children from their fathers. “By allowing a faithless wife to keep her children and a sizable portion of her former spouse’s income, current child-support laws have combined with no-fault jurisprudence to convert wedlock into a snare for many guiltless men.”
I suggest you all wake up and smell the coffee before you get stuck in the same trap as so many others.
You can survive the child support system and I can show you how. Post a message to the alt.child-support newsgroup asking about the Surviving Child Support document, and I'll send it to your posted email address.
2007-01-02 03:27:01 · answer #1 · answered by j70141 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do cons ever ask real questions that could be resolved through debate? Or, do they just disguise Obama bashing as questions? Such as: Isn't Obama the worst President ever? Can you believe how stupid Obama is? And, now Does Obama ever tell the truth? Similarly, you could see questions on Bush with the same effect: Was Bush the worst President in history? Why did Bush lie so much? My point is this is not a real question. It's a rant. Break it down to smaller points, cite examples of individual issues and start a debate. For example, you could say: Yesterday, Obama said X about issue Y. But, then he did something else. What was his motivation? Without making a point, your question is pointless. Sorry.
2016-05-23 01:04:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but it costs more than 200 dollars a month to raise a child. 200 dollars a month MIGHT cover groceries...don't forget healthcare, school, clothes...
I have a friend who automatically ups his child support when the cost of living goes up. He kills himself every month to pay. One year he was on disability, and he charged his card to the max paying child support.
Why are you griping, when it is all about the child?
By the way, I am the victim of a deadbeat loser biological. I have nothing to do with that jerkwad. He was only required to pay 50 dollars a month (back in the old days). And he didn't even attempt to do that. All of his children hate him. Thank goodness I have a wonderful step-father that I call Dad.
2006-12-31 09:03:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A quote from a song..."its cheaper to keep her.." Maybe it is a deterent to keep people from straying from their significant others. Paying that kind of child support, doesn't allow for a fresh start after cheating on your spouse. How about the divorced women and their children who never recieved a dime in child support? The politicians never address their problems. That woman is left without legal redress.
2006-12-31 09:28:22 · answer #4 · answered by Sassy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude, just send your ex-wife the check every month.
If people don't want to financially support their children, they shouldn't have them. And for the most part, child support guidelines ARE based on income. Judges don't have unfettered discretion in choosing how much support to award the child; they are limited by the law of the state.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/links.html
2006-12-31 08:59:02 · answer #5 · answered by dasvidas 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
People that don't have to write that $1200/mth check need to remember hwo you felt when yrou were being reamed on gas prices.
Nobody is saying fathers don't want to pay anything for their child, but we don't like being told by our governement that we need to spend 60% of all our money on a child.
According to the government, the man shoudl pay for everything, what does the mother pay for? She made the kid too and shoudl be just as responcible and share equaly!!!!!!
2006-12-31 09:09:48 · answer #6 · answered by DB 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's your child. He needs to eat every day. He needs clothes, a roof over his head, utilities, medical costs and an education. You should have thought about that before you had unprotected sex.
2006-12-31 09:00:17 · answer #7 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Child support isn't about doing what's right for the father, its about doing what's right for the kids.
If you don't want to pay child support, you better keep wearing your raincoat in shower.
2006-12-31 08:55:48 · answer #8 · answered by Catspaw 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In general, they promise things that will make you vote for them. Then when they get into office, reality sets in, whether the reality of politics or the impracticality of their promises, and they are unable to deliver on their stated goals.
2006-12-31 10:00:43 · answer #9 · answered by kart_125cc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They like to keep families together perhaps?
2006-12-31 08:52:52 · answer #10 · answered by Jimmy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋