Do you think that making Alimony a thing of the past, and having BOTH parents pay child support to the state,?

Question

and a system being used to re emburse the parent based on time at house and reciepts, would effect divorce rates?

Not wanting to hand over rights to state, but make both parent equally responsable.

And to make both parents work and support the kids.

Meg, you said it all. And Yes, it would be a mess if the state got involved even more.

It would be better if parents just took care of their kids, but, the ones who think more of their lifestyle and paychecks than their kids out number the ones who do without for their kids is about 95%

Answer 1

Child support can be a tricky thing. Often, things seem unfair to one party or the other so I understand the reasoning behind your question. The problem is that this new system would have high administrative costs and the same laws that make the system unfair now would still possible impact the reimbursement.
I think that the legal system should do some serious self examination and remove gender bias and enact laws that are based on some sound, common sense.

Answer 2

Absolutely not. In mot state in the US it is still a 50/50 diviidson of property. One person may get the house but in this case the other spouse has to "buy out" the other person. Alimony doesn't exist much anymore. If it does it is only for 2 years to let the "poor' spouse get some type of job training.

Child support is usually 28% of a persons pay. The more you earn the more you pay. The state usually only gets involved with a "deadbeat" parent who is not paying their child support and then they may have to pay directly to the state to transfer fund to the custodial parent.

The more the states get involved in this the more money the rest of us will pay. Someone has to pay to hire the staff to oversee this, the computers for the offices, the legal people to go after the parent,, office space and things like phones, electricity.

As it is most states have a hard enough time just protecting abused children and not have to run around getting child support.

The whole system changes for the rich. Many times the mom is a stay at ome mom, dad makes lots of money and then the 50/50 rule doesn't apply, the alioney doesn't apply (the wife usually gets a good chunk of change) and the amt. for child support changes.

Answer 3

I think that nobody should have to pay alimony. That should be a thing of the past. I didn't get alimony. Both parents should not have to pay child support. I don't understand what u r trying to say about the receipts. No I do not beleive anything could stop the divorce rate.

Answer 4

Alimony is not for child support. Alimony is for upkeep and maintenance of what one spouse has become accustomed to made so by the other working spouse. Child support is what you are questioning and should be payable to the parent providing primary care to the children involved while in their care. And if there is a problem in collecting child support from a person, the state should have a demand collection account to funnel the funds to the proper parent based on court orders.

Answer 5

Alimony is a ex-spousal support. Child support is for the child. Two different things.

I think the state needs to stay out of the business of child support. It's the responsibility of the parents. If the parents don't support the child(ren), then punish the parent(s).

Answer 6

Yes very good idea charge the hell out of them if there going to use the system .Why should only one pay man or woman they had the kid together so why not pay together . I don't know if it would effect divorce rate but it would effect child abandonment

Answer 7

Again, We live in a free country.

Answer 8

-I think anything that takes away the rights of family and hands it over to the government is just adding fuel to the fire and a stupid idea!!!!

Answer 9

UMM LIKE NO