Recommended Posts
Quote
Furthermore, there's no guarantee that money paid as child support is ever used for that purpose. The mother has total control to spend it as she wishes.
And why is support payments often set (and raised) based on the father's income, rather than the actual needs of the child?
QuoteQuote
Furthermore, there's no guarantee that money paid as child support is ever used for that purpose. The mother has total control to spend it as she wishes.
Well, not really.
If the mother is spending in such a way that the child is not receiving the value of the money, the court will look at that. Usually, however, the mother wishes the child to receive the benefit of the money and more.
It doesn't happen very often, but men fail to take into account that the support money is not just for buying extra toys. There's an increased housing expense, and a lot of other not quite so visible expenses for the care and upkeep of a child. Just because some men think "their" money should be spent on certain things doesn't mean that the money is ill-used when it is spent on what the child really needs.
Most mothers end up spending quite a bit more on their children than merely "their" share of the total child support allowance.QuoteAnd why is support payments often set (and raised) based on the father's income, rather than the actual needs of the child?
Because the child is entitled to a lifestyle reasonably similar to that which s/he would have enjoyed had his/her other parent remained in the home.
That's why.
We're now talking about another issue, btw, and quibbling over legitimate support orders (including all the running back and forth to court for increases and decreases, depending on which side one is on) is just infuriating.
Subsistence living for a child with one wealthy parent and one much poorer parent is not okay. And the natural order of things is that we want our kids to have it better than we did.
It's one thing to say that a man shouldn't be responsible when he was used as a sperm bank. It's another to get into all this other nonsense, because it is nonsense. In all other circumstances, children are entitled to the full support and care of both parents.
rl
P.S. to happythoughts: There are married men who get waylaid also. And there are single men who agree to pregnancies. A marriage license should not be the dividing line.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
rehmwa 2
QuoteI haven't noticed anyone clamoring for biological parents to pay child support for children they put up for adoption.
Abortion and adoption are both legal. No woman is ever (legally) forced into parenthood. You can't say the same for men.
oooh - good one
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteQuoteWell, if you wanna go into that, the condition of your brakes is what we call in law a "non-delegable duty." This means that it is YOUR ass that is liable to the owner of the parked car that you hit.
So, we see a nice analogy here:
"Your car - your responsibility"
"Your dick - your responsibility"
Thank you for making a nicer comparison.
It used to be legal that women were chattel property.
Slavery was quite legal. ( Yeah. Used to be, but not anymore, because it was decided that this was wrong.)
Was the law right then? Or is the law right now? (I'd say it is right now)
So, the law isn't always right. That is what we're talking about here. (No, it isn't. But there's usually a good reason for it. Here's what helps me when a law doesn't make sense - Ask yourself, "Why did they pass this law? What was the purpose?" You'll usually find an answer, as I will show you below.)
The fact that a company doesn't have any liability when they fail to fulfill their professional obligation is another example of a really stupid legal system. (Here's where you are wrong. I described a "non-delegable duty." The company that did the brakes owes no duty to other drivers on the road. Only to you. You owe a duty to other drivers on the road. That's why if the brakes fail and you hit a parked car, the owner of the parked car sues you. So you sue the brake shop for indemnity (whatever I owe them, you owe me. AND you owe me for damage to MY car). It's so simple.)
It turns out to be a perfect analogy. (Yes, it does. You owe no duty to the mother. But, you DO owe a duty to the child. There are legal limits to duties, however. Let's say that I'm trying to get to court but I am delayed because your brakes failed and caused an accident, tieing up traffic. I get sanctioned $500.00 for being late. I can't sue you for that, though. You breached no duty to me.
Your duty is owed to the child.
The system is broken and there is some really stupid laws out there. (Yes, there are. I think laws designed to prevent children from being homeless, hungry, or otherwise becoming public wards is not a stupid law. I think a law allowing a so-called "man" to pass on his problems to society would be a stupid law.)
Thank you for making the comparison. (You're very welcome, but you were the one that made it)
I'm not going to pick and choose over what laws were/are valid or how they apply. I do not have the slightest interest in discussing law actually. I'm more concerned with right and wrong. (So, passing along your mistakes for others, like taxpayers, to deal with is the right thing to do? It's wrong, and there should be a law against it. Hey, there IS a law!)
Since there is supposed to be no "perfect justice", the law is supposed to supply the closest approximation of truth and justice. (Yep. And the policy of this nation is that the kids should not suffer due to the acts of "consenting adults." Actually, that's a law that as a libertarian I agree with. Force some responsibility on those that helped cause the problem)
It doesn't. When it doesn't, people change it. (I think it does, and should not be changed. I HATE the idea that anyone escape culpability. "But judge, Jennifer told me that nobody is ever on that road, which is why we used it for a street race. How was I to know that the minivan would be there?" Just keep on passing the buck, guys...)
When people engage in fraud and it costs others tens of thousands of dollars, there is a problem. (What kind of fraud do you describe? Are you describing the mass of men as being a class of victims of "bait and switch?" Are you describing men as being a class of "marks" particularly susceptible to cons and scams by women? Most of these guys you speak of... Did they lose their fortunes through a Nigerian money scheme? Have they blown some cash at 3-Card Monte?
I frankly have a higher opinion of the intelligence of men. We generally take chances. Sure, condoms don't feel as good as the real thing. Who wants foam getting in the way? And we don't want to pull out, either because or religious beliefs would prohibit us from performing the sin of Onan, or because "she said she can't get pregnant."
Are you saying that men are that ignorant? To be conned like that? Look, men are NOT that ignorant. Stupid, maybe. After all, they sought (verbal) guarantees that the woman would not get knocked up, right? So they KNEW of the possibilities. Only later do they figure out that it wasn't worth it.
What's that phrase in skydiving? "It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground." It speaks of judgment and an appreciation of the risks. People jump, anyway, and after a broken femur the person learns that, despite what someone tells you, use your own judgment aside from other people's representations. That jump just wasn't worth it.
Maybe "humps" should be thought of the same way. "It's better to be alone wishing that you had gotten laid than to be alone wishing that you had not gotten laid.")
If the law is important, let's come up with a contract that people can sign. They agree to assume responsibility for kids. If you don't have that agreement, no deal. (Funny. We have that now implied by law. The contract is, "If a kid happens from this, you're both responsible. Can you both handle that? If not, no deal." EVERY GUY OUT THERE KNOWS THIS! If you don't like the terms of that contract, well then, don't enter into it, so to speak.
Frankly, I don't see the guys as being the ones who will turn down a romp if the woman doesn't sign on the dotted line. "Look, lady, I'm doing you a favor here by having sex with you. You don't like my terms, you don't get it." This would likely be accompanied by, "Sure, I love you."
"Paradise by the Dashboard Light" was on the radio last night. It got me thinking to this thread. The first movement they were gonna do it. Second movement? She asks for his promises to love her till the end of time. The third movement was his regret - he promised to love her till the end of time, and now he is "praying for the end of time."
I love that song. It's so true!)
We could call it... a marriage license. (Again, leave the kids as public wards)
Oh wait... the lawyers decided that it was legal, but is wasn't right... so now, we are here discussing this. (Or more accurately, the leaders have decided that, rather than making these children wards of the state, they will go after the people who brought the kids into this world to have them pay what they can. Yes, what they can.
The Child Support Services who go after guys? They can assist the custodial parent who is not receiving benefits. But, if a custodial parent applies for welfare benefits, the DCSS wants to know who the father is. That way, the DCSS can recover some of its money paid out for the child. If the computer determines that the guy can afford $230 per month, then the guy pays the DCSS $230 per month. Usually, the DCSS will pay more for the child, but at least they've got some of it back.)
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteA man helps get a woman pregnant - his responsibility.
A woman gets pregnant with the help of a man or by artificial means - her responsibility.
I see no difference in these two, except by artificial means. And even with artificial means, (i.e., in-vitro fertilization) there good reasons why the guy should be responsible.
I think that, quite rarely, the guy's hands are rarely clean.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuote
Furthermore, there's no guarantee that money paid as child support is ever used for that purpose. The mother has total control to spend it as she wishes.
And why is support payments often set (and raised) based on the father's income, rather than the actual needs of the child?
It's based on a number of factors. Basically, two competing thing; 1) comparison of incomes between mother and father; and 2) comparison of child's time spent with mother and father.
I posted a calculation of child support that showed how respective incomes and respective visitation affected support.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1619072;
It's fairly informative about how it works.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
bch7773 0
QuoteQuoteIf the man doesn't wear a condom, the woman still has DOZENS of options for birth control... or she can just tell him, no condom, no sex.
You're right! Men can't think for themselves, they need women to do it for them.
Oh and women can't think for themselves either apparently, they need men to put on the condom. they have NO say in birth control [/sarcasm]
QuoteWhat the hell ever happend to taking resonsibility for one's self????
and of course the woman is absolved of all responsibility is what you're telling me?
BS!
MB 3528, RB 1182
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>and of course the woman is absolved of all responsibility is what you're telling me?
?? You do realize that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, right? Since both participated in the conception, both share the legal/financial responsibility (even though the woman ends up with more _actual_ responsibility.)
?? You do realize that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, right? Since both participated in the conception, both share the legal/financial responsibility (even though the woman ends up with more _actual_ responsibility.)
Shotgun 1
QuoteQuoteI haven't noticed anyone clamoring for biological parents to pay child support for children they put up for adoption.
Abortion and adoption are both legal. No woman is ever (legally) forced into parenthood. You can't say the same for men.
oooh - good one
I don't think that men are ever legally forced into parenthood either. Any man should realize that any time he has sex with a woman he is taking the chance of becoming a father, and if he does not accept that risk then he should not partake in the sex. So the "(legally) forced into parenthood" idea goes away as soon as he decides to go for the sex.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteI haven't noticed anyone clamoring for biological parents to pay child support for children they put up for adoption.
Abortion and adoption are both legal. No woman is ever (legally) forced into parenthood. You can't say the same for men.
oooh - good one
I don't think that men are ever legally forced into parenthood either. Any man should realize that any time he has sex with a woman he is taking the chance of becoming a father, and if he does not accept that risk then he should not partake in the sex. So the "(legally) forced into parenthood" idea goes away as soon as he decides to go for the sex.
so then should the biological parents pay for child support of children they give up for adoption?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Shotgun 1
Quoteso then should the biological parents pay for child support of children they give up for adoption?
No, once they have given up a child for adoption then someone else has willingly taken over the financial support of that child.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteso then should the biological parents pay for child support of children they give up for adoption?
No, once they have given up a child for adoption then someone else has willingly taken over the financial support of that child.
well, how about they support while the kids are in the orphanage anyway? until the kids get bought by a new family?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Shotgun 1
QuoteQuoteQuoteso then should the biological parents pay for child support of children they give up for adoption?
No, once they have given up a child for adoption then someone else has willingly taken over the financial support of that child.
well, how about they support while the kids are in the orphanage anyway? until the kids get bought by a new family?
I think that most children in orphanages were probably taken away from their parents - not intentionally put there by their parents (correct me if I'm wrong - I honestly don't know)...
But what does that have to do with men being legally forced into parenthood?
rehmwa 2
QuoteI think that most children in orphanages were probably taken away from their parents - not intentionally put there by their parents (correct me if I'm wrong - I honestly don't know)... yeah, but they should still pay
But what does that have to do with men being legally forced into parenthood? nothing, or something, but it's a good question and if someone wants to infer some deep argument or shallow debate from it, they are welcome to
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,991
>yeah, but they should still pay
If the state takes away a child from its parents, they accept the responsibility for the upbringing of said child. If a woman (or man) _places_ the child there, then they are responsible.
If the state takes away a child from its parents, they accept the responsibility for the upbringing of said child. If a woman (or man) _places_ the child there, then they are responsible.
rehmwa 2
Quote>yeah, but they should still pay
If the state takes away a child from its parents, they accept the responsibility for the upbringing of said child. If a woman (or man) _places_ the child there, then they are responsible.
no deal - the parents knew what they were getting into when they had sex. The state is just the victim of the parents in that it's forced to raise that child. The two parents have to pay. It's not about the parents, it's about the child and or the "post delivery viable life mass" as I like to call it.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd why is support payments often set (and raised) based on the father's income, rather than the actual needs of the child?
Because the child is entitled to a lifestyle reasonably similar to that which s/he would have enjoyed had his/her other parent remained in the home.
That's why.
If the mother wants the child to live in a better lifestyle than she can provide, maybe she should let the child live with the father rather than demand that he provide her that lifestyle.
Blues,
Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
billvon 2,991
>The state is just the victim of the parents in that it's forced to
>raise that child.
Nope, they can always give it back. They're not forced to do anything. If they WANT to take the child, then they get to pay for it.
>raise that child.
Nope, they can always give it back. They're not forced to do anything. If they WANT to take the child, then they get to pay for it.
QuoteQuote
And why is support payments often set (and raised) based on the father's income, rather than the actual needs of the child?
It's based on a number of factors. Basically, two competing thing; 1) comparison of incomes between mother and father; and 2) comparison of child's time spent with mother and father.
in the real world situation I'm thinking/talking about, the father isn't a father. He's a checkbook, alllowed no contact. Yet every year or so she forces a new hearing on the support level, and has successfuly argued that even if he didn't get a raise, he should have.
We're talking levels that have no relation to the needs of the child.
wmw999 2,446
The guys is, in fact, more fucked legally here. On the other hand, given the very large number of (yes, largely) fathers who don't pay child support or pay any attention to their children, women often get practically fucked, and children are pretty much always losers.
Maybe more responsibility all around is a good thing.
Wendy W.
Maybe more responsibility all around is a good thing.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
That's why I went with the non-alcoholic analogy as opposed to the brakes analogy. A woman telling a guy she CAN'T get pregnant by him is akin to a server telling a customer he can't get drunk on the "virgin" drinks she's spiking.
Blues,
Dave
(drink Mountain Dew)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites