"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls.
Of
course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government
will
dictate how people raise their children and how much the government
expects
child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of
child
custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The
parents
will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th
Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The
new
social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move
from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data
entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will
be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws
and
the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
children.

Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

Right now you have the fathers who are not responsible screwing it up for
the fathers that are. The fathers that aren't responsible are whining really
loud about how unfair it is that they pay for the life of a child they
created. They haven't had involvement? Oh, so what you agree'd to being a
father when you dropped trou' and had some fun.

It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service
offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge
can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a
better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see
alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people
deal with several broken systems.

If a mother has a child and MoPo find the fathers Dad at age 7 and the woman
didn't list the father, or didn't know which jerk was the father, then comes
around to the reality of being broke at the child's age 6, then the system
should not chase this guy for that first 5-6 years. If the system is
designed properly the the mother should not be able to survive on one
child's CS income alone. 4 or 5 maybe. I don't agree entirely with
equalizing the houshold incomes so that the child has a similar lifestyle if
the child never knew that lifestyle of if the lifestyle of the father is
dropped to support a better lifestyle for mom because she happens to find a
sugar-daddy boyfriend. Living somewhere for "free" or for an exceptional low
rent might be considered income for her.

I'm in this situation. My ex drives a new car, I have none; She lives in a
huge house, I live in a small apartment; She's a Community Centre worker (by
choice) after leaving a $75K job. I was out of work and hassled for the
market's abundance of workforce for two years and when I tried to work the
CS agency where I live took my licence and garnished my wages by more than
50% making my life miserable and making it's nearly too expensive to see my
daughters. based on this extremely brief summary of the current system's
design flaws for MY situation. I think change is necessary and if the
government can't think of anything but beating up all the fathers because of
those deadbeat dads that do exist. I think an alternative needs to be handed
to them.

I wnat to see change, for the betterment of the system and the people
involved. I want to support my chioldren but a fair and reasonable amount.
If the CP is not a contributing member of society I want them to suffer a
little because they are not pulling their weight. I've worked hard all my
life. When I found myself out of the technology field I worked at roadside
assistance and lived in that diesel-gulping monster 18-20 hours a day for
what amounted to minimum wage. I'm back in technology but I still see 22% of
my income going to someone who doesn't want to work. I also see the
judgement hanging on my wall that gives her a huge yearly bonus because I
tried to have the amount adjusted to a reasonable amount, If I hadn't gone
to court I would have continued to pay an amount that would be more like
40-50% of my Take-home-pay. I earned ~$7000 last year. I paid more than that
to CS. You figure it out.

So. Add your two cents. But let's find a better solution.

Papa