"Beverly" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:57:44 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
.net...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right
you
have Is to pay...


And pay what they say!

With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child.
Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to
"child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal.


Welcome to the suckers club of America!




What would you say to a system in which both parents are required to
pay their portion of child support into a fund from which they could
withdraw with appropriate receipts?

I would say it's just another unnecessary government control. But if any
parent chooses to hire the government people to manage their private budget,
more power to them.

What would you say to a "system" where each parent is DIRECTLY responsible
for the care of their children?

I see something like this
accomplishing a few things:

A) It enforces the notion that EACH parent MUST contribute,
B) It provides a paper trail to ensure the money was actually
spent for the child, and

Uhuh. The woman takes her boyfriend and three other friends out to dinner.
She then claims it was her children that dined with her. So much for your
paper trail.

C) It ensures that whomever SPENDS money on a child can receive
the reimbursement.

As well as spending money on the boyfriend. (see above)

D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of
majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage
in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child.

How about the parents keep the money in their OWN pockets and spend it
if/when/how they deem fit? Or are the government people better managers of
and more entitled to the parents' private budgets than are the parents?


What if the receipts total more than the contributions? Then both
reimbursements would be scaled down equally and reimbursed at the next
possible time in which contributions exceed expenses. There would
need to be guidelines as to what expenses are acceptable, of course.

Yup. And should not such "guidelines" be determined by each parent?


If EITHER parent fails to contribute, receipts submitted shall not be
considered.

Isn't that the default in most parental situations? Neither parent
contributes to a government "child support" fund, and neither parent gets
reimbursed for any receipts. Been working since the beginning of time; why
change it now?

Furthermore, any excess would be set aside for the parent
who contributed and any deficiencies shall be paid to the contributing
parent BEFORE current receipts in a month where both contribute are
calculated.

Why have a middleman? I would presume the service would not be free, thus
LESS money "for the children".


Heck, in a double entry accounting system, reports could be generated
upon demand so either parent could ensure their money is caring for
their child.

The ONLY way to ensure such is to provide yourself. Nevertheless, who pays
for this service?




Beverly