If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:59:58 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote: "Paula" wrote in message oups.com... Werebat wrote: Henry wrote: One final rant: I love the all double-standards within the system. I must pay CS to my ex. After all, it is for the children. It is ASSUMED my ex is paying her share. I have court orders to pay. I have a Child Support Guidelines I must follow. I have the entire weight of the government on my shoulders should I not pay. Yet no one, NO ONE, is watching my ex and ensuring SHE is paying her "share". *shakes head* One way to fix this (not a wise one, but it would work): Make it profitable for the government to poke its nose into her financial affairs. Allow them to confiscate items above a certain lifestyle limit that were not purchased for the children, for example. Not a good precedent, but if the government profits, it might bite. - Ron ^*^ While I'm sure that I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm gonna say it anyway because what you are proposing is just so absurd. The government has no right to come into my life and audit on what I spend my _hard-earned_ money -- let alone take it away from me. And no, I am not referring to the money my daughter's father contributes to her care every month. I happen to be one of those few- and-far-between CPs who works hard to earn a living to support myself and my child. Here's the problem, Paula. Child support orders are set up requiring each parent to pay a certain amount. Maybe Dad, 60%, Mom, 40%. Big Daddy Gubmint collects Dad's 60%, but never does a thing to make sure mom spends her 40% on the child. In addition, mom has the added bonus of being able to spend Dad's 60% on anything she wants to. Some accountability is necessary in many, many cases. When some of these moms go whining back to court for more money, they are not thinking about the 40% they owe--they think dad owes it all--and if she wants more, he should be ripe ofr the picking. They SHOULD have to account for everything they spend on the child--how else will things be kept fair? For clarity, I agree with you that the current system is messed up ... let's not "fix" it by screwing even more people over, okay!? I'd say that if we start screwing them all equally, the system will get fixed very, very quickly. You realize that you're talking about screwing the children (even more than the system already does -- pitting parent against parent), as well, don't you? -- "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory" Deconstruction - Indigo Girls |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"Paula" wrote in message ups.com... Gini wrote: "Paula" wrote in message ps.com... Gini wrote: "Paula" wrote ......................... While I'm sure that I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm gonna say it anyway because what you are proposing is just so absurd. The government has no right to come into my life and audit on what I spend my _hard-earned_ money -- let alone take it away from me. == But that is exactly what is done to NCPs. Is that OK? See, I don't think that's what's happening to NCPs. Yes, the government is taking money (in some cases more than is reasonable, I'll give you that), but that's not what was proposed. What was proposed was the government coming in and removing property (and, yes, I'm making a distinction between income and property) ... that is not OK. == You said: "The government has no right to come into my life and audit on what I spend my _hard-earned_ money -- let alone take it away from me." How can you say that is not what is happening to NCPs? I see no mention of "property" in that quote. You called it "hard-earned_money." Actually I said "on what I spend my hard earned money" ... that's property. == Well, OK, then. You want the government to stay away from your hard-earned money (property), but it's OK for the government to come into the NCP's life and audit/confiscate his hard-earned money (property)? Is that right? I'm trying to get your point, which is so far eluding me. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"Paula" wrote .......................... You realize that you're talking about screwing the children (even more than the system already does -- pitting parent against parent), as well, don't you? == Umm, the "parent against parent" is the entire crux of the government's system. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"Paula" wrote in message ups.com... Gini wrote: "Paula" wrote in message ps.com... Gini wrote: "Paula" wrote ......................... While I'm sure that I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm gonna say it anyway because what you are proposing is just so absurd. The government has no right to come into my life and audit on what I spend my _hard-earned_ money -- let alone take it away from me. == But that is exactly what is done to NCPs. Is that OK? See, I don't think that's what's happening to NCPs. Yes, the government is taking money (in some cases more than is reasonable, I'll give you that), but that's not what was proposed. What was proposed was the government coming in and removing property (and, yes, I'm making a distinction between income and property) ... that is not OK. == You said: "The government has no right to come into my life and audit on what I spend my _hard-earned_ money -- let alone take it away from me." How can you say that is not what is happening to NCPs? I see no mention of "property" in that quote. You called it "hard-earned_money." Actually I said "on what I spend my hard earned money" ... that's property. So your theory is whatever you spend your "hard earned money on" is your property. Does that include fathers spending their hard earned money on their children through child support make the children their property? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"Paula" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:59:58 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote: "Paula" wrote in message roups.com... Werebat wrote: Henry wrote: One final rant: I love the all double-standards within the system. I must pay CS to my ex. After all, it is for the children. It is ASSUMED my ex is paying her share. I have court orders to pay. I have a Child Support Guidelines I must follow. I have the entire weight of the government on my shoulders should I not pay. Yet no one, NO ONE, is watching my ex and ensuring SHE is paying her "share". *shakes head* One way to fix this (not a wise one, but it would work): Make it profitable for the government to poke its nose into her financial affairs. Allow them to confiscate items above a certain lifestyle limit that were not purchased for the children, for example. Not a good precedent, but if the government profits, it might bite. - Ron ^*^ While I'm sure that I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm gonna say it anyway because what you are proposing is just so absurd. The government has no right to come into my life and audit on what I spend my _hard-earned_ money -- let alone take it away from me. And no, I am not referring to the money my daughter's father contributes to her care every month. I happen to be one of those few- and-far-between CPs who works hard to earn a living to support myself and my child. Here's the problem, Paula. Child support orders are set up requiring each parent to pay a certain amount. Maybe Dad, 60%, Mom, 40%. Big Daddy Gubmint collects Dad's 60%, but never does a thing to make sure mom spends her 40% on the child. In addition, mom has the added bonus of being able to spend Dad's 60% on anything she wants to. Some accountability is necessary in many, many cases. When some of these moms go whining back to court for more money, they are not thinking about the 40% they owe--they think dad owes it all--and if she wants more, he should be ripe ofr the picking. They SHOULD have to account for everything they spend on the child--how else will things be kept fair? For clarity, I agree with you that the current system is messed up ... let's not "fix" it by screwing even more people over, okay!? I'd say that if we start screwing them all equally, the system will get fixed very, very quickly. You realize that you're talking about screwing the children (even more than the system already does -- pitting parent against parent), as well, don't you? You do realize that this is already being done, don't you? The whole system is adversarial--not in the best interests of the children at all. Surely you are not saying that it is ok for the custodial mother to NOT spend the moneys that she has been told are the child's right on the child--but to spend the money any way she wants to, with no accounting required. Besides, how would requiring each parent to account for how they spend money on their child pit anyone against anyone? It would be numbers on a piece of paper. You do spenmd money on your child, right? You do spend more than just the amount dad hands over in child support, right? How would saying "I spent $x on clothing, $x on sperts, etc" in any way pit your child's father against you? Why are you so reluctant to do this? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"Gini" wrote in message newsr2jh.1831$Lc5.631@trndny04... "Paula" wrote ......................... You realize that you're talking about screwing the children (even more than the system already does -- pitting parent against parent), as well, don't you? == Umm, the "parent against parent" is the entire crux of the government's system. Do you think she is in the same system the rest of us are stuck with? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"teachrmama" wrote "Gini" wrote "Paula" wrote ......................... You realize that you're talking about screwing the children (even more than the system already does -- pitting parent against parent), as well, don't you? == Umm, the "parent against parent" is the entire crux of the government's system. Do you think she is in the same system the rest of us are stuck with? == Apparently on the side that benefits from the status quo. Kinda reminds me of the parenting plan that promotes letting your kids do whatever they want to avoid conflict. Yeah, that works fine for the "taker" side. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"Paula" wrote in
ups.com: Werebat wrote: Henry wrote: One final rant: I love the all double-standards within the system. I must pay CS to my ex. After all, it is for the children. It is ASSUMED my ex is paying her share. I have court orders to pay. I have a Child Support Guidelines I must follow. I have the entire weight of the government on my shoulders should I not pay. Yet no one, NO ONE, is watching my ex and ensuring SHE is paying her "share". *shakes head* One way to fix this (not a wise one, but it would work): Make it profitable for the government to poke its nose into her financial affairs. Allow them to confiscate items above a certain lifestyle limit that were not purchased for the children, for example. Not a good precedent, but if the government profits, it might bite. - Ron ^*^ While I'm sure that I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm gonna say it anyway because what you are proposing is just so absurd. The government has no right to come into my life and audit on what I spend my _hard-earned_ money -- let alone take it away from me. And no, I am not referring to the money my daughter's father contributes to her care every month. I happen to be one of those few- and-far-between CPs who works hard to earn a living to support myself and my child. For clarity, I agree with you that the current system is messed up ... let's not "fix" it by screwing even more people over, okay!? Paula, I'm one of those people who work's hard for their money too. But the government tells me I MUST pay: - CS (and that large CS check is unaccounted for) - daycare (whether I need it or not) - extra expenses - university education - and more Do you see the double-standard? You want the privacy and freedom to spend your money how you feel is best for your child. I don't have that luxury... and the double whammy of having my ex spend it on what she feels like for herself. That's why payors are mad (and it has nothing to do with CP or NCP since I have 50-50). It payor vs recipient. H. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"Paula" wrote in news:1166823436.077634.26610
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: "Paula" wrote If only people would have some responsibility, both for themselves and to their children, and forget about how much they dislike and want to get back at the other parent, we'd be a hell-of-a-lot better off than we are right now. Paula, For sure. And that is the final cherry on the cake. The ex's can use the system against the payor (most likely the father) in custody, access and child support. My ex clearly stated to everyone "I'm taking him for everything he's got". We have been in court for 3 years now. "Best interest of the child..." ... complete bull****. In Canada it is a winner-take-all system. Get the kids, get the cash. There is little incentive to play nice. H. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Dad on Dr. Phil
"teachrmama" wrote in
: Here's the problem, Paula. Child support orders are set up requiring each parent to pay a certain amount. Maybe Dad, 60%, Mom, 40%. Big Daddy Gubmint collects Dad's 60%, but never does a thing to make sure mom spends her 40% on the child. In addition, mom has the added bonus of being able to spend Dad's 60% on anything she wants to. Some accountability is necessary in many, many cases. When some of these moms go whining back to court for more money, they are not thinking about the 40% they owe--they think dad owes it all--and if she wants more, he should be ripe ofr the picking. They SHOULD have to account for everything they spend on the child--how else will things be kept fair? I always felt that each parent should put the money into a 3rd party bank. And then each parent drew from it during the year to buy stuff for the child. The left over goes into a education savings plan. I think people would be shocked at how much will be left over at the end of the year. That 40% my ex is suppsoed to pay for the cild would push the cost per month for the child to about $2000. That's a lot of cherrios. H. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alert: Dr. Phil & C4M | Andre Lieven | Child Support | 160 | May 4th 06 01:01 AM |
The MomsTown Guide to Getting It All on Dr. Phil | Jane Smith | Solutions | 0 | October 4th 05 05:58 PM |
Dr. Phil: A baby paralyzing goof? | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | December 11th 04 10:13 PM |
Dr. Phil and the 30% | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 2 | December 4th 04 12:03 AM |
Dr. Phil | Vickychick | Single Parents | 146 | January 6th 04 06:07 PM |