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

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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?

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.