"Child Support" money?

"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 19:01:04 -0800, Gini52 wrote:



But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill
but
can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a
receipt
but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of
that
general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything....
just
as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
shouldn't be claimed.

T
======
Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their
taxes,
CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)

Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be
accounted
for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be
accounted for
(lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and
dance
lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the
child
gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If
the
child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the
receipts go in
the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for
the
child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
===
===



What is a reasonable amount for necessities? The low amounts set by
the cheap governmentt and their budget allotment to foster care
programs or on actual costs of raising a child. The government doesnt
just figure that these foster kids should get x amount because thats
what it costs, they look at their budget for foster care programs and
say based on our budget we can afford to pay x amount per child.
====
Well, how much does the state require intact families to spend on their
kids?

Last I checked.... NOTHING.

Maybe we should start there.
====
====

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , Moon Shyne
says...


"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

"Jon" wrote in message
news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
drink?


Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting the
child.

So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
ticket
with my own money.

Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
the
same.
=====
The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.

So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
place
where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
truck
because they don't issue receipts?

I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a receipt.


=====
=====

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
news
On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
only the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.

That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

The Dave© wrote in message
...
Moon Shyne wrote:
The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.

So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?

Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

Well, I don't think it should be a nickel-dime thing. CP's should be
accountable for the large sums of money that doesn't seem to go to the
kids,
not a mere $2.50 for an ice cream.

$2.50 here, $2.50 there. Nickels and dimes add up to dollars.


T

"Jon" wrote in message
news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars that
come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not have
to
be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to take
the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect child
expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.

If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then they
don't need the "child support" money, do they?

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Jon wrote:
So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
drink?

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
mother), and should be taxed accordingly?

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 19:37:19 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?

T

It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
the child's basic needs?

I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
the stores themselves.
=====
Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's percent
share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for the
child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
=====
=====


Did I say that ALL that should be paid for by the NCP?? No.
====
Now you're getting flustered again. I didn't say YOU said that ALL should be
paid by the NCP. It was a simple statement of fact.
===
I said
that it could be conceivable that a parent could buy NECESSITIES at a
street fair vs. a store in which case a "receipt" wouldnt be provided.
===
And your point?
===
===

Cameron Stevens wrote:
I agree with the principle and I know this will be a challenge for
those people who are especially challenged to budget or manage their
money.

Life is full of requirements that we're not all proficient at. We get
through it, anyway.

Tiffany wrote:
So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?

Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

Well, I don't think it should be a nickel-dime thing. CP's should be
accountable for the large sums of money that doesn't seem to go to
the kids, not a mere $2.50 for an ice cream.

And I don't think that accounting for 100% of CS is reasonable, either,
precisely because at that level it is getting petty. 75% or so would
be fine, enough to give a good solid indication that the money is being
spent for its intended purpose. That would be most sizable purchases
and expenses.

Which is ???

On 12 Nov 2003 19:58:16 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
====
====

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:52:56 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


====
Well, how much does the state require intact families to spend on their
kids?

Last I checked.... NOTHING.

Maybe we should start there.
====
====

Actually in a round about way the govt does. If you dont spend money
on your children by giving them clothing, food, ect they take your
child away or throw your ass in jail for neglect.