A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old July 10th 03, 03:19 PM
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Phil#3 wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Phil#3 wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.

Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard

of
living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she

wants a
divorce.

Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just

decide,
unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.

If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple

solution.
File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.


Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
and/or property, for nothing.


How would she *gain money and/or property, for nothing* if she is working

and
contributing just like her H is?


If she is a SAH, she is not "working and contributing like her H is...",
it's somewhat different when one sets ones own duties, if any, and one's own
hours, if any. Then there is the division of who works hardest and
contributes more; it seems when it comes to court, just being married is all
that is necessary to share a little more than equally.


It sounds like you don't just disagree with the support aspects of

divorce, but
also feel when two people marry their contributions should charted and

each
should only get back what they put in financially, am I correct in this
assumption?


1) I disagree with divorce without justifiable and valid cause.
2) I disagree that being married automatically entitles either party to take
more from the marriage than was put in during. (Meaning, a SAH that does
little more than minimum housework should not be rewarded according to their
spouse's value to their employer).
3) During the divorce, nearly everything gained during the marriage should
be as evenly as possible split INCLUDING the bills.
4) Post divorce, each party takes care of their own business and keeps their
nose out of the other's.



Any judge would send her
swiftly back into the workforce.


No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her.

She
may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.


Point being the judge won't set CS, in an income shares state, at a rate

based
on just her H's income and won't order SS providing she earns comparable

to her
stbx.


The formula used makes little difference in the outcome; never is it what is
warranted.



All assets would be split 50/50.


Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.


That is more of a tinsletown movie line than it is reality.


That's experience. I *know* it's reality.


If said man
was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony.

All
that
will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income

shares
state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they

BOTH
earn.


And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs

or
needs,


I would perfer to see actual costs used as oppossed to the averages now

used.
Of course some NCPs would pay less and some would pay more than they do

right
now.


Of couse. When setting C$ for a man who has never earned above poverty, his
would likely be higher than it would be according to guidelines. Other than
that, all other NCPs, with few exceptions would pay less.
You see, what so many seem to forget is that many of us NCP fathers were
supporting the household prior to divorce and we KNOW how much it actually
takes to support a child.

neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$.

Accountability is needed, I agree.

For
all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not

deductible.

Any portion of CS that isn't being used for the child or for something

that
benefits the child that portion could be looked at as hidden alimony.


Oh, I think charges of outright fraud or embezzlement-by-trustee would be
ever so much better, maybe even extortion.



Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the

W
to be
a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of

course
it
tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit

from
their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and

has
been earned is theirs and theirs alone.


What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.


Apparently many other men don't agree with you, unless they divorce.


Probably not, but I don't require others to agree with me to form an opinion
especially one that is based on my experience.


I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
endeavor except divorce.


If a man wants kids and those kids to have a parent available to them to

do the
tasks that they require, while he can still pursue his career without

having
to take time off and still have leisure time, then a SAHM is a condition

that
can and does accomplish this for a man.


*No* man can be assured that he will be allowed to become, or continue to
be, a parent (or the parent he chooses to be).
Anyone can hire nurses, babysitters, keepers and every other aspect of a
SAH's duties including sex (with or without faked orgasms), cooking,
cleaning or anything else.


Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
outright, often with better results


I'm starting to think you might have been better suited to hiring a

surrogate
mother than have been married. That or since you chose to marry a real

slug you
deem all/most women as slugs.


I would have been better suited to remain single and have a vasectomy at 17.

I love my children but I wouldn't do it again, knowing what I now know.


and far cheaper.

LOL Really? I don't know where you live but to get all the things done

that
most SAHMs I know, do in this area, the average income earner couldn't

afford
to pay the price.


Pay?? I do most of them myself. I don't have to hire it done and I damn sure
don't have to support someone to do these things and then just not have time
to ever get them done. Housework is really overrated as "work". It's more
like something to do during commercials.
I own my home and my company has temporarily moved me out of state and
furnished me with corporate housing. I go home every other weekend. I keep
BOTH homes clean and chores at each end done. Laundry is done at each.
Dishes, vacuuming.... There's no one but me.
I've been doing this for over a year and my home at either end is actually
more comfortable and cleaner than it ever was when I was married. Of course,
I don't get the latest update of how 'opressed' women are according to
whatever feminist-leaning TV show was on that day, but I've learned to live
without it.


Some can be obtained
free of charge.


Free? Without taking advantage of friends or relatives? List them would

you,
I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that could benefit greatly

from
your knowledge on how to get some of what a SAHM does done for free.


Sex. It's a trade-off. Both get, both give. Neither requires payment nor
unfair advantage.
It works for me and those with whom I 'trade'.
Then there's friendship. I don't have to support someone for them to listen
when I'm down, pat me on the back when I'm excelling or console me when I'm
blue.
Phil #3


Mrs Indyguy


Phil #3


Mrs Indyguy



  #212  
Old July 10th 03, 04:31 PM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

Phil #3 wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Phil#3 wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.

Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
divorce.

Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide,
unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.


If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple

solution.
File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.


Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
and/or property, for nothing.

Any judge would send her
swiftly back into the workforce.


No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She
may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.

All assets would be split 50/50.


Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.

If said man
was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All

that
will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares
state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they

BOTH
earn.


And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or
needs, neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$. For
all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible.


Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W

to be
a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course

it
tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from
their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and

has
been earned is theirs and theirs alone.


What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.
I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
endeavor except divorce. Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
outright, often with better results and far cheaper. Some can be obtained
free of charge.
Phil #3


Your last point is particularly valid, Phil. Property awards in
divorce are based on the assumption that the wife contributed to the
husband's career. That's complete nonsense, of course, particularly
when the husband's talents and efforts have created nearly all of the
assets. You just need to think what would happen if Melinda Gates
decided to divorce Bill.

The fact of the matter is that the supposed reason for 50/50 splits of
assets in divorces (that the wife contributed to the husband's career)
is completely phony. Few people are impolite enough to say this, and
risk being branded as anti-woman. However, most people know what the
score is. You can see it very clearly when you hear the contorted
reasoning that goes into "proving" to a judge that a stay-at-home wife
made an equal contribution. ("He never would have been where he is
today, your honor, if he hadn't had the encouragement of my client, his
wife, and her ability to act as hostess at business functions.")

The reality is that many wives RETARD their husband's careers by
undermining the sense of security that a man should have within his
family. The men would have done better without their wives.
Furthermore, 50/50 splits of assets are a strong encouragement for wives
to seek divorces.
  #213  
Old July 10th 03, 07:15 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...


Your last point is particularly valid, Phil. Property awards in
divorce are based on the assumption that the wife contributed to the
husband's career. That's complete nonsense, of course, particularly
when the husband's talents and efforts have created nearly all of the
assets. You just need to think what would happen if Melinda Gates
decided to divorce Bill.

The fact of the matter is that the supposed reason for 50/50 splits of
assets in divorces (that the wife contributed to the husband's career)
is completely phony. Few people are impolite enough to say this, and
risk being branded as anti-woman. However, most people know what the
score is. You can see it very clearly when you hear the contorted
reasoning that goes into "proving" to a judge that a stay-at-home wife
made an equal contribution. ("He never would have been where he is
today, your honor, if he hadn't had the encouragement of my client, his
wife, and her ability to act as hostess at business functions.")


There is still another caveate to this argument. Say the husband's net
worth went down during the marriage. The wife would argue she should not
have to share 50/50 in the asset decline because she was NOT directly
involved in the process.

The dicorce arguments are always situational.

Wouldn't it just be ironic for a family court judge to rule a wife owes her
husband $10 million because their net worth declined $20 million during the
marriage?




  #214  
Old July 11th 03, 10:57 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

You haven't paid much attention in the past when this subject has been
discussed...

Phil#3 wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Phil#3 wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.

Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
divorce.

Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide,
unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.

If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple

solution.
File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.


Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
and/or property, for nothing.


How would she *gain money and/or property, for nothing* if she is working
and
contributing just like her H is?

It sounds like you don't just disagree with the support aspects of divorce,
but
also feel when two people marry their contributions should charted and each
should only get back what they put in financially, am I correct in this
assumption?


Any judge would send her
swiftly back into the workforce.


No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She
may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.


Point being the judge won't set CS, in an income shares state, at a rate
based
on just her H's income


Those who have bothered to spend any time studying the tables have pointed out
repeatedly that they are set up such that changes in the CP's income have
little or negative effect on the NCP's payments, with the result being that for
all intents and purposes even "income shares" states take a percentage based
just on the NCP's income.

and won't order SS providing she earns comparable to
her
stbx.


All assets would be split 50/50.


Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.


That is more of a tinsletown movie line than it is reality.


If said man
was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All

that
will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares
state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they

BOTH
earn.


And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or
needs,


I would perfer to see actual costs used as oppossed to the averages now used.
Of course some NCPs would pay less and some would pay more than they do right
now.

neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$.

Accountability is needed, I agree.

For
all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible.


Any portion of CS that isn't being used for the child or for something that
benefits the child that portion could be looked at as hidden alimony.



Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W

to be
a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course

it
tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from
their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and

has
been earned is theirs and theirs alone.


What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.


Apparently many other men don't agree with you, unless they divorce.


I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
endeavor except divorce.


If a man wants kids and those kids to have a parent available to them to do
the
tasks that they require, while he can still pursue his career without having
to take time off and still have leisure time, then a SAHM is a condition that
can and does accomplish this for a man.

Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
outright, often with better results


I'm starting to think you might have been better suited to hiring a surrogate
mother than have been married. That or since you chose to marry a real slug
you
deem all/most women as slugs.

and far cheaper.

LOL Really? I don't know where you live but to get all the things done that
most SAHMs I know, do in this area, the average income earner couldn't afford
to pay the price.


You flatter yourself. It's not becoming on you...

Mel Gamble

Some can be obtained
free of charge.


Free? Without taking advantage of friends or relatives? List them would you,
I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that could benefit greatly
from
your knowledge on how to get some of what a SAHM does done for free.

Mrs Indyguy


Phil #3


Mrs Indyguy



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dust Mite Allergies - A Solution That Works!! kazham Kids Health 0 March 9th 04 12:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.