"Child Support" money?

"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?

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.

....decided to pay?!?!?......
"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06, Chris says...

Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman.
She
uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
support"
money?
===
It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of
middle
income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
than
they
need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
kids to
keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
income
dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
dads
who
are not subject to CS guidelines.
===
===





.....more like FORCED To pay under threat of a gun. I sometimes think people
like you wont be happy until we cant shyt with out a court order.

"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?

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.

....decided to pay?!?!?......
"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06, Chris says...

Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman.
She
uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
support"
money?
===
It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of
middle
income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
than
they
need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
kids to
keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
income
dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
dads
who
are not subject to CS guidelines.
===
===





.....more like FORCED To pay under threat of a gun. I sometimes think people
like you wont be happy until we cant shyt with out a court order.

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .

"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.

Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.



You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .

"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.

Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.



You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

"Chris" wrote in message
news:O3Psb.335$6G3.63@fed1read06...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:ZdEsb.258$6G3.133@fed1read06...

"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?

So they had to use an additional share of their own income to cover the
children's expenses - now they've got no money left to also cover their
own
expenses, since they were covering the NCP's share - what would you
suggest,
they hold off being able to eat dinner till next month?

Obviously, they ARE eating dinner; otherwise, they wouldn't be alive to
pay
for ANY expense.

---------------------
Chris, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I think it's proof in
itself that there is/was enough money to raise the kids if those kids have
in fact been raised. It's proof that cs is not for the support of kids.
Intact families run the whole spectrum of income levels from millionaires to
families living in their car and the kids do manage to get 'raised'.

~AZ~



"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?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:O3Psb.335$6G3.63@fed1read06...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:ZdEsb.258$6G3.133@fed1read06...

"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?

So they had to use an additional share of their own income to cover the
children's expenses - now they've got no money left to also cover their
own
expenses, since they were covering the NCP's share - what would you
suggest,
they hold off being able to eat dinner till next month?

Obviously, they ARE eating dinner; otherwise, they wouldn't be alive to
pay
for ANY expense.

---------------------
Chris, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I think it's proof in
itself that there is/was enough money to raise the kids if those kids have
in fact been raised. It's proof that cs is not for the support of kids.
Intact families run the whole spectrum of income levels from millionaires to
families living in their car and the kids do manage to get 'raised'.

~AZ~



"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?

"The Beast" wrote in message
.com...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.

You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the child
is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).

Cameron

"The Beast" wrote in message
.com...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.

You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the child
is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).

Cameron

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected.

Or modified downward.


For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.


The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
many dont need braces.

And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college.

Where did you see this statement?

It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

What is non-cash support?


The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
pay.

Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.


The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

I doubt that.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected.

Or modified downward.


For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.


The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
many dont need braces.

And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college.

Where did you see this statement?

It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

What is non-cash support?


The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
pay.

Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.


The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

I doubt that.