"Child Support" money?

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

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
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?

=====
=====


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?

Considering that the CS I receive is less than half the actual expenses for the
children, nope, I sure didn't forget that part.

=====
=====

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
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.

You might. I might... There is a huge number of people who likely can't cope
with this requirement.

I can see a base amount, Anything over and above the base amount must be
justified. So for example the average CP would get $250/month (just a number
not based on reality) then if she required more than that she would need to
establish the reasons through Application and justification. This process
would be through the CS agency and would not involve courts. The father
would then be ASKED to pay more, he must establish his income through full
disclosure and his income is factored into the overall income between the
two parents.

Consideration: If the NCP's income is verifiably lower and her income is low
or non-existant, the state's welfare would top-up (money from thin air).

Just ideas.

"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , The Dave© says...

Gini52 wrote:
Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
but there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
=====
Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
"discretionary spending." ==
==

Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.
====
I agree. Only the "lifestyle" support (the amount of money ordered that
exceeds
the ordinary costs of a child) should be accounted for.


Who gets to determine the "ordinary costs" of a child? What happens in the case
of low income parents, who can't meet that standard?


This is not difficult.
In fact, it is quite simple. It is only "unreasonable and outrageous" for
those
who prefer not to disclose how they spend the money. If the state is going to
mandate a lifestyle, it is only logical that the state mandate the lifestyle
be
maintained.
====
====

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


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

Who gets to decide what "reasonable expenses" are?


====
====

"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?

Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the actual
expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your remark.

"Chris" wrote in message news:sZDsb.251$6G3.28@fed1read06...

"Moon Shyne" 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.

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.

If you can afford the lottery ticket, then why do you need "child support"
money?

I work 2 jobs, in order to be able to afford some of the extras - I would think
that I'm permitted to spend even just a little of it on myself? The child
support money is the children's father's contribution towards the cost of
raising them, since he does nothing for or with them on his own.





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.


Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.

With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the
level of
usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account
is
suspended for TOS violation.


"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.
===
===

"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?


"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 , Moon Shyne says...


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

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
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?

=====
=====


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?

Considering that the CS I receive is less than half the actual expenses for the
children, nope, I sure didn't forget that part.
=====
But, apparantly you didn't get the part where I stated that accountability
should not be applied to lower income NCPs where the ordered support amount
doesn't cover actual expenses. Only *lifestyle* support should be subject to
accountability and *then* only the amount which exceeds the states' basic needs
amount. My proposal doesn't apply to you at all so go for the ice cream and have
a great time :-)
=====
=====

In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , The Dave© says...

Gini52 wrote:
Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
but there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
=====
Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
"discretionary spending." ==
==

Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.
====
I agree. Only the "lifestyle" support (the amount of money ordered that
exceeds
the ordinary costs of a child) should be accounted for.


Who gets to determine the "ordinary costs" of a child? What happens in the case
of low income parents, who can't meet that standard?
=====
I've already stated these things in the thread but will again:
Accountability does not apply to orders that do not cover the basic needs which
are determined starting with the base need the state establishes for foster
kids. Because your support does not cover the basic needs, you will not be
subject to accountability.
====
====

In article , Moon Shyne says...


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


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

Who gets to decide what "reasonable expenses" are?
=====
Already posted.
=====
=====