Which is most important?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"djohnson" wrote in message
ps.com...
Gini wrote:
"djohnson" wrote
...............................
Well as in the Murtari case $120 a week seems reasonable to expect.
==
Really? That means that 240. a week should be spent on the child given
the
CP's share.

That's about right. We have two kids so that would mean we are paying
about $1000/month for them. We are in the city where housing is high
everywhere, so $350/month goes to their bedrooms. If they only eat
$10/day ($5 each) that adds on $300. I'll take out only $50 for
utilities. That leaves $300/month or $10/day or $5/day for each kid
beyond just food and lodging. You can nitpick the exact numbers if you
want but that's about it.

You are paying $1000/month for 2 children. So that's $500/month per
child. So then the NCP's share for 1 child would be $250 per month, which
would be--let's see--uh--$60 per week. Wow! Mr. Murtari seems to have
hit it on the head!

Actually, he overpaid.

52 weeks divided by (/) 12 months in a year = 4.333
$250 per month / 4.333 = $57.70 per week
$60 - $57.70 = $2.30 weekly overpayment


"I'm such a stinka!" Buggs Bunny :P

"djohnson" wrote
....................
Again, kids take a ton of time and dedication. They suck the life out
of you whether you're a CP or a NCP. Every situation has to be looked
at individually. In my case, my wife's ex is addicted to strip clubs
and prostitutes, before and after their divorce. He needs to pay, one
way or another. I'm making no assumptions about anyone else.
==
Perhaps his choice of women, one of whom you chose as well? No matter, his
chosen lifestyle is none of your business--none. Your *wife's* business is
whether he pays
his share of the children's basic needs and that she covers her share as
well. You might also consider
that if those children are such a burden, perhaps he should have custody?

"djohnson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"djohnson" wrote in message
ups.com...
A parent who provides their kids with no significant amount of
money
to
support their needs such as a roof over their head, food, school
expenses, medical care, etc etc etc.

Perfect description for a parent on welfare. Zero financial
contribution to
the children while relying on the government to provide housing, food
stamps, public education with free meals including during Summers,
and
state
Medicaid/health plan coverage.

Lock 'em up!

Or do you mean only fathers can be deadbeats?

Are you suggesting that if the CP can live on welfare the NCP should be
able to as well? Hmm. I guess you have a point. I never thought of
it like that. In theory you make a very good point. But I'm an
economic liberal who thinks necessities should be free so I'm very
generous in my analysis.

Okay. Now we understand you are an economic liberal and where I come
from
that means you are a socialist. Here's my point - the status quo, which
you
seem to favor, is a socialist-oriented approach when is comes to
supporting
CP's. However, when the CS system goes after NCP's they apply free
market
thinking. Assumptions about CP responsibilites are far different than
assumptions about NCP responsibilities.


Thing is, realistically, being a CP is not a piece of cake. Kids take
an enormous amount of time and dedication. So I guess that's why the
CPs are treated better. Is it entirely fair? No, not really, but
that's parenthood.

Being an NCP is not a piece of cake either. Not having regular time with
your children is mentally challenging. Being forced to subsidize two
households financially is a real strain. Having the full force of the
government work against you is impossible to overcome. Having all of
your
financial affairs scrutinized is an invasion of privacy. Snooping into
your
financial affairs with sniffer programs is like a warrant-less government
wiretap not overseen by the judiciary. Listing all citizens in a Federal
Parent Locator System is like a government database to track everybody's
personal situations.

You missed my point. Because I am an economic liberal it was hard for
me to stay on track justifying the system. As you implied, and I
agree, the child support system is not economically liberal. If we
were in a liberal economy most child support laws would be unnecessary.
Snooping and sniffing programs are a negative side effect of unbridled
capitalism.

I'm sorry for the NCPs who do not have regular time with their kids.
But actually, if NCPs have weekends and/or summer time with their kids
that's a significant amount of time when you consider CP who work
during the week who only have weekends to spend with their kids. It
sucks for the CP who has scant time left over from work that is taken
away by the NCP.

As far as subsidizing two household goes, what's the big deal about a
$500 per child payment? Don't parents think about these things
beforehand? They're your kids for gosh sake (just an expression, not
you personally). I would give most my income, and do, to my kids.
Fortunately I do not have kids from a prior marriage but if I did I
would make my payment and expect a payment from my wife's ex. What if
I had to make a payment and then got no payment in return???

Again, kids take a ton of time and dedication. They suck the life out
of you whether you're a CP or a NCP. Every situation has to be looked
at individually. In my case, my wife's ex is addicted to strip clubs
and prostitutes, before and after their divorce. He needs to pay, one
way or another. I'm making no assumptions about anyone else.

Wow. What an attitude.

Okay I goofed; I gave two kids the amount of money the CS expects for
one kid. There.... I admit it!

But please take into consideration that I did not include a few things:

1) I did not include clothes.
2) I did not include toiletries (you wouldn't believe what teenage
girls go through).
3) I only estimated $5/day for food per kid which is kind of low.
4) I did not include school expenses.
5) Do you think your kids do not deserve to see a movie with their
friends (at least $10 a pop)?
6) Have you ever thought they might deserve an allowance ($10-50 per
week) or you don't believe in that?
7) I'm sure you think this is a luxury but the majority of kids have
cell phones and computers these days. Or would you prefer your kids to
go without, just because you can't make it? I guess you would.
8) Transportation costs. Either by car or here in the city they need
bus fares to go to school.
9) Health insurance the NCP might provide does not pay for everything.
Co-pays, deducticles, prescriptions the insurance does not cover,
bandades, ointments, and more things that I can not think of right now.

You probably don't want to think about these things....
9) It goes without saying nobody's thinking about saving for college
are they????
10) I'm sure my wife's ex will fork up the money for the marriage
ceremony later on... ya right.....

In a situation like mine, I never got a response, is it right that my
wife's ex pays nothing?????



teachrmama wrote:
"djohnson" wrote in message
ps.com...
Gini wrote:
"djohnson" wrote
...............................
Well as in the Murtari case $120 a week seems reasonable to expect.
==
Really? That means that 240. a week should be spent on the child given
the
CP's share.

That's about right. We have two kids so that would mean we are paying
about $1000/month for them. We are in the city where housing is high
everywhere, so $350/month goes to their bedrooms. If they only eat
$10/day ($5 each) that adds on $300. I'll take out only $50 for
utilities. That leaves $300/month or $10/day or $5/day for each kid
beyond just food and lodging. You can nitpick the exact numbers if you
want but that's about it.

You are paying $1000/month for 2 children. So that's $500/month per child.
So then the NCP's share for 1 child would be $250 per month, which would
be--let's see--uh--$60 per week. Wow! Mr. Murtari seems to have hit it on
the head!

"djohnson" wrote in message
ups.com...
Okay I goofed; I gave two kids the amount of money the CS expects for
one kid. There.... I admit it!

But please take into consideration that I did not include a few things:

1) I did not include clothes.
2) I did not include toiletries (you wouldn't believe what teenage
girls go through).
3) I only estimated $5/day for food per kid which is kind of low.
4) I did not include school expenses.
5) Do you think your kids do not deserve to see a movie with their
friends (at least $10 a pop)?
6) Have you ever thought they might deserve an allowance ($10-50 per
week) or you don't believe in that?
7) I'm sure you think this is a luxury but the majority of kids have
cell phones and computers these days. Or would you prefer your kids to
go without, just because you can't make it? I guess you would.
8) Transportation costs. Either by car or here in the city they need
bus fares to go to school.
9) Health insurance the NCP might provide does not pay for everything.
Co-pays, deducticles, prescriptions the insurance does not cover,
bandades, ointments, and more things that I can not think of right now.

You probably don't want to think about these things....
9) It goes without saying nobody's thinking about saving for college
are they????
10) I'm sure my wife's ex will fork up the money for the marriage
ceremony later on... ya right.....

In a situation like mine, I never got a response, is it right that my
wife's ex pays nothing?????

I take it you start to get the drift of the thinking, in this newsgroup?





teachrmama wrote:
"djohnson" wrote in message
ps.com...
Gini wrote:
"djohnson" wrote
...............................
Well as in the Murtari case $120 a week seems reasonable to expect.
==
Really? That means that 240. a week should be spent on the child given
the
CP's share.

That's about right. We have two kids so that would mean we are paying
about $1000/month for them. We are in the city where housing is high
everywhere, so $350/month goes to their bedrooms. If they only eat
$10/day ($5 each) that adds on $300. I'll take out only $50 for
utilities. That leaves $300/month or $10/day or $5/day for each kid
beyond just food and lodging. You can nitpick the exact numbers if you
want but that's about it.

You are paying $1000/month for 2 children. So that's $500/month per
child.
So then the NCP's share for 1 child would be $250 per month, which would
be--let's see--uh--$60 per week. Wow! Mr. Murtari seems to have hit it
on
the head!

"djohnson" wrote
Okay I goofed; I gave two kids the amount of money the CS expects for
one kid. There.... I admit it!

But please take into consideration that I did not include a few things:

1) I did not include clothes.
2) I did not include toiletries (you wouldn't believe what teenage
girls go through).
3) I only estimated $5/day for food per kid which is kind of low.
4) I did not include school expenses.
5) Do you think your kids do not deserve to see a movie with their
friends (at least $10 a pop)?
6) Have you ever thought they might deserve an allowance ($10-50 per
week) or you don't believe in that?
7) I'm sure you think this is a luxury but the majority of kids have
cell phones and computers these days. Or would you prefer your kids to
go without, just because you can't make it? I guess you would.
8) Transportation costs. Either by car or here in the city they need
bus fares to go to school.
9) Health insurance the NCP might provide does not pay for everything.
Co-pays, deducticles, prescriptions the insurance does not cover,
bandades, ointments, and more things that I can not think of right now.

You probably don't want to think about these things....
9) It goes without saying nobody's thinking about saving for college
are they????
10) I'm sure my wife's ex will fork up the money for the marriage
ceremony later on... ya right.....
==
Whoa! Wait a minute--those are not things child support is intended for!
You'd have him pay
every expense you can dream up, wouldn't you? No damn wonder he works "under
the table!"
I'm guessing your tune will change when
you are the NCP! Anyway, NCPs should not be required to pay any child costs
that any other
parent is not mandated to pay. Do you realize what would happen if the
government began telling CPs and
parents in intact relationships that they have to spend 15-20% of their
income on their kids and if they
don't, they're hauled off to jail?

"djohnson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Dusty" wrote
"djohnson" wrote
Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite.
Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially
provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of
jail
as an incentive.
....................
Morality has nothing to do with it when it comes to government.
........................................
==
He has posted that he's a second husband. That is the perspective from
which
he views child support. You know, the ones who think the ex owes them a
standard of
living and should expose every dime he earns.

I agree, and the same should go for the biological father. My income
is all exposed to the government unlike my wife's ex who only works
under the counter to avoid paying child support.

If you were a REAL man, you would take care of your own family WITHOUT
attempting to extort money from some poor schmuck!

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:F6KDg.11684$yE1.729@trndny02...

"djohnson" wrote
...............................
Well as in the Murtari case $120 a week seems reasonable to expect.
==
Really? That means that 240. a week should be spent on the child given
the
CP's share.
==
Even a minimum wage job would be enough to pay that.
==
Surely you jest. You didn't think think through very well, did you?
You do realize that the NCP must also survive?
==
Yes the father
has to make sacrifices.
==
Hopefully, leaving the mother to live in leisure?
==
Do you think I enjoy having to pay $150 in
school fees tommorow for my stepkid,
==
That's pretty steep and appears you are squandering money and living
beyond your means.

LMAO!! On school fees?

Just the fee for the books, alone, is $60 (junior high) and $75 (high
school). This fee is required, and not optional.

And if the mother lacks such funds?


Perhaps we should tell the school, that imposed the fees, that they are
squandering money and living beyond their means?

The
NCP is not responsible for your poor spending habits or your auto
repairs.
You are living beyond your
means

By paying his step-child's school fees?

and expecting the ex to fund you.

Shouldn't the father of the child be helping pay for the support of the
child?

It appears you haven't a clue how
child support is supposed to be used
and what it is intended for.
==

"djohnson" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dusty wrote:
"djohnson" wrote in message
oups.com...
First of all I take your word for what you are saying. It all sounds
reasonable. I just don't have the same analysis.


[snipped for brevity]

"..how can you expect a woman to pay child support when a woman, say for
instance, gets pregnant?"

What I expect is that the law be applied equally, not with willy-nilly
sexual bias. The courts demand that men who are out of work (for any
reason
whatsoever) to cough up cash they don't have, why should it be any
different
for a woman??

Yes it's a bit unfair. It has to do with priorities. If you have to
pay $500/month then that's the first thing a NCP should pay and then
worry about everything else. That's exactly how our budget is. All
kids' expenses come first.

With all due respect, what the heck is wrong with you? My guess is that
eating needs to come first. If you don't eat, then you can't work; thus you
will have ZERO for a budget. Am I missing something here?


I'll try to focus on your point more though. I'm saying the NCPs
should be jailed if they make no reasonable attempt. Now I know you're
going to say how come the CP can make no reasonable attempt? Well
actually the CP has other legal threats to deal with, like The
Department of Child and Human Services and other legal problems kids
can get their parents into. We have to deal with a ton of legal
threats that the NCP doesn't have to worry about. I know this thinking
is more subjective than what you want. But in reality it balances out.

If it balances out, then it follows that the mother would have NO problem
letting the father determine custody. Afterall, the positions of CP and NCP
are equal.........

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"djohnson" wrote in message
oups.com...
First of all I take your word for what you are saying. It all sounds
reasonable. I just don't have the same analysis.


[snipped for brevity]

"..how can you expect a woman to pay child support when a woman, say for
instance, gets pregnant?"

What I expect is that the law be applied equally, not with willy-nilly
sexual bias.

Which is why the gender identities of the litigating parents ought to be
concealed. Gee, I wonder why they aren't?

The courts demand that men who are out of work (for any reason
whatsoever) to cough up cash they don't have, why should it be any
different
for a woman??