Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
.................................................. ..........
No it wouldn't--unless parents in intact relationships are required by
law
to spend a percent
of their income on their children and are subject to license
revocation/imprisonment if they fail to do so.
===

But parents by virtue of being in the same home do spend a percentage
of their income on their children.
===
By legal mandate? Of course they spend a percentage of thier income on their
children.
That wasn't the point.
===

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
Costs can be determined for special needs children just as they can be
for
other children. In the US,
payments to foster parents are based on data that determines actual
costs.
It seems the only
ones who whine that it can't be done are those who benefit from the
excesses
of the current system.
(More Below)
===

Your right... however.. the costs for Special Needs children are
usually way above the average. That in order for the NCP to be able to
affoard to half the costs related He/She would have to ensure that they
have a good paying job, and not lose it.

But if you only make 10 dollars an hour, you can barely affoard to
feed, cloth, and house yourself, and maybe make a modest CS payment.
Nothing even close to the thousands needed to ensure that special needs
therapy is taken care of.

In the result of Foster Families the payments are coming the public
coffers... not the pocket of the NCP. The Gov has a slightly larger
wallet then the regular person.

But if the CS was tied to the NCP's income and it was shown that
he/she is paying all they can in regards to therapy, then there would
also be an argument in place for the Gov to increase funding to such
resources for that child. And who knows if we get lucky, may offest
some of the cost to a point where it's managble.

Why is CS tied only to the NCP's income? Does the CP have no
responsibility? What percentage of the CP's income should be *mandated* to
be spent on the child? And how would you determine whether or not the CP
was spending the mandated percentage on the child? And, of course, was
spending the NCP's portion only on the child for whom it was being paid?

And when are we, as a society, going to begin demanding that married parents
spend the proper amount on their kids? What percentage are we going to
insist that married couples spend?


Right now I know my costs that I allocate to my child have meant that
in the 6 years he has been alive, I have been on a vacation 2 times,
and both them were local, just into the closest major city for 3-4
days. As thats all I can affoard.

Vacation! Wouldn't that be nice! Lucky you, getting 2 vacations in the
last 6 years! It must be nice.

snip

===
No it wouldn't--unless parents in intact relationships are required by
law
to spend a percent
of their income on their children and are subject to license
revocation/imprisonment if they fail to do so.
===

But parents by virtue of being in the same home do spend a percentage
of their income on their children. Unless I misunderstand the whole
parenting thing. Because my son benefits from my income...

As I make more money... so does he recieve more perks in life, and I
as lose money, he loses out on certain things I just can't afford. If
I'm wrong about this persumption please correct me and tell me what I'm
doing different then the millions of other parents out there.

See, here is a big part of what is wrong with you plan. You assume that
other people do things just like you--or very similarly. You do not
consider that your life is a far, far cry from so many that are caught up in
the system. You think that your brand of logic covers it all. I posted a
message that demonstrates a situation far different from yours, but you have
yet to answer the questions I asked. Is CS paid to be used *only* for the
child it is paid for? Or is it melded into the household income, and
*everyone* benefits--even though CS is supposed to be raising the lifestyle
of just one specific child? How does your system address that? If a mother
has 5 children by 5 men, does she get a set % of each man's paycheck--say
20%? Why, that would giver her 100% of a salary. She would not need to
work--she's got 100% of a salary. How fortunate for her!! Everyone does
not fit into your little experience box, Spidey!! There are situations out
there that you can't even imagine!


The reason CS exsists is to ensure that a child of your bearing is
looked after finicially by you... and not everyone else.

If that is true, why are CP's not held accountable to spend the full amount
of CS on the child for whom it is paid?

"teachrmama" wrote in

If that is true, why are CP's not held accountable to spend the full
amount of CS on the child for whom it is paid?

Because the Government doesn't have anybody on their backs asking how the
money is spent!

Funny that they can define how much a person should pay, but can't account
where the money goes?

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ps.com...
The only errors in my system that seem to be shown to me are that you
don't seem to fully comprehend what is being said. At what point did I
say you must hand over money to the government... All I said is a
system needs to setup to ensure that legislated child support is in
fact paid.

How is one suppose to pay CS when one can barely afford to keep a roof over
their head (that is if they aren't living in their care) in jail, dead, or
not out of H.S. yet? (which, if you had a clue, you would know accoutns
for the vast majority of NCP's that are in arrears)


The current system is based totally on the honor system, that once
asked to pay a specific amount they the payor will pay it. And in
probably 90% of cases out there, that is the case. Most NCP's I know
pay their child support like clock work, and don't dispute it, because
they have an obligation to support their child.

And you continue to ignore the FACT that 90% of those that don't arew
because they are unable to


I don't know the exact percentage of people who can affoard to pay,
and then choose simply not to.

You have been told, but ytou continue to ignore the FACTS.

If someone can provide that stat, and
where they got it from, that would be great. But the fact that a law
of giving the unpaid child support as a Tax Credit, and then taxing the
same amount of money to the NCP tells me there are quite a few who are
trying to neglect their obilgation.

You are clueless.......laws like that are pandering to an interst group,
plain and simple. The fact that you cannot se that is very tellling.


I have had no assumptions in my idea... The whole idea is to take
the assumptions out of it... Here's an assumption. you start paying
child support... Person does not move, but the land develops around
them, as a result home prices go up, and the CP is either forced to pay
more in rent, or move...

What happens there... Do you as the NCP say oh well to bad your
calculations were set at a certain time, without taking into account
stuff like inflation. And they are forced to move into another area
that can affoard, and as result have to deal with less..

The same thing can happen to an intact family......are you going to mandate
to them they cannot move? I don't think so. L e t m e
s a y t h i s r e a l s l o w.
Child are NOT entitled to any set standard of living.


There are assumptions in alot of things... I'm trying to say get rid
of them, and simply set the playing feild level. Ensure that no matter
what choices the CP makes, they cannot get more out of you then a
percentage of your Income. End of story. Again 30% is just a figure I
came to based on what I've been reading. The percentage could be set
lower.. but it needs to be tied directly to the NCP's income.

And it is stupid to beging with. End of story.

2 reasons for this.

1) it would ensure that the NCP is garenteed a livable income, and
not be taken for every cent they have.

No it would not.

2) It would also garantee that CP's know what level of CS they are
getting, and be able to plan their lives around it.

No it would not.


In other words.. the guess work is taken out of it.

You are wrong on both counts, you are just to wrapped up in 'your'
assumptions to see it.

No more people
saying well our kids are doing this.. and this... so therefore more
money is needed... anything above the predetermined amount would have
to be discussed between the parents and if the NCP felt he/she could
affoard it, they would contribute...

Let me say again... the % I am talking about.. is a Max amount of
money... nothing more... Where that % sits is up for debate.. but needs
to be tied directly to the NCP's income to ensure that with flux in
their income from year to year CS will flux with it.

You just insist on being stupid.



SpiderHam77

teachrmama wrote:

Why is CS tied only to the NCP's income? Does the CP have no
responsibility? What percentage of the CP's income should be *mandated* to
be spent on the child? And how would you determine whether or not the CP
was spending the mandated percentage on the child? And, of course, was
spending the NCP's portion only on the child for whom it was being paid?

The CP does have a responsibilty, raising the child, and caring for
the child. The money that is paid in CS always go into the houshold
pot. the reason we ask for a dollar amount to paid is simply because
it's eaiser to manage that way.

Say one month your Son is sick for 3 working days... who loses the
income for those 3 days to care for the child.. the NCP or the CP.
Well since the CP has the child with them, logic would dictate the CP.
Hence the money that is paid in CS is then used to supplement their
income to ensure all the bills are paid at the end of the month.

And when are we, as a society, going to begin demanding that married parents
spend the proper amount on their kids? What percentage are we going to
insist that married couples spend?

We don't insist on an amount mainly because as long as the child is
cared for properly, how you spend your money on that child is up to the
Married parents... CS was created in an effort to figure out if the
NCP was living in the house what would be the average amount of monthly
income spent by that person in the household. We then have created a
name for this amount of money... Child Support. The amount.

Currently it's calculated by a variety of methods... Income,
location.. whatever the case may be.. .my suggestion is to simply
stream line the process to 1 uniform system.

See, here is a big part of what is wrong with you plan. You assume that
other people do things just like you--or very similarly. You do not
consider that your life is a far, far cry from so many that are caught up in
the system. You think that your brand of logic covers it all. I posted a
message that demonstrates a situation far different from yours, but you have
yet to answer the questions I asked. Is CS paid to be used *only* for the
child it is paid for? Or is it melded into the household income, and
*everyone* benefits--even though CS is supposed to be raising the lifestyle
of just one specific child? How does your system address that? If a mother
has 5 children by 5 men, does she get a set % of each man's paycheck--say
20%? Why, that would giver her 100% of a salary. She would not need to
work--she's got 100% of a salary. How fortunate for her!! Everyone does
not fit into your little experience box, Spidey!! There are situations out
there that you can't even imagine!

I don't assume anything.. Hence why I've stated that my situation is
unique. I don't recall saying anywhere that I expected all people to
do things the way I do it.

Well your situation of the the Mother with 5 children, then the men
who got her pregnat are dumb asses and pretty much deserve to be raped
for their cash. If I encountered a woman with more then 2 children or
more, all by different fathers... I would be very careful not to get
her pregrant... but thats manly because I'm able to think my way
through the situations.

But for arguments sake.. if she did manage to to this.. then good for
her... she has figured out a way to play the system in her favour...
and no single man is being forced to pay more the his fair share. A
simple % of their income.

If that is true, why are CP's not held accountable to spend the full amount
of CS on the child for whom it is paid?

The reason we don't make CP's account for the money is simply because
we ask is the child being cared for properly... Well then He/She is
spending adaquate cash on their child...

I make enough to support my child, and pay for everything he needs...
some months are harder then others.. but we manage.. Just because I
make enough to cover the full amount.. does that in anyway negate my
exe's responsibilty to pay child support... No beause if she was
living in the house with me.. Her income would be inputted into the
house, and then whatever she was contributing would inturn become a
savings for me.

And if I end up taking her money and applying to say like a Car
Payment... I am essentially robbing peter to pay paul. The money at
the end of the day is all coming from the same place.

Or if I decided to buy my Son some new clothes.. once my money and
her money is put together... who is actually paying for it.. me or
her...

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote
...................................

The reason we don't make CP's account for the money is simply because
we ask is the child being cared for properly... Well then He/She is
spending adaquate cash on their child...
===
There you go! The measure is whether the child is "adequately cared for."
That is the standard for
every parent *except* NCPs. For them, the amount required is a percentage of
income, NOT the amount
required for "adequate care." For the playing field to be level, *all
parents* must either be required by law
to spend a percentage of their income on their children and be held
accountable should they fail to do so OR
require NCPs to provide the same level (adequate care) for their children as
other parents are required by law
to do. Why is this concept so seemingly difficult for you to grasp?
===
===

"Gini" wrote in message
news:h2gsf.1458$lv3.94@trndny03...

"SpiderHam77" wrote
..................................
The reason we don't make CP's account for the money is simply because
we ask is the child being cared for properly... Well then He/She is
spending adaquate cash on their child...
===
There you go! The measure is whether the child is "adequately cared for."
That is the standard for
every parent *except* NCPs. For them, the amount required is a percentage
of income, NOT the amount
required for "adequate care." For the playing field to be level, *all
parents* must either be required by law
to spend a percentage of their income on their children and be held
accountable should they fail to do so OR
require NCPs to provide the same level (adequate care) for their children
as other parents are required by law
to do. Why is this concept so seemingly difficult for you to grasp?
===
===

I think what fascinates me is the fact that Spidey thinks that all CPs care
for their children adequately. He probably also assumes that if the
children are not cared for adequately by his standards that they will be
taken from the CP and given to the NCP. I have a feeling that old Spidey
has not had much contact with the seamier side of life. Which may be good
for him--lets him keep his upbeat outlook on how "simple" things really are.
But it also makes him very, very naive!! I just love the part where he
advocates prostitution by saying that a woman who is smart enough to use sex
to provide herself with a percentage of the income of several men is to be
congratulated. chuckle

P. Fritz wrote:

How is one suppose to pay CS when one can barely afford to keep a roof over
their head (that is if they aren't living in their care) in jail, dead, or
not out of H.S. yet? (which, if you had a clue, you would know accoutns
for the vast majority of NCP's that are in arrears)

I'm sure that is the case.. I'm not going to dispute it, because your
right I don't have the facts about it... But if anything my idea would
help these people to allow them to get their lives back under control.

If a % of their income, again the 30% mark is not set in stone... is
given as CS.. and this covers everything from arrears... to whatever
else you can think of.. all of it has to come out of this % of
income...

It would ensure that the NCP is always left with a Min of 70% or
greater of their Take Home income to pay for the basics of life. Again
this has to be based against income because expecting somoene to pay
30% of 1000 per month is outragous... but if you take home 10,000 a
month (After Taxes) 3,000 is a chunk of change yes.. but still leaves
the NCP with 7,000 to affoard the needs of life..

The lower income scales can be set, say you only make 1,000 a month,
something like 5% could be expected to be paid.. $50.. And as the
income increases so does the %. Again the 30% mark is not set in
stone.. it could be set to an average of 20%. I just honestly picked
the number 30.

And you continue to ignore the FACT that 90% of those that don't arew
because they are unable to

I have not ignored anything... exactly where in any of my posts have
Indicated this... please point it out... I intended with my idea to
include these people, and give them a chance to [ay support and still
live a life.

You are clueless.......laws like that are pandering to an interst group,
plain and simple. The fact that you cannot se that is very tellling.

How am I clueless and what interest group am I pandering to... If
anything I thought my idea would work in favour of the NCP, as the
whole idea of Sky's the limit is taken off the table.. So if you could
tell me what interest group am I pandering to, I would greatly
interested to know as I don't recall advocating for any group.


The same thing can happen to an intact family......are you going to mandate
to them they cannot move? I don't think so. L e t m e
s a y t h i s r e a l s l o w.
Child are NOT entitled to any set standard of living.

Actually there you are wrong.. Last I looked the US is part of the UN
Council.. and the UN has a bill in place that garantees a standard of
living for children. And the US is a signer of the bill.

The bill is speaking in terms of an education, healthcare, and other
things.. but the argument could be made that they are infact entitled
to a certain standard of living relavent to the country they live in.

Also if we don't garantee our children a certain standard of living,
then we may well regress into a 3rd world country and force them to
work in sweat shops and "Make Their Keep" as it were.


There are assumptions in alot of things... I'm trying to say get rid
of them, and simply set the playing feild level. Ensure that no matter
what choices the CP makes, they cannot get more out of you then a
percentage of your Income. End of story. Again 30% is just a figure I
came to based on what I've been reading. The percentage could be set
lower.. but it needs to be tied directly to the NCP's income.

And it is stupid to beging with. End of story.

You have yet to offer an alternative to my idea.. So I can't say
yours are any better... To just disagree with something for the sake
of disagreement and not have a better alternative to help with the
current problem is just plain dumb. So far all I've heard you spew out
are simple 1 line responses to paragraphs that do little to explain
why...


2 reasons for this.

1) it would ensure that the NCP is garenteed a livable income, and
not be taken for every cent they have.

No it would not.

And why not then? Reasons against this idea would be helpful...

2) It would also garantee that CP's know what level of CS they are
getting, and be able to plan their lives around it.

No it would not.

Again, Why not?


In other words.. the guess work is taken out of it.

You are wrong on both counts, you are just to wrapped up in 'your'
assumptions to see it.

WHY?

No more people
saying well our kids are doing this.. and this... so therefore more
money is needed... anything above the predetermined amount would have
to be discussed between the parents and if the NCP felt he/she could
affoard it, they would contribute...

Let me say again... the % I am talking about.. is a Max amount of
money... nothing more... Where that % sits is up for debate.. but needs
to be tied directly to the NCP's income to ensure that with flux in
their income from year to year CS will flux with it.

You just insist on being stupid.

WHY?

SpiderHam77

Gini wrote:

===
There you go! The measure is whether the child is "adequately cared for."
That is the standard for
every parent *except* NCPs. For them, the amount required is a percentage of
income, NOT the amount
required for "adequate care." For the playing field to be level, *all
parents* must either be required by law
to spend a percentage of their income on their children and be held
accountable should they fail to do so OR
require NCPs to provide the same level (adequate care) for their children as
other parents are required by law
to do. Why is this concept so seemingly difficult for you to grasp?
===
===

But think about it this way.. if the NCP were living in the home with
the child.. The child would then inturn benefit from a percentage of
his/her income being spent on them. Everything from contribution to
the morgage.. to paying for skating lessons, and everything in between.

You remove that income from the home, you change the % the CP has to
pay in order to adequatly fund the same things... So instead.. even
now it's done through a process of the NCP's income. If the NCP makes
so many number of dollars... they are expected to contribute X number
to their childs lifestyle.

My suggestion is cap the amount that any NCP would be required to
pay.. This ensures that the NCP would have enough for a standard of
living. Also if the NCP wishes to contribute more.. they are more then
welcome to, but at their choice.

Also you could take it one step further... the money that the NCP
pays in support. A portion of it could be written off by the NCP...
And the CP would be required to pay tax on it, at their income level.

SpiderHam77

teachrmama wrote:

I think what fascinates me is the fact that Spidey thinks that all CPs care
for their children adequately. He probably also assumes that if the
children are not cared for adequately by his standards that they will be
taken from the CP and given to the NCP. I have a feeling that old Spidey
has not had much contact with the seamier side of life. Which may be good
for him--lets him keep his upbeat outlook on how "simple" things really are.
But it also makes him very, very naive!! I just love the part where he
advocates prostitution by saying that a woman who is smart enough to use sex
to provide herself with a percentage of the income of several men is to be
congratulated. chuckle

I'm gald I'm able to entertain you.. but I do appreciate not all CP's
care for their children adequatley. And we need to use child
enforcement to ensure standards are met to certain level.

I don't think they would be taken from from the CP and given to the
NCP.. at what point did I say that... You all seem to think I have some
rosey look on life.. As a single parent I essure you I have been in the
arguments with my ex over to help pay for things.. and all that jazz.

Well I suggested the woman in the example was smart because she
managed to sucker 5 different men into supporting her. Men need to
wake up and realize that if we let them.. women will take us for a
ride, and then drop us at the curb side when they are done.

I myself, if I met a woman who had 2 children or more by the same
number of different men.. I would be looking for the door ASAP. As I
could figure out what she is all about. I'm not dumb.. but if some
dumb ass is willing to provide her with more ammo.. then let him be
shot by her CS orders.. not me.

SpiderHam77