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

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ups.com...

P. Fritz wrote:

snip

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.

I think you misunderstand. Just because an NCP is earning in a bracket that
would tend to assume that the children would be given certain luxuries does
NOT mean that the children aer ENTITLED to those luxuries. A child is not
entitled to after school sports, dance lessons, trips to Disneyland, his own
personal computer and entertainment center, etc. A child is entitled to the
basics: shelter, food, clothing, public school education, etc. But nothing
more is included in that entitlement. That is specifically what is wrong
with lifestyle child support. If they took 80% of my husband's paycheck,
his child would still not live the lifestyle "presumed" by the amount of his
earnings. Because of the ongoing choices made by the *mother* of the child.
Child support should only cover basic needs. Loving NCPs should have the
choice of providing more directly to their children if they choose to do so.
A percentage of income does not take that into consideration.

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ps.com...

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.

But look at it this way, Spidey. Like it or not, when the parents and child
do no all live in the same household, both households MUST have a lower
standard of living because there are *2* households being supported--not
just on! There is NO guarantee of standard of living!! You are also
making a HUGE assumption when you say that a certain percentage of income
would be spent on the child were the parents together. You cannot assume
ANYTHING above basic needs would be spent. Basic needs are what should be
covered by CS--anything more than basic needs should be voluntary.


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.

But you CANNOT believe that the same things aer going to be funded. The
money must now be divided differently because 2 households are being
supported!


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.

Oh, so in your plan, you are also shifting the tax burden? That would
certainly be better than the NCP paying taxes on the money which the CP
receives tax free along with the dependent benefits on their income taxes.

teachrmama wrote:
I think you misunderstand. Just because an NCP is earning in a bracket that
would tend to assume that the children would be given certain luxuries does
NOT mean that the children aer ENTITLED to those luxuries. A child is not
entitled to after school sports, dance lessons, trips to Disneyland, his own
personal computer and entertainment center, etc. A child is entitled to the
basics: shelter, food, clothing, public school education, etc. But nothing
more is included in that entitlement. That is specifically what is wrong
with lifestyle child support. If they took 80% of my husband's paycheck,
his child would still not live the lifestyle "presumed" by the amount of his
earnings. Because of the ongoing choices made by the *mother* of the child.
Child support should only cover basic needs. Loving NCPs should have the
choice of providing more directly to their children if they choose to do so.
A percentage of income does not take that into consideration.

I didn't say children were entitled to certain luxeries of life like
Disneyland.. or new cars.. cool toys.. whatever you can think of as a
luxury.

But the current system of support is set in such a manner that if the
NCP's income were imputed into the household, it would be safe to
assume that X number of the NCP's dollars would be spent.

Where this money is spent is not important... just that it would be
spent. We then say that your children are entitled to be supported by
their parents. And unfortantly we had to come up with a dollar figure
to reflect this. We call this dollar figure Child Support.

I am not suggesting a change to child support being paid. I am
simply suggesting a change in method in how it is calculated. Because
right now, as said by you in other posts.. you make 100,000 one year..
your job flies the coupe. You are then stuck to making 60,000.

Well in the current system.. to bad so sad.. you had potential to
make this amount of money.. you better figure out way to do it again..
And instead my idea looks at the real money being earned, adjusts
accordingly. As the amount paid can never exceed a certain percentage
of the income.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ps.com...

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.
====
But it is NOT state mandated! If it isn't mandated by law for *all* parents,
it should be mandated for none.
The state has no business legislating lifestyle to anyone. The state does
have an interest in
making sure children's basic needs are met by the parents. Period. Nothing
else matters. The only necessary
calculations are the amount of money required to meet basic needs. Neither
parent's income is relevent.
====

"SpiderHam77" wrote in

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.

What Standards would that be and who decides those standards?
Do you think a minimum $30 bucks a week should cover it?
That's alot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, don't ya think?

teachrmama wrote:
But look at it this way, Spidey. Like it or not, when the parents and child
do no all live in the same household, both households MUST have a lower
standard of living because there are *2* households being supported--not
just on! There is NO guarantee of standard of living!! You are also
making a HUGE assumption when you say that a certain percentage of income
would be spent on the child were the parents together. You cannot assume
ANYTHING above basic needs would be spent. Basic needs are what should be
covered by CS--anything more than basic needs should be voluntary.

So what you are suggesting then is if I have a child, decide this is
not what I want.. but I make in excess of 100,000K per year.. the only
amount of money I should be expected to pay is the basic living
costs...

Lets say my child happens to live in the slums of major city.. Rent
for a 2 bed app is about 500 per month, since I'm only to cover a max
of half that... 250 for my share... and then another couple hundred
dollars a month in food and clothing...

So I get away Scotfree with paying a little over 500 a month in CS...
great... Oh but wait.. the current system doesn't say that...

The current system says that I must pay more because I make a certain
amount.. and that amount can be decided by a judge, as you pointed
out.. not by law.. but by a person elected by the people to sit behind
a bench.

On the other end.. I now make only 1200 a month working Min wage...
but my childs cost of living hasn't decreased at all... And I am not
being expected to pay 500 of my 1000 after taxes.. and somehow support
myself on the rest... Because I need to provide the basics of living
for my child still.

SpiderHam77


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.

But you CANNOT believe that the same things aer going to be funded. The
money must now be divided differently because 2 households are being
supported!

I didn't say they were going to be funded.. a limitation of time of
the CP may verywell decrease that from happening in the first place..
But just because parents split doesn;t mean children should have a huge
adjustment made to their lifestyle.

Oh, so in your plan, you are also shifting the tax burden? That would
certainly be better than the NCP paying taxes on the money which the CP
receives tax free along with the dependent benefits on their income taxes.

Was just an idea... Not saying it would work... but it was simply an
idea.

SpiderHam77

DB wrote:

What Standards would that be and who decides those standards?
Do you think a minimum $30 bucks a week should cover it?
That's alot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, don't ya think?

The standards are set already by the states.. Living standards...
Nutrition standards, ext... look them up.. not sure where they are..
but I know they exsist, or children would never be seized from homes.

SpiderHam77

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

What Standards would that be and who decides those standards?
Do you think a minimum $30 bucks a week should cover it?
That's alot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, don't ya think?

The standards are set already by the states.. Living standards...
Nutrition standards, ext... look them up.. not sure where they are..
but I know they exsist, or children would never be seized from homes.

Absolutely, they exist. They say that as long as children are minimally
clothed, housed, fed, and sent to school, they aer just fine. Bare bones,
no extras. So are you proposing that all the CP has to provide is that, and
that any CS above and beyond that is hers to do with as she pleases?

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
But look at it this way, Spidey. Like it or not, when the parents and
child
do no all live in the same household, both households MUST have a lower
standard of living because there are *2* households being supported--not
just on! There is NO guarantee of standard of living!! You are also
making a HUGE assumption when you say that a certain percentage of income
would be spent on the child were the parents together. You cannot assume
ANYTHING above basic needs would be spent. Basic needs are what should
be
covered by CS--anything more than basic needs should be voluntary.

So what you are suggesting then is if I have a child, decide this is
not what I want.. but I make in excess of 100,000K per year.. the only
amount of money I should be expected to pay is the basic living
costs...

Precisely!! That is exactly what I am saying. Child support should support
the basic needs of a child--not a lifestyle. Children aer NOT owed a
lifestyle. However, a parent who truly loves his children is not going to
leave them in such straits. His
CS will make sure that basic needs aer met--and he will bring extras into
the life of his child voluntarily. This will also encourage the CP to make
sure there is a strong relationship between the child and the NCP--no more
"I've got your money--who needs you?" nonsense.

Personally, my preference is split custody, 50/50. That way, the CS
question never even needs to be asked. But if the CP wants full custody,
then she should be opting for the child, and only very basic support. Not a
percentage of the NCP's salary.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

What Standards would that be and who decides those standards?
Do you think a minimum $30 bucks a week should cover it?
That's alot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, don't ya think?

The standards are set already by the states.. Living standards...
Nutrition standards, ext... look them up.. not sure where they are..
but I know they exsist, or children would never be seized from homes.

Absolutely, they exist. They say that as long as children are minimally
clothed, housed, fed, and sent to school, they aer just fine. Bare
bones,
no extras. So are you proposing that all the CP has to provide is that,
and
that any CS above and beyond that is hers to do with as she pleases?




You have to love it when the boob paints himself into a corner.