Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Gini" wrote in message
news:PkUYg.2166$IW6.274@trndny01...

"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is entitled to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to
income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility in
intact homes.
==

All of the child-rearing expense estimators show children's expenses as a
percentage of household consumption spending declining as parental income
goes up. Every estimator shows parental reserve income increasing
significantly as incomes increase. As an example spending on one child
decreases from 23% to 13% of the total in several of the models.

There is no such concept as "cost of living increases" when it comes to
child expenditures. It would be double dipping to have CS scales increase
with incomes and also increase with inflation.

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is entitled to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility in
intact homes.

Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do. Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.

Until they reach the age of majority, children should have the same
standard of living as their parents. I don't propose that there should
be $ for $ equity in spending for every person in the household. But
I do propose that equity in the predominate standard of living be
available to all members of a houshold. In non intact families, the
children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as
close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint
income within reason.

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.

Regards,
Rags
==

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:PkUYg.2166$IW6.274@trndny01...

"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is entitled to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to
income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility in
intact homes.
==

All of the child-rearing expense estimators show children's expenses as a
percentage of household consumption spending declining as parental income
goes up. Every estimator shows parental reserve income increasing
significantly as incomes increase. As an example spending on one child
decreases from 23% to 13% of the total in several of the models.

There is no such concept as "cost of living increases" when it comes to
child expenditures. It would be double dipping to have CS scales increase
with incomes and also increase with inflation.


Bob,

I agree that the percentage of total joint parental income allocated
for a child does not stay at a fixed percentage as income continues to
increase over time. However, even if the percentage spent on children
of total dollars earned decreases, the actual dollars spent goes up as
income increases.

I miss spoke when I said "cost of living improvements". I meant to say
standard of living improvements.

Regs,
Rags

"Rags" wrote
............

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

"Gini" wrote in message
news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08...

"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO
standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal with
in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my daughter
lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off. He
lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car and
lots of possessions my daughter didn't have.

The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the
appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through too
high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create
inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only
perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is also
the custodial parent receives money.

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

Gini,

I am no constitutional scholar, but your perspective sounds good to me.
But....... In the small percentage of situations where parents do not
provide for their kids, how do we ensure that children are supported by
their parents?

Regards,
Rags

"pandora" wrote in message
news:XrmdncThib_LLa7YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:5FwYg.23041$H7.7532@edtnps82...
pandora wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:SiUUg.12141$N4.7462@clgrps12...

pandora wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
thlink.net...



A couple of decades ago, most men and women alike supported
equality.


Bull****.

Justice therefore dictates that if a woman
makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to
term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable
for 21 years of support. Or, put another way,
autonomous women making independent decisions
about their lives should not expect men to
finance their choice...


He had an opportunity for HIS choice to not be a parent. It is his
problem
that he didn't. (ANd obviously, if SHE is pregnant, then he already
made
his choice). Equality.

apparently "equality minded" women don't agree with you Marg...quelle
surprise !

Then they're wrong.

I agree. Equality is DEFINITELY the wrong path to follow.

I consider what I wrote to be equality given the
situations individuals find themselves in. Men don't get to make
decisions
about abortion or gestating as that situation never happens to or in their
bodies. One can only make decisions regarding one's own body, not
another's.

Indeed. And such decision includes the decision to make their own bodies
walk away from a pregnancy.


If women have the right to choose if they become
parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a
connection between legalizing abortion for women
and ending of paternity suits for men.

Only in the small minds of bitter men who don't want to act in a
responsible
manner. Sheesh!

Also in the mind of the (then) President of the National Organization
For Women...and many other equality minded women as well, too bad you're
not included in their ranks...

I wouldn't consider them to be equality minded then but rather women who
wish to give men special perks. One might wonder why they would do that.
I
don't.

Why would the President of NOW desire to give men special perks?


I taught my sons to be responsibile when they were 13.

I'm sure you've made them into great doormats...

They are far from doormats although they DO understand responsibility and
don't push their responsibility onto others.

Such as the responsibility that comes with the SOLE choice to give birth.


What happened to YOUR teaching?

I was always taught that equality meant that individuals and groups
ended up having the same legal rights and abilities...

Then you were taught wrong or you understood the lesson wrong. Everyone
has
the same rights under the law.

Not even close.

A man can have an abortion should he need
one. However, no man has ever needed one since men don't get pregnant. And
the law cannot given people abilities they don't have.

seems you follow
the "Animal Farm" concept of "equality"...everyone is equal but women
should be just a little *more* equal that men...

Not at all. However, only women get pregnant. Nature did that. Laws
cannot make that inequity *equal*..

Nor can they make the inequality of a man being able to simply walk away
from a pregnancy equal. Your point?


Oh, you didn't listen because you believed it wasn't YOUR problem.

When both men and women were *equally* constrained by law, a pregnancy
certainly *WAS* a joint problem for BOTH...

Never was that way since that is an impossibility. Men are never
constrained by a pregnancy as they don't need to do anything once someone
is
pregnant; it isn't in their body.

He didn't say constrained by a pregnancy; he said constrained by "law". Nice
try.


Well, think again, buster, it is your problem too.

When the law changed and it was NO LONGER a problem for the women,
fairness and justice dictated that it should no longer have been a
problem for the man...to bad we don't live in a fair and just society...

People are responsible for their born children, nothing more, nothing
less.

Since the woman makes the SOLE chioce to create children, it follows that
she is SOLELY responsible for such children.

And we DO live in a fair and just society, you just wish to ignore it
since
you wish to be an irresponsible male.

Since when did being an "irresponsible male" cause one to ignore fantasy?

And your heavy belief in pregnancy no
longer being a problem for women is duly noted.

Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women.
It would only eliminate their expectation of having those
choices financed by men...

No, it would allow men to act irresponsibly (which many already do)
and
get
away with it (which our society doesn't want to see happen).

You know, that's pretty much the same pitch that Elizabeth
Caddy=-Stanton and Susan B. Anthony made in the successful crusade to
have abortion outlawed...are you proposing that we go back to those
days...are you *really* an anti-abortionist Marg ?

In a way, yes I am. I have never been an advocate of abortion. I do,
however, believe there should be NO LAW regarding abortion at all. Partly
because of assholes like you, but partly because it isn't anyone's
business
but the pregnant person's what they choose. There should be NO LAW
regarding abortion whatsoever; either for or against. And in truth, we
are
there now since the morning after pill is available over the counter and
no
one need even KNOW FOR ANY CERTAINTY, just like all the very real
miscarriages that occur to women in their lifetimes, whether or not an
individual woman was pregnant. You see, I don't believe in laws regarding
abortion as they are merely the last vestiges of CONTROL that controling
men
and weak women put their faith in.

For the women who create such laws, does that not make them also
"controlling" rather than weak?


These are quotes from Karen DeCrow, president of NOW and are an
example
an example of what was coming out of NOW in the 70's while NOW was
still
an organization dedicated to equality and egaltarianism...contrast
this[i]
with what is coming out of NOW today and you'll understand what he
means...

n the last twenty-five years, [the idea of]
man as "the enemy" has certainly emerged;
the separatist wing of the feminist movement
is definitely present, no question about that.
But in the early days, I think sexism was
considered more a general societal problem..

This quote, from the late 90's, again by DeCrow, says it all...

Not at all, in fact *most* young women...and more than a few older
ex-feminist, are so disgruntled that they don't want to be know as or
considered to be "feminists" at all

Possibly. That isn't my problem. As I've mentioned before, I don't
see
giant hordes of women standing in the streets and stating they are NOT
equal, they do NOT want to be eligible to vote, they do NOT want good
paying
jobs and they do NOT want to go to college, nor do they wish for no
fault
divorce to be repealed. Hey, it would seem to be the bitter bois who
are
saying all that. Gee, I wonder why. Of course, many people already
realize
that *privileged* men don't wish to give up their special perks merely
for
owning a dick.

No, most women are quite pleased with the position of legal and social
superiority that feminism has won for them I'm sure. I wonder if they
will continue to be "pleased" however, as more and more men withdraw for
women and from plural society and women have to start shouldering a
greater share of the dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that have to be done
to keep the civilization that makes this "superiority" possible for
women...

Already doing that, sonnyboi. Interesting that you would consider doing
nasty and dirty jobs to be some kind of *threat* that will make women
scurry
back to the bedroom on their knees. Keep up the threats and even MORE
women
will realize that small minded men are not worth the bother. Even if they
have to stay alone, that is preferable to living with and catering to a
dickhead.

Not sure what threat he has made, or even what the term "threat" means to
you; but saying that the miniscule percentage of women in such jobs
maintains society is akin to saying that picking a grain of wheat supports
one's seat at the bounty.


it's one thing to crow about "equality" (WHICH IS REALLY
SUPERIORITY), it's altogether another thing to have to do the grunt jobs
to maintain it...

Done and done. Now what? You'll stop whining and complaining now? Good.


Really ? Take a look at the "membership" numbers claimed by NOW today
and how many were "claimed" 10 years ago...it tells the story nicely I
think :-)

Only to an idiot, I think.

NOW "claims" membership that is less than half of what they were
claiming 10 years ago...

So? Means nothing to me as I never joined and I know plenty of women who
didn't either. You see, it was a MOVEMENT toward equality they were
interested in and not a club membership. Perhaps little dicks find club
membership to be important, but many women don't. They just DO that which
they DO and have always done and keep on going.

Whatever does THAT mean?


Good. That means that your government believes that equality has been
reached. I don't have a rpoblem with that, EXCEPT that I believe in
another
20 years they 'll need to reinstitute such as the bitter bois like
yourself
will begin firing women (or not hiring them in the first place),

Probably won't happen, I agree that many employers won't hire a 30
something or 40 something woman because they have some "entitlement"
issues and why would you ever want to hire a disruptive trouble maker ?

It has never stopped anyone from hiring male trouble makers so I don't see
your point. As to entitlement, no one has ever asked for or demanded
such.
Only bitter bois like you have claimed that whenever some female has even
raised her head. We're used to such as you. Two steps forward and one
step
back. It happens.

But the younger women coming along seem to have a much better
attitude...hell, most of them don't even get upset over a risqué
joke...and are often known to tell them...quite a change from the bitter
girlies of a few years ago... ;-)

Just wait until they have some experience with such as you and they will
change. It's inevitable. Once they realize that they do NOT need to give
up any of their equality in order to date/mate/breed and that most men
will
**** whatever they can get,

Which would be a good thing for ugly women, no?

they will realize that there is more to life
than merely attracting a male at any cost. Some won't, that's true, but
there have always been stupid women as well as stupid men. Just wait,
however, for the smart women to realize that what they are giving up
(equality) in order to appear attractive is way more than they'll ever get
in return. Just wait for THAT backlash.

Is that a "threat"?

It will be a blast!

CWQ



...Ken

"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE
parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO
standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

Gini,

I am no constitutional scholar, but your perspective sounds good to me.
But....... In the small percentage of situations where parents do not
provide for their kids, how do we ensure that children are supported by
their parents?

Stop the government from allowing all politically correct thinking that
refers to the problem as being the "parents". Make all custodial mothers on
welfare work. Penalize mothers financially for having more than one child
out of wedlock. Make mothers repay welfare just like fathers. Make
custodial parents account for every dime of public money and CS they get.
Make custodial parents submit to regular and ongoing drug and alcohol tests
to show their fitness to parent. Hold mothers who take live-in boyfriends
into their lives legally responsible for any crimes the live-in does against
their child.

If the government really cared about the children, they would act
accordingly to protect the children.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08...

"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO
standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal with
in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my daughter
lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off. He
lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car and
lots of possessions my daughter didn't have.

The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the
appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through too
high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create
inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only
perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is also
the custodial parent receives money.

Bob,

I agree that only at the surface does the current system have the
facade of equality. Even in a CP/NCP visitation situation there is
socio economic inequality for a visiting child to deal with.

Truly a sad situation. Similar to your split custody situation with
your kids, my SSs paternal bio family have commented on his clothing
and belongings when he is on visitation to Bio Dad. Comments like "why
do you need to have $XXX.XX tennis shoes, "NAME BRAND HERE" clothes or
$xxx.xx trumpet. That is just a waste of money." Each visit includes
at least one "your dad can't afford to pay for half of your braces/root
canal/new eye glasses etc" And there have been a few comments on how
"we cannot afford vacations to Europe or Hawaii because your dad did
not marry a college boy like your mom did". They have also made
disparaging comments about his use of chop sticks and given him a hard
time when he suggests going for sushi or an upscale restaurant instead
of a buffet or fast food place when the extended NCP family asks for
suggestions on what restaurant everyone wants to go to.

The stuff really hit the fan when at 8 years old he refused to ride in
his dad's late 60's/early 70's Ford van because it did not have seat
belts. At that point my wife got a call from bio dad accusing her of
raising a stuck up brat.......... From her perspective all my wife had
done was teach the kid to wear his seat belt when he got in a car.

Different incomes/life styles between divorced or never married parents
are not the kids fault and the more successful parent should not be
penalized for that success regardless of who has custody.

Is the solution giving custody to the higher earner? That would cause
a whole different problem with the rights of the other parent and
screams of punishing the lower income party.

I think we can all agree that in its current format, the
CS/custody/visitation system is hosed.

Regards,
Rags

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE
parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO
standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

Gini,

I am no constitutional scholar, but your perspective sounds good to me.
But....... In the small percentage of situations where parents do not
provide for their kids, how do we ensure that children are supported by
their parents?

Stop the government from allowing all politically correct thinking that
refers to the problem as being the "parents". Make all custodial mothers on
welfare work. Penalize mothers financially for having more than one child
out of wedlock. Make mothers repay welfare just like fathers. Make
custodial parents account for every dime of public money and CS they get.
Make custodial parents submit to regular and ongoing drug and alcohol tests
to show their fitness to parent. Hold mothers who take live-in boyfriends
into their lives legally responsible for any crimes the live-in does against
their child.

If the government really cared about the children, they would act
accordingly to protect the children.

Bob,

Works for me.

Regards,
Rick