A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old November 26th 03, 08:45 AM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:54:22 -0700, "AZ Astrea"


wrote:

snip
Im looking at the table that states FOR CUSTODIAL MOTHERS, not

poverty
those are further down at the bottom of the report.

Table 7 shows all custodial mothers who received partial CS had a mean
income of $23,680 with $2,869 coming from CS partial payments. At

these
income levels CP mothers would pay little or no income tax, and would
actually receive, in many cases, tax credits from the government in

the
form
of EIC.

The father can claim deductions for his paycheck also if he choosed to
do so. Yes, in many cases they would receive EIC, but how much we
dont know. It would be interesting to see if the amount of average
return on this credit.

-----------------------
In some cases the cp gets to take the deduction for the kids instead of

the
ncp. Even when the ncp is providing 66% of the support. So the ncp gets
more taxes yet pays more support.


Im talking about paycheck deductions not income tax deductions. In
some cases thats right, the CP does because they provide the most
physical care for the child.
--------------------

------------------------
Paycheck deductions? The only paycheck deductions I know of are taxes, ss,
medicare, insurance, stock options and such. The CP providing "most" of the
physical care for the child has nothing to do with it if the NCP is
providing over 50% of financial support.
--------------------
snip

Acutally the widows get support payments from SSA in the case of a
parent's death. That should be included because its the same as if
this person was alive. The only differnce is that it wouldnt fall
under the "those who received partial payments" rather the "those who
received FULL payments" probably inflating what the average
collection rate is for that group as well as income because that group
would have more money from widows benefits.

--------------------
Those still are not cs they are death benefits.


I suppose, but doesnt the NCP pay into SSA for those benefits to be
paid out in case of death? Doesnt that mean that this is money that
the govt has invested or reserved for this individual? Meaning its
really still this mans money being paid out. I still think it counts
for child support, because that is still what its doing.
------------------

-----------
It is not counted as support in the tables whether you "think" it counts or
not.
------------
snip

Some of the reason so many mothers have custody is because of men
putting them in "caretaker" postions. I hope that this changes and
more men are allowed to take on such positions themselves. Until
there is equality in the world there will never be equality in the
court systems.

------------------
"Most surprising to me, is that most of the women, including many Ivy

League
graduates, either don't want an income-earning job or will only work
part-time in an unusually pleasant job."


"TO BE FAIR, some men encourage their wives to stay home, but often,
the
impetus comes from the woman. Many women use dubious arguments to

convince
their husbands they should have, at most, a part-time job:"
http://www.americanprowler.com/dsp_a...sp?art_id=5747


Interesting article. I probably could find 10 others that would say
differently.

-------------------
Go ahead and post them.
---------------

----------------------
What feminists have failed to recognize is they fought to do away with

the
default custody going to the father under old legal customs because

they
saw
that as an inequality. Now that the inequality has swung the other

way,
they make statements like you have made that men have lost power and

it's
going to get worse. The irony is the feminists now support the very
inequities they fought to overturn. And the fight now is for the

feminists
to keep the special privileges they have with the men's rights groups
advocating equality.

I think what feminists were fighting for in general was equality for
women. Women were seen as property, were undereducated, and
underemployed, made less etc. They had one choice when they "grew up"
and that was to be a housewife. There was little need for a woman to
go to college, except if they were going to be a teacher. Society
dictated supported that.

-------------------

I said "I think what feminists WERE fighting for... and then conclude
that they are taking things to far.

-----------------
The feminist groups want women to be represented in the "power professions"
but claim it is because of men that they are not. Yet most women are not
willing to make the sacrifices that would help them rise to the top.
In some ways feminist groups and women are working at odds.
-----------------
Look at racial groups that have and are advocating for equal rights
and protection under Afirmative Action. Orginally it was made to
create equality and now many argue it promotes discrimination against
anyone that is white. I dont want to come off as a racist, but when
did getting a job become skin colored based vs qualification based??
This group has gotten out of hand. There is a hispanic group that
fights for equality and everyone (even some hispanics) compare them to
the KKK. They are out of control.

Look at the pledge of allegence. Kids cant even say it in classrooms
anymore because some extremist group has come in and demands total
seperation of religion and state. Blah..

------------------
Not that this is really the place for it but... I would allow the pledge

of
alliegance in schools as long as they went back to the way it was

originally
written which did not include the phrase "under God".

~AZ~


I guess I dont really care one way or another if it has the word God
in it or not.

Im just making a point that there are extreme groups that at one type
served their purpose and made some good points, but now have just
taken that power and ran away with it.
-----------------

--------------
So you feel that the feminist movement was a good thing in the beginning but
over time it's agenda has become perverted due to becoming too powerful?

In the beginning it was about equality, now it's more about inequality with
women being in the dominant position. Funny that's not how you seem to
believe when it comes to cs and custody issues.

~AZ~

Men's rights and women's rights are just going out of control. It all
boils down to money and power. The real issues are long gone and dont
really matter anymore.










  #132  
Old November 30th 03, 11:41 PM
Greg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried
mothers,


Hey Gary, you and all the other fluttering mother hens have spent
enough time clucking it up about "deadbeat dads." How about
addressing the other side of the equation?

Women have been given three, count 'em, three legal ways to escape
single motherhood after accidentally conceiving a child, and most
can't manage to use a single one of them. In droves (no pun
intended), they still choose to have _and_ keep kids they can't
support.

compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers.


Mostly due to an inability to pay.

Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their
obligations.


It's obviously not possible, or articles like this would have stopped
appearing long ago. The crusade against fathers has been going on so
for so long that they'd have easily been cowed into paying by now, if
they could pay. But they aren't paying, because most can't.

How many articles have you seen where a bus driver is villified for
being $100,000 in arrears. When reading such an article, did you ever
consider where on earth a bus driver would get that kind of money? Or
did you just pump a triumphant fist in the air as you read of him
being imprisoned without due process?

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers.


Oh please. If it was such a "burden," women would be aborting,
adopting, using drop off centers, and demanding that their ex-husbands
be given sole custody. Instead, they breed like rabbits and use their
chatt...er...children as human begging bowls.

More men will hesitate to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to
support them.


Bull****. Men don't blithely "father children" because they think no
one will come for them. Quite the contrary. Men father children
because sex happens, and the sperm solicitor knows all too well how to
turn that deposit into an 18-year gravy train.

Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when
their fathers support them.


Knowing this, you'd think deadbeat mothers would choose more
financially solvent sex partners. But, in droves, they have
unprotected sex with men who haven't two nickels to rub together.
Then they whine about not getting child support. Well hello.

And if more dads were forced to pay up, they


You can't force money from someone who has no money. Why must I
explain that to a writer for Business Week?

might be more likely to spend time with their kids --


That isn't true, but the reverse is. More fathers might pay if they
were allowed to see their kids, or even if they knew about their kids.
How many men are labeled fathers en absentia? How many "deadbeat
dads" don't even know they have kids?

since they would no longer be avoiding detection.


Avoiding detection? How? We're all lowjacked in a million different
ways.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations
were met.


That's becuase child support "obligations" are arbitrary and
unrealistically high.

But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive.


No mother ever gets enough support. Just ask her.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who
refuse to pay.


As well as those who can't pay, which makes them even less able to
pay. But then this is woman-inspired government. I don't expect it
to make any sense.

Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where
fathers live and how much they owe.


Radio collars are soon to follow.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by


Again, nonsensical. If the bus driver falls behind on his $2000/mo
"obligation," will you help things by taking away his license? No,
but you'll still do it.

requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby
born.


And how, pray tell, will they establish that record? Uh huh. By
unconditionally accepting the word of the mother. And we all know
women never lie. Just ask them.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some
cases by fleeing to another state.


A temporary remedy. They should be leaving the country. But I
digress.

Has anyone compared the cost of these Orwellian enforcement measures
to the additional money they collect?

[...]
  #133  
Old November 30th 03, 11:41 PM
Greg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried
mothers,


Hey Gary, you and all the other fluttering mother hens have spent
enough time clucking it up about "deadbeat dads." How about
addressing the other side of the equation?

Women have been given three, count 'em, three legal ways to escape
single motherhood after accidentally conceiving a child, and most
can't manage to use a single one of them. In droves (no pun
intended), they still choose to have _and_ keep kids they can't
support.

compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers.


Mostly due to an inability to pay.

Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their
obligations.


It's obviously not possible, or articles like this would have stopped
appearing long ago. The crusade against fathers has been going on so
for so long that they'd have easily been cowed into paying by now, if
they could pay. But they aren't paying, because most can't.

How many articles have you seen where a bus driver is villified for
being $100,000 in arrears. When reading such an article, did you ever
consider where on earth a bus driver would get that kind of money? Or
did you just pump a triumphant fist in the air as you read of him
being imprisoned without due process?

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers.


Oh please. If it was such a "burden," women would be aborting,
adopting, using drop off centers, and demanding that their ex-husbands
be given sole custody. Instead, they breed like rabbits and use their
chatt...er...children as human begging bowls.

More men will hesitate to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to
support them.


Bull****. Men don't blithely "father children" because they think no
one will come for them. Quite the contrary. Men father children
because sex happens, and the sperm solicitor knows all too well how to
turn that deposit into an 18-year gravy train.

Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when
their fathers support them.


Knowing this, you'd think deadbeat mothers would choose more
financially solvent sex partners. But, in droves, they have
unprotected sex with men who haven't two nickels to rub together.
Then they whine about not getting child support. Well hello.

And if more dads were forced to pay up, they


You can't force money from someone who has no money. Why must I
explain that to a writer for Business Week?

might be more likely to spend time with their kids --


That isn't true, but the reverse is. More fathers might pay if they
were allowed to see their kids, or even if they knew about their kids.
How many men are labeled fathers en absentia? How many "deadbeat
dads" don't even know they have kids?

since they would no longer be avoiding detection.


Avoiding detection? How? We're all lowjacked in a million different
ways.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations
were met.


That's becuase child support "obligations" are arbitrary and
unrealistically high.

But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive.


No mother ever gets enough support. Just ask her.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who
refuse to pay.


As well as those who can't pay, which makes them even less able to
pay. But then this is woman-inspired government. I don't expect it
to make any sense.

Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where
fathers live and how much they owe.


Radio collars are soon to follow.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by


Again, nonsensical. If the bus driver falls behind on his $2000/mo
"obligation," will you help things by taking away his license? No,
but you'll still do it.

requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby
born.


And how, pray tell, will they establish that record? Uh huh. By
unconditionally accepting the word of the mother. And we all know
women never lie. Just ask them.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some
cases by fleeing to another state.


A temporary remedy. They should be leaving the country. But I
digress.

Has anyone compared the cost of these Orwellian enforcement measures
to the additional money they collect?

[...]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 February 8th 04 07:29 PM
Deadbeat Dads Mel Gamble Child Support 4 June 24th 03 02:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.