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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |