WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR

"chillin'" wrote in message
m...

What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
would have you to believe.

Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would not
work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This model
died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of support
is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in both
incomes.

There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this by
doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
evade the responsibility to pay CS.

There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything in
thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the systems
that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
criminals.

The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents are
being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds be
pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be considered
a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
"bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
any deposit would be re-routed through this system.

This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are cursing
about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP lives
in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes for
the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses. The
social worker has the say.

The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
$20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours of
assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might get
a credit when they fisih the CS process.

These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.

Papa

Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the
remainder be returned to the parents?

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
news

"chillin'" wrote in message
m...

What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
would have you to believe.

Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would
not
work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This
model
died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of
support
is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in
both
incomes.

There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this
by
doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
evade the responsibility to pay CS.

There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything
in
thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the
systems
that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
criminals.

The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents
are
being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds
be
pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be
considered
a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
"bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
any deposit would be re-routed through this system.

This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are
cursing
about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP
lives
in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes
for
the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses.
The
social worker has the say.

The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
$20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours
of
assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might
get
a credit when they fisih the CS process.

These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.

Papa

Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the
remainder be returned to the parents?

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
news

"chillin'" wrote in message
m...

What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
would have you to believe.

Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would
not
work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This
model
died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of
support
is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in
both
incomes.

There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this
by
doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
evade the responsibility to pay CS.

There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything
in
thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the
systems
that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
criminals.

The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents
are
being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds
be
pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be
considered
a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
"bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
any deposit would be re-routed through this system.

This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are
cursing
about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP
lives
in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes
for
the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses.
The
social worker has the say.

The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
$20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours
of
assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might
get
a credit when they fisih the CS process.

These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.

Papa

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
if the technology allows it then yes.

Papa

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
if the technology allows it then yes.

Papa

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of
course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will
dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects
child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child
custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents
will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th
Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new
social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move
from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data
entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will
be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and
the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
children.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of
course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will
dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects
child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child
custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents
will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th
Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new
social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move
from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data
entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will
be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and
the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
children.

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
if the technology allows it then yes.

That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our
case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he never
knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished
for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children by
an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child
support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage imputed
to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since.
Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great system
you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom deserve
to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living raised,
how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis gets
many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do all
of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will they
take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work? Can
they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so all
of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much power
are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of things
she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a
clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given time?
Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your plan
makes me very nervous!

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
if the technology allows it then yes.

That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our
case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he never
knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished
for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children by
an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child
support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage imputed
to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since.
Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great system
you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom deserve
to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living raised,
how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis gets
many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do all
of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will they
take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work? Can
they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so all
of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much power
are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of things
she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a
clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given time?
Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your plan
makes me very nervous!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing
but
if the technology allows it then yes.

That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our
case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he
never
knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished
for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children
by
an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child
support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage
imputed
to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since.
Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great
system
you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom
deserve
to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living
raised,
how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis
gets
many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do
all
of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will
they
take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work?
Can
they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so
all
of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much
power
are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of
things
she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a
clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given
time?
Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your
plan
makes me very nervous!

Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's
not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and some
sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all
parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little
understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no claim
to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is
your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his?

Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your
husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems
unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children is
a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is flexibility,
there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle.
And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages.

the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money she
received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change how
much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to make
one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the
expenses are reasonable and justified.



Papa