Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.

============================================
NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB. THEY ARE STEALING
CONTENT FROM USENET
============================================
"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote
............................

I noticed your block comment that this site is stealing from Usenet. This
is
an advent group, and usenet, google, and a bunch of other groups are
linked
into it. It is not stealing. You might want to make a note of that if you
didn't know.
In order for the site to be stealing content from usenet, they would have
to
be unaware of and not affiliated it it.
==
ROTFL--In order to be stealing they would have to be "unaware" of it??
You FamilyKBers are so damn entertaining!
You might wish to note that Google has copyrights to all its Usenet content
and no one is permitted
to use it in any way without written permission from Google.You might want
to pass that on
to FamilyKB. I saw no indication on FamilyKB that they have such written
permission from Google,
nor does FamilyKB have permission from alt.child-support subscribers to
publish and archive their posts
on its site.
BTW, you might want to brush up on how to properly format your posts to
indicate what was said by whom. It appears you folks need to educate
yourselves to a few critical areas of use. You can start he
1. TOS
2. Copyright
3. Intellectual Property
4. Usenet posting format
You are all looking seriously silly.

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in

But don't confuse the percentages of total child rearing expenditures with
CS amounts awarded. Because most states calculate CS based on before tax
gross incomes and use a pro-rata share calculation methodology. It is not
unusual for an NCP father to be forced to pay close to 50% of his after
tax
income.

I am sure that is true for some, but not for all, no matter how you crunch
the numbers.

So if you get a 10% pay raise, does the child's standard expenses
automatically go up too?

arabella via FamilyKB.com wrote:
Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.
Not even close...
I don't think you can speak on behalf of all parents. You don't know who
spends what amount on their kids.
Rent,

only a small portion of which is for the child

gas, lights,

ditto

food,

a few hundred dollars a month for a *teenager*

child care, transportation, educational supplies,
and clothes are just the tip of the iceberg,

really? sounds like about it to me. anything else you get your kid is
*extra*

and are things that are needed.
Maybe you don't spend 50% of what you earn on your child(ren), but John Doe
may spend 60% of what he earns, while Mary Doe may spend 75% of what she
earns, and so on.
There is no way to know what percentage every parent spends. It should just
go by how much a person makes.

Why should it not go by how much a person makes? If the child support is set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.


It should go by how much it actually costs to raise a child, not how
much the NCP makes.

--

Sarah Gray

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a7025adf482b@uwe...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.

The child rearing expenditure data says otherwise. The Betson 2006
Estimator used for setting CS guideline amounts detail total household
expenditures in intact families. That data shows the average expenditures
are - one child 25%, two children 37%, and 3 children 44%.

But don't confuse the percentages of total child rearing expenditures with
CS amounts awarded. Because most states calculate CS based on before tax
gross incomes and use a pro-rata share calculation methodology. It is not
unusual for an NCP father to be forced to pay close to 50% of his after
tax
income.
I am sure that is true for some, but not for all, no matter how you crunch
the numbers.

Okay. So post your cite that backs up your statement you "think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children."

Just posting a bunch of crap you believe to be true doesn't make it true.

Why should it not go by how much a person makes? If the child support is
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.

So if a person brings home $4000 per month, $2000 should be spent on food
and clothing for the child?

"Gini" wrote in ==
Obviously some pretty lousy budgeting. No wonder she can't support her
kids.

She has already pointed out that she doesn't have any kids!

She's just another flag waiver, Jail the Deadbeats!

"Gini" wrote in

Did ya see the part where she said it wouldn't sound right for CPs and
parents in intact relationships
to be required by law to spend a percentage of their income on their
kids--that since they are providing food, clothing, shelter,
it's assumed they're supporting their kids--she forgot about the mandated
"percentage of income thing."

Lets not forget the biggest flaw in the system, any money collected by the
government in the name of the child, is not mandated or required to be
spent on the child. You can't legally call it child support if nobody is
monitoring the use of the money and ensuring proper allocation of the funds
for what it was meant for,the child's needs, not the mothers own expenses.

It's the biggest scam since the Income Tax Act! It costs $5 billion per year
just to run the IRS, how much does it cost to run CSE and all the kickbacks
the States receives from the Federal government?

"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in message news:7a6e0262c1f92@uwe...
DB wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

Any parent thet doesn't support their children deserve jail time.

Does that include all Americans that have lost their jobs to outsourcing,
downsizing and the other 2 million jobs that were lost last year in the
labor market?

How about accident victims and the countless people that fall victim to
illness, should they be incarcerated too?

How long to you want to jail people that can't afford the high government
rates they set for CS?

Do you want other strangers opinions forced on you?

Does that include all Americans that have lost their jobs to outsourcing,
downsizing and the other 2 million jobs that were lost last year in the
labor market?

A parent does anything to take care of their kids, so where there is a
will
there is a way.

So if a man was earning $5000 per month and his job was shipped overseas,
and the only replacement job he could find was for $2500 per month, should
he continue to pay the $1000 per month that he was paying for child support?
What if he files for a modification, and the judge says "You made that much
before, so you can do it again." and refuses to lower the support.
Shouldthe man have to live on the $1500 per month that he has left, just so
his child can get $1000 in child support?

And what about the custodial parent that chooses not to work? Should they
be jailed for not providing their half of the support? Or is it ok for the
CP to provide for both herself and her child with child support money?



How about accident victims and the countless people that fall victim to
illness, should they be incarcerated too?

Accident victims usually get settlements.

Not always. I was hit by an uninsured motorist, and got precisely $0.


People who are sick should make it
be known they are sick, and unable to pay and support their kids.

It takes time to get a motion heard in court. What about the monies
accruing during the time before the hearing is finally scheduled? Should
the sick man be forced to wait in jail because he cannot pay?

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f1ec5bb98f@uwe...
DB wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]

My question to you is why are you against child support?

Who said I was against child support?

I don't believe in the large amounts of Child support that the government
demands people to pay!
There needs to be a dollar amount ceiling on actual cost.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?

I do agree that there should be a limit as to how much a person is
expected
to pay. It should go by how much money they make.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?

I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.

chuckle You don't have children, do you?

"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f94f0300d5@uwe...
Gini wrote:
============================================
NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB. THEY ARE STEALING
CONTENT FROM USENET
============================================
Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.
==
Really? Do you think ALL parents, including never divorced and single
mothers, should be required by law to spend a percentage
of their income on their children? And do you think those parents should
be
mandated by law to appear in court at least every
three years so the judge can look over their tax records to be sure they
are
incompliance with the manditory
spend-a-percentage-of-your-income-on-your-kids rule and, if they are not,
they go to jail? How does that sound?

Do you think ALL parents, including never divorced and single mothers,
should
be required by law to spend a percentage of their income on their
children?
They already do. If your kid lives with you, it is expected that you will
spend money on the child.

And do you think those parents should be mandated by law to appear in
court
at least everythree years so the judge can look over their tax records to
be
sure they are incompliance with the manditory spend-a-percentage-of-your-
income-on-your-kids rule

Those parents have no cause for them to show proof of purchase if the
child
lives with them. If the child is clothed, housed, fed, and healthy, common
sense tells us that it is already being done.

Really? So a father can pay say $1200 per month in child support, and the
mother can spend say $600 on the child and pocket the rest because common
sense says that, if the child is housed, clothed, and fed, enough has been
spent? Interesting......


and, if they are not, they go to jail? How does that sound?
reference above response. I think you know how that sounds.

What problem do you have with child support?

Not a thing, as long as it is realistic and equally fair to both parents.