Child support reform!

[kingjust]

Why is Sean Combs (Puff Daddy) paying 35000 a month for one child, and the mother is asking for more. The child doesn't need 35000 a month, that goes into the territory of "Dumb bitch of a wife who won't work because she is getting more in child support than most americans make in a God Damn Year (TAX FREE), and my loving child support". WTF

I mean is child support based on what we can buy from what store, instead of what the child "NEEDS and NOT from what store".

Let me know what you guys think, and women to. LOL Love volconvo!!

[syracusa]

It's a hard one. Gotta think about it. Wll be back later when the thoughts in my head settle down in an organized form.
:)

[Suburbanite]

damn never have i wanted to be Puff Daddy's child any more.

[Mulkaccino]

IMO, child support should be based on a rate relative to the local economic surroundings in comparison to the primary parents average income. It should be adjusted when the cost of living in that local area changes.

Basically I believe if that you are not making the money, you do not have the right to it beyond what it takes to nessesitate the basics of raising a child.

And the basics do not include Jim Carey and his ex wifes daughter getting legal child support that lets the child get facials at a private spa... of course unless he wishes it to be so.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Mulkaccino, IMO, child support should be based on a rate relative to the local economic surroundings in comparison to the primary parents average income.  It should be adjusted when the cost of living in that local area changes. Basically I believe if that you are not making the money, you do not have the right to it beyond what it takes to nessesitate the basics of raising a child. And the basics do not include Jim Carey and his ex wifes daughter getting legal child support that lets the child get facials at a private spa... of course unless he wishes it to be so.

Yes, that's sort of how I see it too. If you are not the parent making the craploads of money, you really don't have much right to childsuport beyond the basics. Having been married to a millionaire was such brief luck. Most peope don't have this luck ever.

However, if I WERE the parent making the craploads of money, I would definitely want my child to share in my good fortune. I would just ask to maintain control of all the decisions involving the kid getting lots of money (such as WHEN my daughter goes to the spa, what spa, for how much, college etc).

[Lava]

Sounds bonkers to me. Lets be real, the child wont see that money, the ex-wife will.

Lava

[kingjust]

Here is another tid bit, what happens if the costodial parent loses his/her job, the non costodial picks up the whole tab. Basically, if the dumb ass costodial parent loses work, you have to fork up 100% of the support intern taking away almost 1 whole paycheck. Now that is some B.S. Also, their is nothing that you can do to track how the money is spent. Isn't that a S.O.A.B.!!

[5010]

Child support is backwards. The parent who gets to be with their kids the most should also have to take on the majority of the cost.

Custody battles wouldn't be so bad then, because it's no longer "winner takes all".

[Chancellor]

Quote by: kingjust Why is Sean Combs (Puff Daddy) paying 35000 a month for one child, and the mother is asking for more. The child doesn't need 35000 a month, that goes into the territory of "Dumb bitch of a wife who won't work because she is getting more in child support than most americans make in a God Damn Year (TAX FREE), and my loving child support". WTF I mean is child support based on what we can buy from what store, instead of what the child "NEEDS and NOT from what store". Let me know what you guys think, and women to. LOL Love volconvo!!

The general concept is one in which the child is believed to be entitled to the standard of living he or she would have enjoyed if the parents were still together. Thus, it is assumed that if the non-custodial parent's standard of living increases, so should the child's. The support, of course, is for the child and NOT for the custodial parent (support for the custodial parent is a separate issue called "alimony").

Here in New York State, the law says that the incomes of the parents are to be combined and, for one child, the percentage of support is to be 17 percent of gross income minus Social Security taxes. How this tends to actually work out is that the non-custodial parent pays 17 percent of his gross income minus his Social Security taxes. This, of course, only counts until the combined income gets to $80,000 a year. At that point, the couple can agree on an amount. It is assumed that the custodial parent is automatically providing the larger amount of support because it is the custodial parent who is responsible for providing food, clothing, shelter, etc. Child support, of course, does not include such extras as health insurance, tuition, life insurance, or any other such things the court wants to add.

In addition to the $165 a week I pay, I also provide my child's health insurance and help out with other things as needed (school clothes, etc.). The $165 is an amount my ex and I agreed on (the court could have made me pay as much as $213 a week).

[Osborn F Enready]

Once again, the Fed stepping in with benovelent intent (to insure the welfare of the children) but with completely imbalanced plans for its mission. The system has all kinds of teeth dealing with "deadbeat dads" who don't pay child support, but no teeth in insuring the "deadbeat moms" spend it on their kids. I have seen many people locally affected by the gross injustices of this system on all sides of the fence, and it is TOTALLY due for reform. (by the way, I'm not implying any sexist comments here, just that is how the local news refers to child support cheats, "deadbeat DADS".)

[prettyredhead]

Lordy, lordy. Here we go. I wish you men knew what it takes to raise children, the nickel and dime to death cost of it.
When a child must tolerate a divorced parent home, thrusting the child into single parent home status, then both parents should be held accountable. Sadly, in this "fine, fatherless nation" only 50 years ago, divorce was shameful and unheard of. As was illegitimate children. Luckily, we have blunted the punishment of children by NO LONGER labeling them as bastards. When everyday bastards are the ones who run away like whiny, gasping little babies from their own children. No parent should be able to move to another state, without relocating their children. No parent should be able to abandon their own child, or face jail. No parent should have more children without first proving financial well being of their first child. In a perfect world.
How about just lying in the bed YOU made by having unprotected sex with a women, and making a child in the process. HOW about taking precautions, as one would guess that many women are out to TRAP you with the much hated child support. Damn that little child, lets blame it. Lets starve it out to punish the mother. Lets blame the mother for accepting MONEY you would be providing anyway had you not both failed miserably at being parents. Children are not pets that you can abandon.
In the near future, I would like to see those who dont pay childsupport jailed with a FELONY rap and not on the second, or third offense but the very first. You should be forewarned to pay up what you owe, or you will be jailed and a felon after 60 days of non payment. Men would be paying by god. And women too. But you wont convince me there are more deadbeat women, than men. There are many of both, but why then are there over 3 million children in single mother homes?
Just pay the damn money, and when the kid is 18 ask for it back and see how far that gets you. In a world OF FREE condoms, one would think this would not be an issue anymore. Grow the F*** up and pay the measly amount, a fraction of a childs true cost. Food, lights, gas to take them to practice, clothes, cable, phones, shoes, medicine, toliet paper, shampoo, everyting costs money. It isnt exactly like the child asked to be born.

[kingjust]

Lordy, lordy. Here we go. I wish you men knew what it takes to raise children, the nickel and dime to death cost of it.

I'm sure men do, I know I do, but I don't think women do who would spread their legs to everyone not considering the consequences and blaming everything on the man they slept with, that's not saying that some men are idiots also for not thinking before sticking.

When a child must tolerate a divorced parent home, thrusting the child into single parent home status, then both parents should be held accountable.

Agreed!!

Sadly, in this "fine, fatherless nation" only 50 years ago, divorce was shameful and unheard of, as was illegitimate children.

Sounds like some type of resentment in your voice.

Luckily, we have blunted the punishment of children by NO LONGER labeling them as bastards. When everyday bastards are the ones who run away like whiny, gasping little babies from their own children.

More resentment, but yet never considered why the men leave. The wife may have cheated and the courts awarded the children to the mother and the father is torn. Being biast will blind.

Or how about this: Women whining because they do not understand the responsibility they have been born with (reproduction), then are irresponsible in how they use it (with a stranger) then complain because they were not careful, get pregnant, with a stranger, and is now left to be a single mother because she didn't think before giving up her goods. It's not all up to us to have protection, there are contraceptives for both sexes (female condoms). Not to be biased, but when men have sex with women they do not intend to make a baby, and neither do women. But the thing is that the only way it can happen is by the woman allowing him in, knowing what could happen. See I believe women have the greatest responsibility on the planet, and they don't even know it. They use it for pleasure with no conciousness of the outcome. So they should be the one with the protection the majority of the time. That is because for us men, we have to be granted access into....her, which is controlled by her.

No parent should be able to move to another state, without relocating their children. No parent should be able to abandon their own child, or face jail.

Ones opinion on responsibility, but which I must agree kinda. But don't forget ones opinion is not the right one.

No parent should have more children without first proving financial well being of their first child. In a perfect world.

I'm surprised china is closer to that concept than us, but this I do agree with whole heartedly!!!

How about just lying in the bed YOU made by having unprotected sex with a women, and making a child in the process.

How about women (who are having unprotected sex) now start thinking before they just start f*cking everything (unprotected on their own accord, but still blame men for not carrying protection), carrying their own protection, stop messing with strangers because you know they will not be around. Cherish what you have and protect it until the right one comes by that you know will be around. Until then, tak it upon "your"self to protect "your"self. In turn blaming "your"self for allowing "your"self to get pregnant with someone you didn't know would be their if "you" were careless.

HOW about taking precautions, as one would guess that many women are out to TRAP you with the much hated child support.

I agree with that!! And yes they are if they don't get it their way.

Damn that little child, lets blame it. Lets starve it out to punish the mother. Lets blame the mother for accepting MONEY you would be providing anyway had you not both failed miserably at being parents. Children are not pets that you can abandon.

That all boils down and back to the woman not thinking before allowing themselves to get inpregnated with a stranger or someone who they didn't know for sure would be around. On the other hand men do lie to try to get that *****. Those are the ones who need to be reemed for lieing and not having protection and not being precatious!!! So women have to be more careful with who they lay with, but if they knew, then they should be completely responsible for the child because they were ignorant and irresponsible with their responsibility.

In the near future, I would like to see those who dont pay childsupport jailed with a FELONY rap and not on the second, or third offense but the very first. You should be forewarned to pay up what you owe, or you will be jailed and a felon after 60 days of non payment.

I'm apologizing in advance, but that is the most ignorant and idiotic thing I have ever heard. So now the father is in jail (for circumstances that wouldn't matter because the bastard should go to jail, in your opinion), now has no job, cannot pay for the support that he may have been trying to but things happen, and is a felon that can never get a good enough job to get out of the arrears, and just get's put back in jail. Wow!!! Aren't we thinking about the child. So now the government pays for him in jail and now for the support that he cannot pay because he is in jail over the self righteous opinion of the almight problem solver, I mean un-solver. Sorry, but you have to admit that is an idiotic statement.

Men would be paying by god. And women too. But you wont convince me there are more deadbeat women, than men. There are many of both, but why then are there over 3 million children in single mother homes?

That is because women are granted custody 99% of the time. So what's your point. Courts favor women because they think they are the only ones that can raise children. But don't take into consideration that maybe they (married women) were lazy assess with no lives, never got a career being able to support themselves more or less a child, then the father who worked hard as hell to support all of them and their lifestyle. Go figure!!!

Just pay the damn money, and when the kid is 18 ask for it back and see how far that gets you.

What the hell!!!???

In a world OF FREE condoms, one would think this would not be an issue anymore. Grow the F*** up and pay the measly amount, a fraction of a childs true cost.

In a world of free will and irrespnsibility, don't depend on someone else to be protected so protect your damn self. So grow the fuck up and take the initiative for yourself and not others.

Food, lights, gas to take them to practice, clothes, cable, phones, shoes, medicine, toliet paper, shampoo, everyting costs money. It isnt exactly like the child asked to be born.

Sounds like you want to be taken care of also with the child. And for the last phrase,.......EXACTLY MY FUCKING POINT, if women stop spreading their legs without taking responsibility for themselves, that statement would not even exist. It's like women are the gate keepers of life. They are "solely" responsible for who comes in, and who comes in!!! Stop taking for granted to what you have an the resposbility you have, and do not abuse it, for you are the genesis of all abandoned children when it is abused.

[faith]

Quote by: kingjust Why is Sean Combs (Puff Daddy) paying 35000 a month for one child, and the mother is asking for more. The child doesn't need 35000 a month, that goes into the territory of "Dumb bitch of a wife who won't work because she is getting more in child support than most americans make in a God Damn Year (TAX FREE), and my loving child support". WTF I mean is child support based on what we can buy from what store, instead of what the child "NEEDS and NOT from what store". Let me know what you guys think, and women to. LOL Love volconvo!!

i totally agree (and im a woman lol) when sean combs (puff daddy) has other children he wont, i doubt spend that much on them. if his wife and child were still living with him they would share the family income like every other family has to.
i do agree in child support but why cant the fathers put the money into a savings account for when the child will really need it and know that ALL the money will be the childs.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kingjust, that last post by you was excellent, and addressed all of those issues that pissed me off so well that I don't even need to reply. Thanks for beating me to the punch! 8)

[Starboy]

Quote by: prettyredhead Just pay the damn money, and when the kid is 18 ask for it back and see how far that gets you. In a world OF FREE condoms, one would think this would not be an issue anymore. Grow the F*** up and pay the measly amount, a fraction of a childs true cost. Food, lights, gas to take them to practice, clothes, cable, phones, shoes, medicine, toliet paper, shampoo, everyting costs money. It isnt exactly like the child asked to be born.

Ah yes. The women that spread their legs and the men that want them to and then the little one that results.

You can blame the men, the women, the parents, society, the movies, rock and roll or whatever. I don't care. Fact is men are horney and think of sex almost constantly and women are romantic and are desperately seeking their soul mate.

For the men it is easy. For the vast majority of them all they really want is sex. When it is over they would rather do other things. So for this reason I think we should legalized prostitution, but require pregnancy insurance for the sex workers. I am sure that the insurance companies would figure out a way to make sure that their policy holders were having safe sex. And if they did get pregnant then all those little things like shoes, medicine, toilet paper and so on would be covered for the raising of the child. It might mean that the prices charged by sex workers would be higher to cover insurance, overhead and profit but if there was a child conceived then the mom could retire with the income necessary to raise the little one. Good business all around, right up there with alcohol and drugs.

For those that want a family (mostly the women), that is a different thing all together. But with all this emphasis these days about the rights of the unborn I think that marriage as we know it must be completely overhauled. If it is all about making a family then I don't think that just anybody should be allowed to get married just because they are in love. I think a means test is necessary, perhaps even a dowry based on the number of children that the couple wants (30k$/kid-yr * 18yr = 578k$/kid for kid #2 it would be less and so on). And they would also be required to carry pregnancy insurance in case they get carried away and have children they did not provide for. Those costs are based on a minimum amount for a worse case scenario. If the couple managed to stay together and did it for less cost then they would get the surplus when the kid left home. Of course the insurance company would probably take the same steps as with the prostitutes but hey, if the reasons for getting married include sex but they do not want children then both parties should get neutered. Their pregnancy insurance rates would then drop to close to nothing.

Let’s face it. Having unprotected sex is a risky business. The way we handle risk in our society is through insurance and insurance companies then provide policies that make requirements on their policy holders that limit policy holder behavior and thus lower insurance costs or boost insurance company profits. It is about time that we looked at sex for what it is and use mechanisms already in place to handle other kinds of risk and apply it to the risks inherent in sex.

I expect to see sometime in the future the woman asking if the man had 1) a condom, 2) a clean checkup and 3) pregnancy insurance. Any woman that didn’t would be a moron and should suffer the full consequences of their stupidity or maybe the state should have a program for uninsured fuckers.

Starboy

[PatrickHenry]

Heh. Starboy, how are you gonna keep people from having "uninsured" sex? Sheesh, what a dreamer...

[Starboy]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Heh. Starboy, how are you gonna keep people from having "uninsured" sex? Sheesh, what a dreamer...

Yup, I guess I am the last of the romantics.

Starboy

[PatrickHenry]

Not a bad idea though, Starboy. I wonder if "pregnancy insurance" is available from any of the big players... Still, it would be cheaper to just wear a raincoat...

[Starboy]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Not a bad idea though, Starboy. I wonder if "pregnancy insurance" is available from any of the big players... Still, it would be cheaper to just wear a raincoat...

To each his own. But if the welfare of the child is what everybody is so concerned about then it is a small thing. But from what I can tell currently the welfare of the child appears to be the last thing on everyone's mind.

Starboy

[Catch 22]

Heh what amazes me is the lack of information people have about child support and the total lack of it in most people’s balances. Despite high profile situations such as this half of all child support is never collected and never paid. Mothers are perpetually stuck paying for the vast majority of expenses for raising children and they seem to have no redress. We men have it really fucking easy when you think about it. We can knock a girl up, ”swear” we’ll provide for the child and then skip town.

My own father was negligent on his child support payments for something like 5 years. It wasn’t till later on in life when he realized what an ass he was being did he actually start paying. Moreover he was never penalized by the government for being negligent on the payments. I don’t hold it against him or anything, but it’s pretty telling when a semi well to do engineer can shirk payments without fail for years on end. Imagine what it’s like for single parents who are actually dependent upon child support to pay the bills, and don’t have the luxury of non minimum wage job. Those people are screwed to the nth degree man.