It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by hillynilly
Originally posted by CranialSponge
Here in Canada, the payer of child support claims it as a deduction to their taxable income and the receiver pays tax on the income received.
So it balances out accordingly.
Maybe the US will catch up with the 21st century some day.
edit on 31-5-2011 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)
Your forgetting of course the millions of dead beat dad's that
A. Work under the table and doesn't pay taxes.
B. Doesn't work at all...
According to a 7-year study done by Arizona State University Professor Sanford Braver, Ph.D., which resulted in his book, "Divorced Dads--Shattering the Myths", he found that less than 5% of those that owed child support are true deadbeat dads-the ones with the younger trophy wives and sports cars, who don't want to pay anything. The truth of the matter, is that according to the Federal Gov't. General Accounting Office, Report # GAO/HRD-92-39FS, pg. 19, over 66% of those owing child support can't pay because they are unemployed, underemployed, disabled, dead, and in some cases the mothers don't want support.
Get the facts right..
Your solution seems easy enough when your dealing with only what 35 millions in canada?
America has 300 million.
It would not balance as your system has.
Originally posted by CaDreamer
If the government wants men to do their part as i have they need to add incentives to the process or dead beats will win the battle eventually.
Dr. Phillips argued that his ex-fiancé took his property, his sperm, without his permission to conceive a child. Dr. Irons countered by asserting the sperm was a gift: Dr. Phillips delivered it to her with the intention that she keep it because if he really wanted to retain his semen, he would have put on a condom and “kept its contents”. The court agreed with Dr. Irons: Dr. Phillips cannot claim he was deprived of his property because he did not intend that the semen be returned.
Originally posted by MrWendal
Of course I forgot to mention something else about Child Support in the US. There are countless cases where people are forced to pay for children that are not even theirs.
Originally posted by Binder
reply to post by CaDreamer
My friend you are preaching to Noah about the flood! The only way I make it is that about a year after my divorce I found a good woman, and again have a shared household. We are both in the same profession, and gross about the same amount of money, but the net on my paycheck looks like a sick joke compared to hers. I have a high stress job where people's lives are literally in my hands, and were it not for help from my wife I would be asking for loans from burger flippers because they have a higher standard of living..
The sytem is NOT fair! I realise that children must be taken care of #1 priority, but I don't need the state mandating how I do that. My ex-wife's standard of living however is quite posh in comparison. She has a brand new car, and just bought a house. Things I will probably never get to do again in my lifetime. How is that fair? I spend all the time I possibly can with my kids, and know all too well the pain of not being able to truly provide things from your own platform when you have the kids. How do you explain to a 10 year old why mommy has all the money, and dad has none. I wonder sometimes if it gives the false impression that dad is a slacker because he has no provisions? While mom sports him around in the brand new car, and takes him to McD's, and Chucky Cheez on a whim.
I even asked the courts to give custodial rights of 2 of my kids to me, and 2 to her(we have 4 obviously) so it was all even in the wash. I raise my children, and take care of their "custodial" needs as much, and as well as she does, and in many ways better! I was a pediatric nurse for 5 years. Nope, all the state considers is that you are a male, you WILL pay. The only exception being if she was some kind of monster that simply couldn't be trusted to raise children. Yet the state's policy basically treats men as incompetent custodians by default. Why be so biased towards making the female custodian of care? If both are equally equipped, and capable it should be 50-50, but then common sense has never been a politicians strong suite. Of course most women aren't going to speak out against this injustice. They're on the receiving end of the looting. Why should they? If someone offered to legally exploit someone for you at no expense, and had already programmed the sheeple society to think it's good, and beneficent why protest?
I think their should be a better system for proof of need, and accountability. I think the time, and resources actually spent on the children by each parent should be taken into consideration. Instead it's just basically "Here's the man's paycheck ma'am. Be glad you were born with ovaries." There is FAR too much room for abuse, and misappropiation of child support funds, no accountability for the mother at all. I would gladly pay MORE child support if there was a reason, and proof that it was necessary for my children. As it stands I know for a fact my child support goes to support QVC, Sears, and Kohl's. IMO child support as it is applied, and managed right now is simply legalized sexist exploitation. Laws do need to exist to secure care for children in family divisions, but the laws need to be fair, and balanced. They are not.
Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Daedal
Radical feminists who build women's shelters, provide crisis nurseries, crisis nannies, and birth control along with free counselling, and help with negotiating the system.
Those fraking harlots.