Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Men and Child support. What is the answer?

page: 105
52
<< 102  103  104   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


That story in the Mail is not all that unusual, Sonny. The benefits system in the UK is perhaps even more messed up than the CSA. You mix the two together and you get some really bizarre stories:

www.csahell.com...
www.csahell.com...




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


There's a big difference between 40% and 50%. I already checked it out, did my research and found you were not telling the truth.

Should you wish to leave any member a message that requires a response only by that member then I strongly suggest you do it in private because this is a public message board for all to read and respond to.
edit on 1-7-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ginga
 


You are quite right and I'm aware each case that goes before the Family Courts has it's own merits; no two cases are the same.

Generally speak though, if 80% out of 85% of custodial mothers are in the work force then that tells me a majority of single mothers are doing more than their fair share.

No man (including non-custodial fathers) or woman has any idea nor respect for a mother who can juggle between job, home and kids single handedly unless they walk in their shoes.

Ultimately it would be better if non-custodial fathers had their kids 6 months of the year but quite frankly since it become basic law of the Family Courts in regards to access, so few non-custodial fathers were prepared to take up the challenge.

One member brought up the idea of having the children throughout all of the school holidays....12 weeks of the year.....that's all well and good except again almost no non-custodial father takes up the offer either because of job restrictions in regards to time off or because they know they too will fail getting promotions with more pay etc.

Perhaps we need to bring in a 4 day week for both male and female employees with equal pay in the same job or profession? That equates to more equality within the workplace and a more family friendly workplace although no employer presently would sack a male worker if they had to stay home to look after a sick child from time to time. They'll just get deducted pay just like us women do.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


There's a big difference between 40% and 50%. I already checked it out, did my research and found you were not telling the truth.

Should you wish to leave any member a message that requires a response only by that member then I strongly suggest you do it in private because this is a public message board for all to read and respond to.
edit on 1-7-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)


The calculation used to calculate your child support garnishment amount takes into account whether you have back taxes owed, or are supporting another family. The percentage to withhold in this instance is determined and set by the state and not determined by your employer. Child support can take 50%, 55% 60% or up to 65% of your disposable income. Most often, it is 50%.

Disposable income is not the same as Gross or Net income. Disposable income is income left over after taxes have been taken out and before any voluntary deductions

THE FORMULA Your payroll department will take into consideration first whether your disposable income already exceeds the percentage allowable for withholding. If it does not, the following formula will be used.

Gross - taxes = disposable income

disposable income ÷ set percentage (50% -65%) =

deduction amount.

For instance.

If child support amount is $550 a month your gross is $1200 and your taxes are $200 it would look like this.

$1200 - $200 =$1000 disposable income

$1000 ÷ 50% = $500

$500 will go towards your towards your child support because anything more would exceed the amount allowable.

The other $500 goes to you.

Arizona Example:



edit on 1-7-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Ginga
 


It saddens me that those who juice the system are only hurting those who are in real NEED.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


There's a big difference between 40% and 50%. I already checked it out, did my research and found you were not telling the truth.

Should you wish to leave any member a message that requires a response only by that member then I strongly suggest you do it in private because this is a public message board for all to read and respond to.
edit on 1-7-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)


you obviously dont know what your talking about...



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
court ordered insurance for the children is just...ordered... it is not included in the calculation for the amount of child support ordered...so the govt can and has ordered up to 50% of income and insurance in addition to that so the amount is much higher than what it looks like at first.

i pay more for insurance than i do for child support...



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


in that video there is a statement that isn't wholly honest..says if you don't have enough money to survive you must get a second job...that changes your income and thus increases the child support owed as soon as the custodial parent finds out and asks for more from the court...and they usually get it.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


so tell me how you hacked the
Sonoma county district attorneys database and looked at my case...lol silly statement and very uninformed.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


I Know.Just a silly lawyer who hasnt added EVERY expense,on to of the 50% being taken out.
I put it up there just to show even a bloodthirsty lawyer knows.

Notice how he says get a second job..........to pay his fees?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Now, as well as having the power to confiscate your passport and driving license and throw you in prison, MPs in the UK want to be able to raid bank accounts:

www.independent.co.uk...

New body meant to beef up maintenance system spends 50p to collect each £1 as £4bn goes unpaid



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Ginga
 


You are quite right and I'm aware each case that goes before the Family Courts has it's own merits; no two cases are the same.

Generally speak though, if 80% out of 85% of custodial mothers are in the work force then that tells me a majority of single mothers are doing more than their fair share.

No man (including non-custodial fathers) or woman has any idea nor respect for a mother who can juggle between job, home and kids single handedly unless they walk in their shoes.

Ultimately it would be better if non-custodial fathers had their kids 6 months of the year but quite frankly since it become basic law of the Family Courts in regards to access, so few non-custodial fathers were prepared to take up the challenge.

One member brought up the idea of having the children throughout all of the school holidays....12 weeks of the year.....that's all well and good except again almost no non-custodial father takes up the offer either because of job restrictions in regards to time off or because they know they too will fail getting promotions with more pay etc.

Perhaps we need to bring in a 4 day week for both male and female employees with equal pay in the same job or profession? That equates to more equality within the workplace and a more family friendly workplace although no employer presently would sack a male worker if they had to stay home to look after a sick child from time to time. They'll just get deducted pay just like us women do.


There is no such thing as "fair share" for someone who intentionally seeks such an arraignment. Women have birth control, adoption, Plan B, baby safe zones or giving custody over to the father/family relative.

Your arguments would make more sense if it wasn't for the fact women predominantly file for divorce.

And the whole attempt at using women's own choices and the biases of the courts(that is the reason mothers have custody in such an overwhelming majority is because of the bigotries of the courts) to justify more pity for a demograph that has shown it is without pity for others(more children are raped, murdered and beaten in a single mother household then any-other type).



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


To be honest, what does this achieve, so now the tax payer gets to pay for the mother the children and the father, how amusing. Sending someone off to a government run rape factory is not a solution, but I guess the masses will think this is justice, as the prison empire and court system justify further employees, thus growing the crime empire. If it does not grow, it will stagnate or die and we all call this law, order and justice.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by marsend
reply to post by sonnny1
 


To be honest, what does this achieve, so now the tax payer gets to pay for the mother the children and the father, how amusing. Sending someone off to a government run rape factory is not a solution, but I guess the masses will think this is justice, as the prison empire and court system justify further employees, thus growing the crime empire. If it does not grow, it will stagnate or die and we all call this law, order and justice.


23 kids????? So you dont mind "paying" for his children,that HE cant pay for. And he should not be punished in ANY way,for his failures as a father,and for his thumbing his nose at the very people who are paying for his MANY children.....OK. You rant on "government funding rape factory's",but offer NO solution to a man that gives ANY and ALL fathers,heck ALL parents a bad name. Not to mention,and more importantly the children ! At least I offered a solution,and if there are those who deserve to be in one,then I am all for throwing his butt in jail. He deserves something for his irresponsibility . Why dont you PICK some form of justice,for his injustice to his children....waiting to hear what you think should be done........



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Hi sonnny1, I didn't want to be drawn into a long debate over this, however you do deserve a reply. I do have a question for you. Have you ever had the opportunity to be involved with child support and or the family courts?

sonnny1 quote:
23 kids????? So you don't mind "paying" for his children,that HE cant pay for. And he should not be punished in ANY way,for his failures as a father,and for his thumbing his nose at the very people who are paying for his MANY children.....

In reply:
The fact is, the tax payer is most likely paying for the children regardless of where the father is. Punishment is subjective, I have met many failures as parents in many differing degrees, some people should not be allowed bread in the first instance, but this is not for me to impose. Do you want to punish him because he is a failure as a father or because he is not paying child support, please clarify this for me as they are distinctly two different items.

To say he is thumbing his nose at the tax payer, makes me feel that you take this personally, to feel personal about something is a great quality, however your energy could be better placed, sorting out the corruption that exists in your Government and Corporate sectors, then there would be billions to pay for his children and some, a bit off topic. By the end of the day the off spring may contribute to society in some amazing way, or may not. Society should invest in its young and human resources just because it can regardless. It is not a financial thing if it was, countries wouldn't be wasting money "Trillions" on silly things like war. Should the Doctor that created the litter of kids in that IVF woman, also paying child support or is that one ok, because he was a Doctor, even though he acted outside the law in doing this. The tax payer, I am sure is now paying for his selfishness, should he also join your jail queue?

sonnny1 quote:
OK. You rant on "government funding rape factory's",but offer NO solution to a man that gives ANY and ALL fathers,heck ALL parents a bad name. Not to mention,and more importantly the children ! At least I offered a solution,and if there are those who deserve to be in one,then I am all for throwing his butt in jail. He deserves something for his irresponsibility . Why dont you PICK some form of justice,for his injustice to his children....waiting to hear what you think should be done........

In reply:
To rant on, as you say. Brief definition "rant and rave shout and complain angrily and at length" I do not believe that I did this in any fashion, is this how you attempt to control people who share a different view to you. Any way No I did not offer a solution however I did choose to present that further expense in placing the man in a prison, where he could be possibly brutalised and or raped is not a great alternative. And no a person would have to be rather narrow minded to think that all fathers / parents are tared with the same brush as this nonpaying fellow.

To cite injustice to his children is not entirely correct either, he may be a none payer, however he may have fantastic relations with his children or some of his children, on the same hand, they may also be better off not knowing him, I do not know. However in the event that he has good relations with his children, putting him in jail could potentially be a further real injustice to his children, is it good for children to have parents in jail, I do not think so, I figure most child case workers would agree with this. Most children just love their parents regardless if they can pay their bills or not.

My costs on this for you

Father not in Jail
Children + Mothers = Tax dollars

Father in Jail
Children + Mothers + Lawyers + Prison System = Greater Tax dollars

I get the idea that Father in jail will cost the Tax payer more than father out of jail, I may be wrong.

Solutions, I have many but who cares to be honest. My solutions would not make money for the masters and the peasant's want justice, burn the witch, was not that the old chant, as the master of the day lit the fire.

edit on 5-7-2011 by marsend because: typo



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I asked what your solution is. Again,you have put out the finer details of Government,and its failures. I do understand this,but it is STILL not an answer,as I asked for one,and you havnt given me one.WHY???? WHY debate the issue,if you offer NO solutions? Or was your response exactly what I said it was,A rant,on the systems failures?The system is broken,that I admit. I offer reform,in the gender biased court system.If you had read ANY of my posts,you would see that my feeling are very similar to yours,but come with solutions. What I really care about is the children. This man has done NOTHING for his children. Our prisons could be free of ALL prisoners,but there should be a spot for this man. He epitomizes a "deadbeat" dad. A "deadbeat" parent. This is where the law SHOULD apply. Not the average Non-custodial trying to make it on scraps,or being subjugated to a gender bias system. Please give me an answer,or a solution to this problem,not why he shouldn't go to jail. There is NO other place for this man,who shrugs his responsibility's as a parent.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
I asked what your solution is. Again,you have put out the finer details of Government,and its failures. I do understand this,but it is STILL not an answer,as I asked for one,and you havnt given me one.WHY???? WHY debate the issue,if you offer NO solutions? Or was your response exactly what I said it was,A rant,on the systems failures?The system is broken,that I admit. I offer reform,in the gender biased court system.If you had read ANY of my posts,you would see that my feeling are very similar to yours,but come with solutions. What I really care about is the children. This man has done NOTHING for his children. Our prisons could be free of ALL prisoners,but there should be a spot for this man. He epitomizes a "deadbeat" dad. A "deadbeat" parent. This is where the law SHOULD apply. Not the average Non-custodial trying to make it on scraps,or being subjugated to a gender bias system. Please give me an answer,or a solution to this problem,not why he shouldn't go to jail. There is NO other place for this man,who shrugs his responsibility's as a parent.


If Involuntary Child Support was declared unconstitutional or outlawed, natural evolution would take care of this situation as no woman would want anything to do with him.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


i'm in the same boat as you.
it took fourteen years but i'm just about debt free. no car payment, and no credit card debt. it helps take some of the stress off.

i understand not being able to live on your own. to work, to stay employed, and to support your kids.

i tell you what drives me nuts. there are women out there that work the system so they don't have to work. they rely on the child support like a monthly lottery check. my personal experience. one time i went to my ex wife's 4000 square foot house on ten acres to pick up my children for a visit. i stood outside waiting for them to gather their overnight items. my ex wifes live in boyfriend began talking to me. he said it would be nice to have a little extra money to pay to have the front yard re-sodded. he said this in a way that made it clear he was asking me for money. i was so pissed off. i kept cool. i said yeah, sod is expensive. i would go with grass seed and a water hose. i left it at that and took my children for the weekend.

it's people like this that anger me.

for every good mother out there there are a half dozen bad ones.

child support laws need to be revamped.

-subfab



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
What should a father (myself) who has 2 kids who works his ass off nonstop just to support them. I have 70% custody and have always been the caretaker, yet, there mother gets to enjoy her 2 years + of Obama free unemployment and I still have to pay her child support, medical, day care. She doesn't pay a dime. I also have to pay for my lawyer and hers while she fights me in court to gain more custody, aka more child support. It doesn't matter that she has tried to commit suicide twice and is on anti psychotic meds. Sure, I may have 70% and get to ensure my children have one stable parent. Where is her incentive to do anything but milk the system and our tax payer money. Why should she gain benefits just because she is the mother who declares herself helpless. She gets fired from any job she attempts and is a college dropout.

Obviously I didn't pick a winner... but then again when birth control fails (or did it)...

Basically, men often get the short end of the stick and it would be nice when we get the same equality that women get to enjoy.

I am not the kind to stay home and milk the system, but I see all too many people working the system to gain a work free life while the goverment pays for their permanent disability just because they choose to drop out of life.

It doesn't feel all that great to be one of the hard workers and see all I have trying to be taken from me by those who are selfish and have no integrity or work ethic.

/rant off...
edit on 4-5-2012 by GoldenVoyager because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenVoyager
 


you are not alone.

i know what you are going through.

-subfab





new topics




 
52
<< 102  103  104   >>

log in

join