It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men and Child support. What is the answer?

page: 47
52
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 





I am really quite rational.......I only see black and white and I have no time for grey areas.


That is more like the opposite of rational. The world is not black and white.




Yes woman have the right to control her own body, abort or not. Yes men also have the right to control his own body.......it goes something like this.....keep your sperm to yourself!


I agree, I dont know why are you bringing this up, tough. The topic is not right to own body, but right to own wallet. Why should a man pay for what is solely a womans choice, when he disagrees?




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I've tried making suggestions about how it can change on the money level. It seems some would rather argue about how the children got here rather than find a solution that works for both parents.

Teaching responsibility for a person's body starts in the cradle. By high school (now what, 5th grade?) it's too late to talk about sexual responsibility. I told my daughter from an early age that her body was sacred and only she was responsible for the decision to have sex or not. Not to let anyone push her into it. She gets to chose who is worthy of that gift, not some guy. She's now 19 and never had a boyfriend. Four of her friends already have three year olds. Teenage boys usually can't get jobs, ergo no child support. We need to be teaching the boys the same respect for themselves and to treat girls the way they'd want their sisters, grandmother and mother treated.

Some solutions to make it more fair:

1. Fathers should get tax breaks for child support. They should be able to claim the child tax credit or at least half the credit.

2. The formula needs to be changed. It should be a percentage after all expenses, including food and fuel. It should also be based solely on income, not an arbitrary percentage.

3. Mothers should be forced to keep accurate records of where the support money is going. This ensures it is being spent wisely and only on things the children need. (Which is what it's supposed to be for). Those expenses include rent, utilities and groceries. There's no getting around that.

4. It's going to be unpopular with some women, but I think their income should be a factor in the figures also. If I'm making $70000 a year and my ex is making only minimum wage, that should be taken into account when the courts figure the support amount.

5. Fathers who lose their jobs, become disabled and otherwise not able to find employment (especially now) should not be punished for not being able to pay. It isn't fair and throwing them in jail only causes us to pay more taxes. It also takes able bodied men out of the workforce.

6. There should be a yearly review process to look at all the money numbers. That way child support can be adjusted to the current situation. It's fine if a father can pay $700 a month when he's working, but if he loses his job or his circumstances change (like medical expenses, rent ect) he needs to have a way to cut the payments down.

7. A father's right to see his children shouldn't be contingent on being able to pay. In my mind that's sort of pimping out your children for money. If he isn't a violent or sexual predator, or otherwise can't provide a stable, safe environment, his rights shouldn't be taken away from him. To threaten to do so because he can't make a payment amounts to extortion also.

8. Finally the attitude I've seen from some women, "It's my money!" has to go. It isn't our money. It's money for the children and as such should not be spent on our makeup, our habits (smoking and the like), our clothes or pay for us to go out clubbing on the weekends (and I've seen this happen.) If a mother spends it on anything that can't be considered for the child's needs, she needs to be fined!

I've been down the road and back again. So I speak from experience.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Perhaps you need to go back over my older posts and everything is explained to you in lay terms.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tncryptogal
 


I could go along with that. Here in Australia both parent's income is taken in to account. Quite honestly, the only ones who pay $25.00 or less in child support each month are those who are unemployed and those who are self employed. Of those who are unemployed, in many instances, usually have a cash business or their business is in their new wife's name. Either way, they are creative with their business ledgers.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Im sorry for you twisted misconceptions. All men arent dogs and all women arent cats. Some, yes, most deffinately, but not all.

MOTF!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


Then you have'nt visited many homes of the elderly; I learn fast!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


There is a whole plithora of different reasons an ELDERLY person's home may look a mess. It deffinately has nothing to do with gender.

MOTF!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


For the most part? OH YES IT DOES!

LOL



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Look... We could get into a pissing contest if you wanted too, but i have to get to work now. Obviously neither of us will be swayed in our OPINIONS. We can agree to disagree if you would like and call it a draw. lol

MOTF!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


done deal LOL



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I've tried making suggestions about how it can change on the money level. It seems some would rather argue about how the children got here rather than find a solution that works for both parents.

Teaching responsibility for a person's body starts in the cradle. By high school (now what, 5th grade?) it's too late to talk about sexual responsibility. I told my daughter from an early age that her body was sacred and only she was responsible for the decision to have sex or not. Not to let anyone push her into it. She gets to chose who is worthy of that gift, not some guy. She's now 19 and never had a boyfriend. Four of her friends already have three year olds. Teenage boys usually can't get jobs, ergo no child support. We need to be teaching the boys the same respect for themselves and to treat girls the way they'd want their sisters, grandmother and mother treated.

Some solutions to make it more fair:

1. Fathers should get tax breaks for child support. They should be able to claim the child tax credit or at least half the credit.

2. The formula needs to be changed. It should be a percentage after all expenses, including food and fuel. It should also be based solely on income, not an arbitrary percentage.

3. Mothers should be forced to keep accurate records of where the support money is going. This ensures it is being spent wisely and only on things the children need. (Which is what it's supposed to be for). Those expenses include rent, utilities and groceries. There's no getting around that.

4. It's going to be unpopular with some women, but I think their income should be a factor in the figures also. If I'm making $70000 a year and my ex is making only minimum wage, that should be taken into account when the courts figure the support amount.

5. Fathers who lose their jobs, become disabled and otherwise not able to find employment (especially now) should not be punished for not being able to pay. It isn't fair and throwing them in jail only causes us to pay more taxes. It also takes able bodied men out of the workforce.

6. There should be a yearly review process to look at all the money numbers. That way child support can be adjusted to the current situation. It's fine if a father can pay $700 a month when he's working, but if he loses his job or his circumstances change (like medical expenses, rent ect) he needs to have a way to cut the payments down.

7. A father's right to see his children shouldn't be contingent on being able to pay. In my mind that's sort of pimping out your children for money. If he isn't a violent or sexual predator, or otherwise can't provide a stable, safe environment, his rights shouldn't be taken away from him. To threaten to do so because he can't make a payment amounts to extortion also.

8. Finally the attitude I've seen from some women, "It's my money!" has to go. It isn't our money. It's money for the children and as such should not be spent on our makeup, our habits (smoking and the like), our clothes or pay for us to go out clubbing on the weekends (and I've seen this happen.) If a mother spends it on anything that can't be considered for the child's needs, she needs to be fined!

I've been down the road and back again. So I speak from experience.




I happen to agree with your post, if you remove the gender designations and replace them with parent. Your list is about what the Canadian system is.
edit on 2011/6/3 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I just have one question only. Why must men pay "money" for child support when essentially that money goes to purchase food, clothes, etc for said child anyway? Why can't men just be ordered to purchase X amount of essentials in lieu of paying the mother money and handing it over? It has always seemed like a no brainer for me. Win win, everyone's happy unless of course she is using that money for something else. Men have no control of what happens to that money and how it is budgeted.

If suddenly there are responses of high protest to this solution from women, then it is clear that these women are not using child support money appropriately.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


I'll tell you again.......

when a child looks happy, healthy and wears clean clothes then I can safely tell you the kid is well cared for therefore the child support would appear to be used towards rent, food and utilities. Now why is that so damn difficult to understand? Appearance means the obvious! HELLO!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by FlySolo
 


I'll tell you again.......

when a child looks happy, healthy and wears clean clothes then I can safely tell you the kid is well cared for therefore the child support would appear to be used towards rent, food and utilities. Now why is that so damn difficult to understand? Appearance means the obvious! HELLO!!!!!!


Hello??

Clean clothes? Happy? Healthy? Is that really the best you can do? Firstly, happy and healthy is FREE. Clean clothes? What do you do when your clothes are dirty? Buy new ones? g'mmie a break

ETA: I would also like to remind you that there are millions of separated couples who choose NOT to use the court to enforce child support. They get by just fine with logic and a balanced budget
edit on 3-6-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)


AETA: I'm a detective when it comes to choice of words. Surprised I missed it.
You said "looks healthy" and not just "healthy". It is clear you are superficial, shallow, and self-serving. Sorry that was harsh but you exposed yourself. I'm not going to explain my reason for my analysis, I doubt you will even understand it anyway
edit on 3-6-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Happy, healthy and clean means the kid comes from a good home. Do I have to spell out to you what HEALTHY, HAPPY and CLEAN relates too?

Are you a parent or just started out? Because no parent with reasonable intelligence would ask such a stupid question!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Well thought out and I agree with you 100%



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Obviously you are one of the abusers of the system. I would love to hear what your idea of what a good home is. 10,000 sq ft? Three bathrooms, two car garage?

I've seen happy, healthy kids in less living conditions than what I mentioned above. If you can't agree with that then you are a parasite on the system and only contribute to the problem.


edit on 3-6-2011 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Daedal
 


You go ahead and look for those sites that list deadbeat parents, and you'll find both genders. It just happens that the guys rack up bigger bar tabs.

Nice big post about how you are oppressed by women and children. Victims of your own penises apparently.
edit on 2011/6/2 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


I am not arguing the moral issue at hand,but merely the criminality of these claims.They are unconstitutional.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
I just have one question only. Why must men pay "money" for child support when essentially that money goes to purchase food, clothes, etc for said child anyway? Why can't men just be ordered to purchase X amount of essentials in lieu of paying the mother money and handing it over? It has always seemed like a no brainer for me. Win win, everyone's happy unless of course she is using that money for something else. Men have no control of what happens to that money and how it is budgeted.

If suddenly there are responses of high protest to this solution from women, then it is clear that these women are not using child support money appropriately.


Because, there are people who will not purchase things that are appropriate just be unkind.

Bacon for Jews. Pink shirts with ruffles for their boys. Just to prove a point. Diapers too small. Peanuts for the allergic. Then you'd have to have bureaucracy to review people being jerks, and being taken back to court.

If the other parent is not properly supporting their children, then neglect can be proven.

If people were being reasonable to begin with, they would do what most people do. Go to mediation to work it out. When they hit the courts, at least one person involved is not being reasonable.
edit on 2011/6/3 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedal

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Daedal
 


You go ahead and look for those sites that list deadbeat parents, and you'll find both genders. It just happens that the guys rack up bigger bar tabs.

Nice big post about how you are oppressed by women and children. Victims of your own penises apparently.
edit on 2011/6/2 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


I am not arguing the moral issue at hand,but merely the criminality of these claims.They are unconstitutional.


The constitution still doesn't protect you from being a parent, no matter how many times you guys try to force it to say something of the sort. Whoever is telling you it does is lying to you and you're sucking it up because it speaks to your fear.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join