Calculation of child support varies from state to state, and country to country. Every system I have seen, the earnings of the non-custodial parent and the number of children that person is responsible for. All that I have had experience with also include the income of the custodial parent.
It’s more than a little frustrating that people vociferously oppose the inequities of the child support system and don’t know how it works - whether it is not knowing the basics of how it is determined, or not knowing that alimony and child support are completely separate things.
I bet it is, which is why people like me need people like you to explain the details before we form a set opinion. Thanks for the time you are putting into this.
No, they really don’t have that right at all. The word “rights” gets thrown around a lot these days, seemingly without regard for what the word actually means. Why should men have that right? Seems to me what men really have is an obligation to figure out if he & whoever he’s sleeping with are likeminded when it comes to what option they would prefer in the event of a pregnancy. If he doesn’t agree with her preference (since, obviously, she holds the cards in that situation), or he doesn’t know her well enough to ask or feel confident that she won’t change her mind, then maybe he should look elsewhere for some non-Victorian nookie.
I doubt that this is what Diogenes meant by baby incubator…he was stating a fact of biology, which you’d be hard-pressed to argue with. His point is that pregnancy is an inherent risk of sex…you really shouldn’t participate in ANY leisure activity without understanding and accepting the potential risks, as well as doing whatever you can to minimize those risks.
Personally, I find the argument from Diogenes to be a bit bizarre coming from a pro-choicer, because you could change “man” to “woman” and a pro-lifer could use the exact same argument. But he has a point that women have an option men don’t have…it’s just a simple fact of life in the year 2009. The only way to ensure that men and women both have the same chance to decide would be to outlaw abortion, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t be for that, would you? I agree that the situation is unfair for men, but life isn’t fair, and children shouldn’t always have to bear the brunt of their parents’ bad decisions…that happens enough as it is.
B is the father of the child. He should pay. I don’t care if A is the president of a large bank getting billions of dollars in government handouts and giving her self a billion dollars in retention awards.
B is the father. He should pay something to help support the child.
Everyone is to freakin into ‘fairness’…fairness has nothing to do with this…you’re the father…BE ONE! My God, what can be cooler than being a father?
You don’t think it is sadder that amongst those who are most decrying the “unfairness” of the system of child support are those who admit to not knowing how child support is calculated, and who don’t know there is a fundamental difference between alimony and child support?
It makes it next to impossible to explain to a person why they might not be correct when they don’t understand the basics of the system that they have predetermined is unfair.
Why does she get that right? There are tons of kids out there without cars or college funds, why is it “right” to suck money out of the father for these things that aren’t necessary to keep the kid alive and healthy?
I think if I was stuck with child support, I’d do the same thing!
Except it isn’t just the minors’ welfare if the mother is allowed to take money she doesn’t need to raise these kids. It looks more like punishment to the father for daring to have had sex, or daring to have not been happy in his marriage or whatever the circumstances are that led to him not living with the children. There is no law that says that children must have cars or go to college - why do the courts force fathers to pay for things like this?
Sounds like he should have had a vasectomy at some point…
Whoever it is that decides how much aid to kids tax money goes to the poor children. This is what I don’t get - it’s ok for poor people to have kids and raise them in squalor, but if a couple decides to not raise their children in one home, suddenly these children “deserve” all these extras, no matter what it does to the one paying support? And the big one - whether he wanted those kids or not in the first place?
Works for me! We have lots of graffiti they could be cleaning off/painting over here too! Is NJ still capped?
Then let the government take care of the child and have both parents pay the government. As long as all expenses are covered and neither parent has full custody, the child’s needs are met without the inherent injustice of a biased custody system. This would also eliminate the costs of the orphanage system as it stands now, for those worried about the money
You meant “…the father has no choice.” right? Cause I never said the father has a choice. Anyway, whatever you meant, your conclusion is flawed. Like I said people, I’m not against people facing up to their responsibilities, but I am against taking away their ability to erase those mistakes. Mothers can, by abortion or by adoption. Fathers cannot do either unless the mother agrees first, and therein lies the point of contention for me
If the mother cannot raise her child adequately with her funds, then she should give the child up for adoption or share custody with the father. People keep repeating that we have to pay the mother to help the child, why? Its obvious, to me at least, that the archaic notions of the mother being the best caretaker has seeped into people’s brains as some kind of default, preferable status quo. If the kid is a financial burden to mom, then place him with dad. And if the dad does not want the kid, he should still not be forced to overpay in order to compensate for mom’s inability to provide adequate finances. In other words, I’m saying that the best option isnt to have the kid be with mom or dad in all circumstances. If the maximum cap for child support doesnt cover the child’s expenses, then it is clear that both couples have no business raising the kid. Put him up for adoption in an orphanage, but both parents continue to pay into the system. The government can cover the rest, as it should
Again I have to ask, orphanages exist, why not use them? If money is so important, then we should stop pretending that the kid has to go with mom or dad. The kid should go with the money is if that isnt mom or dad.
Alright, fair enough. But yes, I see children as an obligation. Within the context of the topic, they are, even if you love them. Since we are debating over the necessary compensation one has to pay to the other parent, then you need to stop thinking about it as a child and more as a debt. Only then can you break free of the emotional baggage of illogical fallacies and reason without coercion. I wont argue with you anymore over the specific amount, but I believe there should be a cap. I’m merely using my own experience that $1000 isnt too low to spend each month, as I live on a budget as well. But as far as the little debter goes, yes, we should be forced to pay as little as possible. If you have the money to pay more and want to, fine, go ahead. But it is not fair to force more payment when less will do. And again, dont think of this as some rich sob trying to get out of payment to a poor woman. Such emotional pleas do nothing to advance the argument. Think instead about the inequalities present when a woman has 2 chances to opt out of payment and a man has none and you will get my view.
You’re not talking about taxation without representation. You’re talking about taxing for something you disagree with. In fact, you have all the representation everyone else has. A congressmen, a senator, a president, and any number of local state and county and city representatives that has to run for office every few years.
You are mad that I’m suggesting we add more burden to the taxpayers. That may be undesirable, but not illegal or unconstitutional. As I said before, you pay for a lot of things you dont use, and so does everyone else. I have the power to vote people into office to support our views, and so do you. Adding or change the tax burden isnt anything like what you’re suggesting
Ill answer the rest later, but this is just flat out wrong…
The “2 chances” are abortion and adoption, from what you were saying earlier. The mother can’t give the child up for adoption without the father’s consent, and vice versa. So at most, you are talking about “1 chance” if you want to be accurate (which isn’t in itself apparent).
I’ll say it again, because you are totally ignoring it. Once there is a 3rd person involved, the child, that person has rights. Before that, each individual has the right to control their own body, and the extent to which their body takes part in sexual reproduction. No inequality. Once the male has dumped his sperm off, he plays no further part in sexual reproduction, so has no further decision making role in that process. Until there is a child. Which occurs at birth. Up until the point at which he ceases to have a role in sexual reproduction, he has complete control over whether he wishes to risk having a child. Similarly the woman, up until the point that she ceases having a role in sexual reproduction, she has control over whether she wishes to risk having a child. Actually, she has less control, because the law limits her choice to have an abortion in later stages of pregnancy.
That’s the point. The man has zero say as to whether or not a pregnancy turns out to be a baby. Since he has no say in that, why should he be forced to support a baby if he didn’t want it? You are suggesting he just never have sex unless he wants a(nother) baby?
The gender inequality is still there since it is mostly the females who get custody and females generally make less money than males. And you are ignoring the gender inequality regarding whether or not a pregnancy turns into a baby needing support.
How can it possibly be right for a woman to decide she must have a baby, and then go forth to find someone else she can force to pay for it? How is that about responsibility and consequences for actions?
You are equating sex with driving drunk?
Not in the slightest and I really have no idea what makes you think that, except maybe you don’t understand the realities of birth control? You do know that a condom by itself is not a very good birth control method, right? And that a condom is the only birth control a man can use himself, if he wants to have kids at some time in the future? So, in order to ever have intercourse, the man needs to trust that the woman is on the pill, using an IUD, whatever, if he doesn’t want sex to turn into a pregnancy, right? Still following?
OK, leaving aside those women who poke holes in condoms, save used condoms and lie about their own birth control status, no birth control method is 100%. So, no matter how responsible a man is, there is still a chance that he is going to end up creating a pregnancy he doesn’t want. At that point, he has no options - either the woman has an abortion or she has a baby. Since he has zero choice in that, I don’t think he should be forced to pay support. If the woman cannot afford to raise the baby on her own, she should suck it up, quit being so selfish, and either abort or adopt it out. Because it is an entirely selfish decision on her part - no one needs to have any children, particularly if they cannot afford to pay for them.
So it’s ok with you that these women be completely irresponsible?
What choices do men have other than never having intercourse unless they want to create a pregnancy?
Um, yeah. So?
Boy you are unaware of the realities aren’t you? Try Googling “how to oops a man”.
What happened to adoption? Yes, her feelings are irrelevant if she cannot afford to raise the baby on her own and the sire doesn’t want it - why would her feelings be more important than his?
What I said is that men have a way of ensuring they don’t have children. Abstinence is one way. A vasectomy is pretty close to a second way - I understand they are not 100% successful.
But we all take lots of actions every day that have a risk of an outcome we don’t want. We balance the risks and the benefits. And if we cause consequences by our voluntary actions, we are held responsible.
So if you are the slightest concerned with accurately portraying what I am advocating, it would be “men should not have sex until they are willing to accept the risk of pregnancy as determined by the type of sex engaged in and the method of contraception, if any, used.” But saying that was what I advocated wouldn’t fit into your bizarre view of responsibility.
That’s the truth. So stop with the claims that those who seek to require men to take responsibility for their actions are anti-women. You are about as convincing an advocate for women as Katie Roiphe.
Rather than debating the topic at hand, perhaps people who feel strongly about this should be demanding male birth control hit the market (in addition to advocating for cheap and accessible female birth control, including abortion, which I assume is something you already support).
You missed the point. The courts decide through a formula based on both parents income how much the absent parent should pay. That responsibility doesn’t vanish when if she remarries or her boyfriend moves in. Even if the step parent is well off they have zero parental responsibilities financially. I’m saying **if ** it turns out that Mom no longer needs Dad’s money for the essentials that doesn’t mean Dad isn’t still responsible for his share. If the essentials are covered willing by Step Dad purely out of good will then Dad’s money *might * be used for a college fund rather than nail polish and spa treatments. Either way Dad’s financial responsibility doesn’t end if Mom marries well.
OTOH if Mom gets a big promotion and is now making much more than Dad he can petition the court for a change in support.
We had an informal agreement. I think a court might have felt differently.
Yes it is the minors welfare for the reasons I just explained.
If a Dad earns 30K a year he pays X amount based on his and her income. Obviously there won’t be a ton of extras on that kind of income. If
Sounds like he should have had a vasectomy at some point…
Whoever it is that decides how much aid to kids tax money goes to the poor children. This is what I don’t get - it’s ok for poor people to have kids and raise them in squalor, but if a couple decides to not raise their children in one home, suddenly these children “deserve” all these extras, no matter what it does to the one paying support? And the big one - whether he wanted those kids or not in the first place?
Works for me! We have lots of graffiti they could be cleaning off/painting over here too! Is NJ still capped?
[/QUOTE]
So you think if a guy decides he doesn’t like his wife, that terminates his obligation to his children, even if he helped make the decision to have them? The mother now has to solely support herself AND the kids, and he only has to support himself? Sweet! Must be nice to be a man in your world.
Not necessarily, but it would be smart to only have sex when he is in a stable relationship with a like-minded person, so he can trust that she will be in agreement with him if the inevitable happens. Is that too much to ask? There are plenty of women around who would be just as happy with abortion as an option as he would be…wouldn’t it be smart to hook up with one of those women?
OK, then, men have the same right as women to have sex without having to worry about paying thru the nose for the next 18+ years.
If women didn’t lie, change their minds or have birth control fail, this would work.
No, Diogenes was trying to make a point in a rather gross way - that any fertile woman has at any time the possibility of becoming a baby incubator. Except, misogyny aside, it isn’t true since there are plenty of women that would abort the second they found out they were pregnant. Women are more than walking wombs.
Or, we could quit forcing men to pay for the children they never wanted, which would make it fair. Apparently pro choice doesn’t extend to men.
How is any child bearing the brunt of anything if women know up front that noone but themselves are going to be paying to raise their kids, unless they have a partner that also wants children?
I hit the wrong button on my previous post and didn’t finish. Here’s the rest
Yes it is the minors welfare for the reasons I just explained.
If a Dad earns 30K a year he pays X amount based on his and her income. Obviously there won’t be a ton of extras on that kind of income. If Dad earns 100k a year more is expected of him and the kids will have extras. That’s how it works.
an example of the court guidelines and that poor men aren’t always at the mercy of the courts and women.
No No and No. Pay attention. It’s a formula based on income and it has nothing to do with extras. Your solution releases men from all responsibility, and places all of it on women from step one. {The point where they decide if they should have sex and know it might make a baby.} Your suggestion releases men from any concern about that at all. They never have to even think about contraception. It’s all on the woman. Yet somehow that seems the better solution to you. I think it’s loony.
Is NJ still capped?