Also, I wanted to add that you are right, welfare reform prevented parents from simply having more kids to get more money. But the even more damaging child support system does still exist.
This brings back a long ago memory from my early childhood, in another place and another time.
I recall that students and their parents were required to come to the child’s classroom on a given weekend, and spend time cleaning the classroom. Everything from vacuuming, to dusting, washing the blackboard, organizing the books and class materials. This was a monthly chore that had to be done in turns and parent and child would end up doing it twice a year, as scheduled.
Seeing my dad clean the classroom on his day off made me much more conscious and invested in keeping my desk clean and generally more aware of the school/home connection.
Nope, not gonna do it…not gonna ask about this can o’ worms.
Why’s that?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. People are willing to speak in platitudes about social justice and liberal ideals, but have a conversation about something that might be a little uncomfortable? “Not gonna do it”
Sure, I’m down with having students do some chores. As long as they are within the scope of their ability (no 5 year olds doing tree work) and they do not detract from their time for studies.
I would also not allow students to buy their way out.
As a male in my 40’s I know far more people paying child support than receiving. I hear bitching and whining about it, but no good arguments against it.
I have my thoughts on some of the inequalities involved in child support, and I certainly feel it could use an overhaul, top to bottom, but in the end, it’s about taking responsibility, and that’s all child support is, taking responsibility.
You’ve gone on quite a bit about people taking responsibility, so I am a bit surprised to see a condemnation of a system that does exactly that. Are you just against some of the ways that it is implemented, or against the concept itself?
It would be better, I suppose, if the father stayed in the home, but I would not support any laws that would force that to happen. And if we cannot force him to stay in the home, I do think that we should be able to force him to take responsibility and pay his share for the kid.
With a UBI, maybe this is less necessary. But then, I would actually expect a person who has gone around fathering children he is not supporting to pay more in tax, or something.
I am not against it as a concept, but I am against the way it is implemented. We are in agreement that it needs an overhaul. I’m curious, what kind of things would you change with the current system?
I suppose that a big part would be that it should be paid, whether or not the father pays. A deadbeat dad should be dealt with by the state, not need to be nagged by the mother.
So the recipient gets their money every month, and the payer gets a bill every month. I think it should be based on minimums, not on pay. If I make more, that doesn’t mean that I was going to give it to my kid, so why should the state say that by making more, I have to give more of it to the kid?
So the recipient gets what is needed to provide for the kid, and the payee pays based on what he can pay, up to that amount, and then no more.
As I’ve spent most of my life in low paying jobs, most of the people I knew worked in low paying jobs. Low paying jobs are transient, and you might make twice what you do in one than another. I knew people that got taken to court to increase the payment while they happened to have something moderately lucrative (for a low paying job) or while working two jobs, but when they lost the job, or changed jobs, suddenly their child support was 80% or more of their pay. And the court didn’t really want to hear it.
Taking away driver’s licenses over inability to pay is stupid. That makes it harder to pay. Putting them in jail over it is even dumber, IMHO.
Make it part of their taxes, and if they refuse to pay their taxes, then you treat them as anyone else that refuses to pay their taxes.
And, to be fair, one of the reasons that no one wants to touch this one is that it is a very touchy subject. I expect to get at least some flak for expressing my opinion on it, but that’s cool, I got a thick skin. Hopefully no one will call me an MRA this time. But I’m game to discuss just about anything.
Of course, if this goes more than a single question response, it is probably best to take it to a new thread.
I think you made a lot of good points, and I agree with pretty much all that.
Do you think marriage (obviously one that has ended in divorce) as a precondition to receiving child support is too extreme?
I don’t see what purpose that would serve. So at a glance, I would say I would not have such a requirement. I could be persuaded otherwise, maybe, but I can’t think of the argument that would persuade me.
To be honest, education and access to birth control is the best way to decrease the number of unsupported children.
The only reason I can see to make receipt of child support conditional upon marriage is as a backward way to try to punish people who have extramarital sex, which isn’t really the government’s business. And the baby being thrown out with the bathwater here is a literal baby - you’re denying the mother funds to care for her child out of, literally, spite.
If the goal is to try to scare people into getting married before having sex, I have yet to hear of an approach to that that actually works. One that defers the punishment until a year after the sex is unlikely to make a dent.
It’s not a backward way to punish people for having extramarital see. I’m not at all opposed to that.
I’m also not mentioning it as a way to deny a mother funds out of spite, no spite involved.
I’m also not suggesting it as a means to scare people out of having sex before marriage. Not in the slightest.
I do believe, however, that if recieving money was conditional on having some type of proof (for example, marriage) that there was an earnest attempt at providing a healthy family structure for a child, that more women (specifically in the black community) would be more thoughtful about what conditions had to be met for them to conceive a child.
I’ve heard it straight from the horses mouth.
I suppose it comes down to what the point of child support is.
If it’s to support the child (shocking idea, I know), then that’s that. The policy should be designed to provide enough money to support the child. (And making this payment independent of the deadbeatness of the dad is a great idea.)
If the goal is to play mind games with women to try to manipulate them into being more responsible, then 1) that has been repeatedly been shown to not really work in practice, and 2) why give them any money at all? Let the fucking kids die; their survival isn’t the important thing here. The best way to disincentivize kid-having is to force them to foot the bill entirely by themselves.
It should be mentioned that if the point of child support is to disincentivize the men from being casual lotharios, keep in mind we’re already talking about decoupling the collection and disbursement of the payments from each other. That means that we can levy a fine on deadbeat dads, but not give any of it to the mother. Heck, we can fine the mother too. Heck, who cares if they’re separated or not? Fine both parents a set amount for every kid they have, no matter the circumstances.
That’ll serve our ends well!
(Wait, what were our ends again?)
“The best way to disincentivise kid having is to force them to foot the bill entirely themselves.”
Right, that’s what I was getting at. Glad we can agree.
So you’re on board with replacing child support with a child-having fine, split equally between the parents.
I’m afraid I misled you a bit - I’m actually not 100% on board with killing children to make a point to their parents. Like, only 95% on board, tops.
That’s not what I said.
I don’t think that that would have any effect.
All it would do is have children who are even more disadvantaged. Punishing children for the sins of their parents.
Any punishment to the father?
I’m not even sure what this means? What horse, and what exactly did he tell you?
(And no I am not saying I don’t know what the phrase means, I just don’t see how it applies.)
The policy proposition is a package deal.
And even if you agree only with the section you quoted, that demonstrates that deliberately depriving children of support is something you consider an acceptable goal of “child support”.
So, are you for or against child support?
Or is it only the woman who is responsible for being thoughtful about what conditions have to be met for them to conceive a child?
I already told you that I am for child support, though not how it is currently implemented.
Thats not at all what it demonstrates.