Posted on 08/16/2008 6:14:49 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Fathers' rights activists have complained about arbitrarily high child support orders for almost two decades. Class action suits were filed, the fathers' rights movement grew, debates broke out in academic journals, a few social scientists demonstrated with calculations and documentation, some men have committed suicide because they were unable to support themselves, and a few serious investigative journalists analyzed in depth.Congress finally decided to act – with a flat luxury tax on child support income.
(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...
Wait, wait, wait. The argument for high child support is that each parent pays a percentage of the child’s expenses.
Dad makes 75,000 a year
Mom makes 25,000 a year
Dad pays 75%
Mom pays 25%
Where is “luxury” anywhere in this????
Oh, right...yeah, this ought to help the Dems who are running for re-election this year. LOL
Beld admits that child support collection entrepreneur Robert Williams has had a significant influence on the development of guidelines (715–716). His original 1987 study explicitly states that his recommendations were intended to increase the average child support order by 250%. SourceMost states blindly followed his recommendations.
Maybe people shouldn’t have children they don’t want to support.
Won’t matter. The ex will simply go back to court, use the judge touch-pad to dial in the increase that’ll pay for the taxes. (Nope, I’m not divorced, but I’ve seen how this stuff works... and it removes what vestige of respect there is for the law.) You want child support? Place the money into a fund that’s controlled by the judge. Funds go ONLY to the child. See how many yells you get when she can’t make payments on her BMW.
blind is the correct word.
Most states and government entities in general have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to collect money. So they increase the amount they WANT to collect to make up for the percentage of what the DO collection versus what they assess.
I’ve tried in vain for years to try to get various counties and cities to outsource their collections so that they could up the collection rates by 100+ for a small fee of around 1-3% of above-baseline collection amounts but the liberals bureaucrats in every case referred to it as mercenary work (and continued to help deny money to those who are legally entitled to it: custodial parents, municipalities, counties, various agencies, etc)
When the IRS tell us that they have somewhere in the 1/3T in uncollection assessed taxes on an ongoing basis, you have to wonder why we bother to keep them as an agency since they do little more than what we would collect as a Federal government if we simply allowed people to truly voluntarily pay taxes.
that was a slam dunk in the 1970’s.
the radical feminists got the support of fundamentalists to support the family.
afterwards, men started complaining about the unfairness.
I’ve tried in vain for years to try to get various counties and cities to outsource their collections ..Are you kidding me? Most state collections are outsourced. The so-called "public-private partnership" in child support collections is what caused all the trouble in the first place. They do nothing to increase the amount collected, but a lot to reduce the amount received by fees and commissions.
Maybe people shouldn’t have children they don’t want to support.Children should be outlawed altogether. There's always a possibility that someone might come along one day and accuse one or both parents of not wanting to support them. It's been a popular thing to say.
Obviously children should be outlawed for some.
Weitzman’s book: “The Divorce Revolution,” which popularized the myth that woman ended up poor and men wealthy from divorce, wasn’t published till the mid-1980s; mid-way though Reagan’s reign.
i apologize. it was the early 1980s
when alliances in state legislatures formed between the radical feminists and fundamentalists to “protect families”.
and at the time my friends and i were confused by the agreement of two groups that disliked each other on this issue. and i’m talking about rural, conservative states.
think about it, the feminists alone would not be able to push their agenda through state legislatures. they had to have alliances.
see immediately above.
Yes, that’s right. And it was no coincidence that it was not long after the creation of the federal child support system, signed into law by Ford in 1975. Reagan and represenatives for N.O.W. were the only people to show up at Congressional hearings in favor of it. It was only passed as an amendment to more popular social services legislation. Nobody was much interested until the level of pork got really impressive. That was the whole thing going on starting in the early 1980s - a federal program what wanted to grow itself beyond any reason - and a President who’d made promises to help himself get elected.
Obviously children should be outlawed for some.And who would that be?
Anyone who doesn’t want to support them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.