I suspect that any member of a small minority that has had a particular bad experience feels that the percentage is higher.
Don't you think 99% is as close to 100% as human beings are liable to get? Actually, I think 99% is 'way too close for truth. I'd say 90% is as close to 100% as any population at any time, at any place, composed of any people well ever get, no matter the circumstances, no matter the issue, even in a hardcore police state devoted to nothing else. I see no record of any compliance to any rule that is greater than 90%. If you can find objective proof that one exists, I'd be pleased if you could provide me the numbers and sources.
So, what do you think of 10% true, died-in-the-wool deadbeat dads? That number should certainly feel right. Remember, that means 90% are getting screwed because of the 10% who are legitimately irresponsible. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Would that be a real cause for compassion? And, talking in terms of equity and fairness, would it be better for all if 10% of the women (the 10% getting screwed by 10% of the men) who get hit with a real "deadbeat dad", just take it on the chin?
But that would take nobility, social consciousness that a socialism never engenders. It would take a quality of integrity foreign to the way of thought that seems to be behind your conversation with Mr. Gay. I think you should consider the quality of life available for all people at the final destination to which that way of thought leads.
Make that widows "can't" run a farm by themselves.
In a healthy society the only percentage that's ever "good enough" is 100, even though it's unacheivable we shouldn't accept defeat.
What's funny about this "debate" is that absolutely no one on the supposed side of the dad LISTENS. I've said REPEATEDLY that I don't want to screw over the dads that actually pay their bills, but we can't protect the deadbeats. The situation we had 20 years ago was exactly like you think is a good idea, abandoned wives had no choice but to take it on the chin, no choice. Literally every company in this country had more ability to collect on bad debt (through collection agencies, the courts, if the debt was sufficient even wage garnishment) than the mother of some one's kids. If that doesn't strike you as sick then I have to think there's something seriously wrong with you.
I notice no one even contemplated responding to my idea. What if we gave spouses that were supposed to receive child support the exact same bill collecting capabilities as corporations? With the same proof requirements. See nobody is proposing we go to some mid-level. Everybody working againt the current system wants to go back to how it was in the 70s, and that was no good. And letting people collect on bad debt isn't socialism, if you think it is you need to spend some real time in school learning what big words mean.