Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's up with the "all or nothing" thinking? Is it really that hard to believe that some judges do in some cases and others don't in other cases?
Not it's not hard to believe some judges view it that way. Is it enough to build a majority? Or are there cases where the non-custodial parent actually does attempt to lower earnings just to screw the other party?
I think you ARE a woman, to be honest with you. The way you debate isn't logical nor rational, it's overly emotional and I keep having to repeat myself over and over and over to you JUST like I have to do with women when debating them as most of the time they debate from "emotions" rather than "logic."
And please spare me the "whoa is me" argument, reproduction is TOTALLY in the woman's control. Even if I deliberately got a woman pregnant, it's up to HER to decide to carry the baby into life...if she decides to kill it I'm powerless over her decision. Sure, a man helps a woman GET pregnant, but a woman does not have STAY pregnant and carry the child until the end. She can end it at any time. Those are facts....but of course because it doesn't line up with your "emotional tirade" of course you won't "believe" those facts.
You can repeat the overly emotional retort all you want because you simply do not have to data to back your opinion. Your false attempts to label me as a woman also don't work in proving your argument.
I'm not sure where you saw a whoa is me argument, you didn't but that doesn't stop you from building a straw man. The women has the final choice to proceed with a pregnancy as she should but that doesn't detract from the fact that you simply will blame anyone other than the father. It's either system failure, greedy women or women who can't make better decisions one things certain though you certainly can't blame the man.
Not it's not hard to believe some judges view it that way. Is it enough to build a majority? Or are there cases where the non-custodial parent actually does attempt to lower earnings just to screw the other party?
I'm sure it all happens to some extent but I can't give you any numbers - I don't have data.
I'm sure it all happens to some extent but I can't give you any numbers - I don't have data.
None of us have the data. I do work with a guy who purposefully doesn't earn much and hasn't for the last 4 years since his divorce and when his support arrangement ends in two years I bet his sales skills magically come back. I don't think most do this though
Getting married has long been shown to be a huge factor in building wealth. With two incomes, but only sharing one roof, your housing expenditures decrease per person, as does the cost of health insurance.
More leisure time? Not if you split household duties. Having one person go to the grocery store while the other cleans the house saves time.
Less stressed... doubtful. Being married leads to more sex than what a single person has. As for sleeping in, my wife doesn't seem to have a problem doing that at all!
Now kids on the other hand, are a completely different story. They cost time and energy, worry and money. But getting married (which I would say is a family) is better than being single for financial reasons.
There multiple definitions of 'family'. Please back up your statements with documented (reputable) evidence.
The who 'married' argument really just demonstrates the government's desire for social manipulation.
Co-habitation of two high-income people with no kids is the easiest way to build wealth.
1). Strike one: the 'marriage penalty' of taxation works against building wealth.
2). Positive: aspect of living under one roof is positive, whether married or not
3). Positive: aspect of splitting household duties is positive, whether married or not, though hiring yardmen, housecleaners makes that point moot.
4). Falsehood: aspects of sex is dependent on being married, if you cohabitate.
5). Falsehood: Health insurance costs a lot more for 2 single people than those married. Actually you can put anyone you want on one policy (I do), whether married or not. Cost is only slightly more than being single.
6). Strike two: for legal reasons, if people are married, if one spouse does something really stupid, both can end up financially liable.
7). Inheritance: by specifying beneficiaries, the SO can still get all your assets, if you so choose, if you are single.
8). If you aren't married, you can't get 'taken to the cleaners' in case of divorce.
9). Positive for being married: (going back to #6), the SO can't testify you in a court of law
10). Cost of education (college) can be WAY cheaper, if one SO doesn't work for a period of time, and demonstrates being virtually financially destitute. (i.e. only by not taking the entire household into account)
There multiple definitions of 'family'. Please back up your statements with documented (reputable) evidence.
The who 'married' argument really just demonstrates the government's desire for social manipulation.
Co-habitation of two high-income people with no kids is the easiest way to build wealth.
1). Strike one: the 'marriage penalty' of taxation works against building wealth.
2). Positive: aspect of living under one roof is positive, whether married or not
3). Positive: aspect of splitting household duties is positive, whether married or not, though hiring yardmen, housecleaners makes that point moot.
4). Falsehood: aspects of sex is dependent on being married, if you cohabitate.
5). Falsehood: Health insurance costs a lot more for 2 single people than those married. Actually you can put anyone you want on one policy (I do), whether married or not. Cost is only slightly more than being single.
6). Strike two: for legal reasons, if people are married, if one spouse does something really stupid, both can end up financially liable.
7). Inheritance: by specifying beneficiaries, the SO can still get all your assets, if you so choose, if you are single.
8). If you aren't married, you can't get 'taken to the cleaners' in case of divorce.
9). Positive for being married: (going back to #6), the SO can't testify you in a court of law
10). Cost of education (college) can be WAY cheaper, if one SO doesn't work for a period of time, and demonstrates being virtually financially destitute. (i.e. only by not taking the entire household into account)
I could come up with about 10 more reasons.. JMHO
#1 isn't the issue most make it out to be and it's certainly not a stumbling block to creating wealth.
#6 you can transfer an unlimited amount of wealth to your spouse at death without any federal tax issue
#7 is is not correct although somewhat unclear but if you clarify I'd bet it's wrong
Dude....for the life of me.....I'm posting about how the Child Support System Works. That's how they do the calculation and formulas to determine who pays what here in Michigan and I'm sure in just about every other State.
Also you have to factor in the time with the child factor, which the calculator I provided DOES NOT give account for.
In relation to Dead Beat dads, you mean guys that don't pay anything? The ONLY WAY that will happen is from a measurement standpoint, the Father doesn't make ANY money or make such a small amount of money it's not even required to be filed with Income Taxes. As a result, the Mother would qualify for other forms of aid such as Welfare, EBT, etc.
But keep in mind, the woman CHOSE that Dead Beat bum broke loser to pro-create with. A woman is the ultimate decider on who not only gets laid, but which guy's baby gets produced. She laid down with a bum, got pregnant by a bum, and decided to carry a bum's baby into life. Now she's whining about not getting child support extraction from a guy that didn't graduate high school, has no place of his own, probably no car, and probably his only form of "employment" is selling weed on the side while making rap beats? Get out of here dude.
The ONLY WAY a guy is getting out of paying child support is if he doesn't MAKE ANYTHING. And not just that, he also can't have any ASSETS either because Assets are taken into consideration. The guy is a BUM, flat out, period....she pro-created with a damn bum loser and is expecting this bum to help her support a child financially when the bum can't support himself.
The women in this situation usually argue to MAKE the bum get a job.....hogwash.....what job?? The bum probably has felony after felony, McDonalds won't hire him. Plus, that's not how the system works, they don't make BUMS get jobs. They do require guys who have their stuff together to KEEP it together so they can keep paying those child support payments or they get thrown in jail.
Guys have options too
1. Get a your dick snipped
2.use a condom
3. give up rights
4.leave the U.S.
5.support your children and try to co-parent
Women need stop getting with jerk both poor and rich and realized they are not going change.
They should focus on getting a stable job.
Before people have sex , they should talk about birth control.
Marriage isn't just a financial transaction it carries other legal powers, if it was just financial do you think gays would push so hard to have it? You are the most bitter poster on this site that I've seen about marriage. You extrapolate extreme examples where men take a bath however the truth is this isn't something that happens in every divorce nor is it something that is exclusive to men when it does happen. I'm not sure anyone here is going to skip getting married because of the diarrhea you spew
"I'm not sure anyone here...." I can disprove that by example. Me.
"I'm not sure anyone here...." I can disprove that by example. Me.
So you skipped getting married based on what jotucker99 posts on this site? If he changed your opinion that's sad
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
