Aren't We All Happy That They Finally Ended Debtor's Prisons? (percentage, expenses)
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.
I have some prior tenants who I wish I could send to debtor's prison. Ones that did $10k+ in damage to a property and then filed bankruptcy or left the country to avoid paying the judgment.
A debt is not only borrowed money that didn't get repaid. It can also be money that was never paid in the first place, in exchange for a good or service, or in the case of a rental, money owed in payment for damage done.
I just recently read a narrative history of New York City, and it still shocks me to read of the debtor's prisons of times gone by, which we inherited from England. You couldn't get out of prison until a friend, relative, or your boss, if he valued you enough, paid your debts. Some people languished for 6 years in these horrid places.
Bread-winning father can't pay his debts, goes to prison, leaving behind a family to fend for themselves.
Imagine if they had never shut down those debtor's prisons!!! Today? Oh lord, someone uninsured, noninsured, or insured (yes even those with health insurance today are filing bankruptcy being unable to pay the deductibles) rings up a $50k-$100k hospital bill, can't pay, and off to prison they go, while waiting an eternity for someone to pay the debt.
Anyone out there who thinks it would be a good idea to bring debtor's prisons back?
I don't want them but, I do want to see people pay their debts. You incurred, you should pay. Period. I believe they a creditor should be able to go after you forever, garnish your wages, forever, if you fail to pay your debts. With interest.
Exclusions? Death, special circumstances (health), divorce (only modify, not alleviate) and other common sense issues. Why? Because MOST people who incur that much debt did so recklessly...cars they should never have purchased, homes they could not possibly afford....they run and run those credit cards and then look for settlements.....not fair to the creditors.....YOU chose to buy it...no one FORCED you??? Therefore, if you DON'T pay, tough.
Do that and I'll show you bankruptcies decline by 75%....what would THAT tell you? Live below your means and you will likely NEVER have a problem. Quit buying Shiite that you really can't afford. Everyone has a budget. Live within.
I think this is the sentence that you were replying to. . .
Quote:
he was ordered by the court to pay some of the cost of raising a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
Only problem is, that's not true. If that were the case then the receiver of the money would be required to use the money to raise their child. They are not. As such, 'child support' is just a euphemism for forcibly taking money from one party and giving it to another. Furthermore, consider:
It is true. There is a total cost of maintaining a household for the dependent child, and the court determines what part of that will be paid by each parent. Money is fungible. When the child support that you pay goes into the account of the custodial parent, there is no meaningful way to specifically earmark dollars for what they will be used to pay for. Should your child support be used to buy food, clothes, and medical care for the kid? Of course. Should some go to the rent, the car payment, the utilities, etc? Of course. All those things are part of the cost of maintaining the household.
Now, having said that, I think the family court system in this country, especially with respect to child and spousal support, is really messed up. There are too many cases of men being financially destroyed in the process to believe otherwise.
I do have a question, though. Could you explain the part in red?
Quote:
1. There is a built in conflict of interest associated with all child support orders as every state receives a kick back from the federal government based off of how much money the state collects. The court has a very real financial incentive to make unreasonably high judgments.
2. Child support is taxed by the giver and tax free to the receiver, often resulting in a completely inordinate and unfair amount.
3. Orders are difficult to modify. Anyone that experiences a cut in pay is basically screwed. As an example my child support is almost 60% of my take home pay.
4. I take exception to the pejorative term 'deadbeat'. One could pay every single week, yet still fall behind by 6 weeks because they simply don't make enough to pay the order. Judges will then throw that individual in jail.
5. Yet custodial parents can withhold children with almost zero consequence. How is this right or fair?
I think this is the sentence that you were replying to. . .
It is true. There is a total cost of maintaining a household for the dependent child, and the court determines what part of that will be paid by each parent. Money is fungible. When the child support that you pay goes into the account of the custodial parent, there is no meaningful way to specifically earmark dollars for what they will be used to pay for. Should your child support be used to buy food, clothes, and medical care for the kid? Of course. Should some go to the rent, the car payment, the utilities, etc? Of course. All those things are part of the cost of maintaining the household.
Now, having said that, I think the family court system in this country, especially with respect to child and spousal support, is really messed up. There are too many cases of men being financially destroyed in the process to believe otherwise.
I do have a question, though. Could you explain the part in red?
Of course there is a way that the money can be accounted for. Really, it's simple. Require the receiver of child support to provide the payer with receipts. Failure to do so= contempt of court. The big HUGE problem I have is that the receiver of the support is not obligated to use the money to support the child in today's system. What does that tell you?
As to the part in red, the percentages are messed up and arbitrary. As mentioned, job loss and/or cuts in pay often results in a NCP becoming totally screwed. As mentioned, my pre tax child support right now is 55% of my pay. After taxes it's in the neighborhood of 80% of my pay. I'm not alone, either. There are men out there that are ordered to pay more than 100% of their pay.
do i think its ok to buy stuff you have no intention of paying for?
do i think deadbeats are my favorite people
do i think they make it rougher on the rest of us
send them to jail or forced work gangs,
do i think compulsive debtors should get a free ride?
do i think spendthrifts harm no one???
Well honestly it depends on how much time I have to spend in prison, and what the facility is like. If they give me three square meals a day, lots of recess, than I dont think I would mind it so much especially if they cancel all my debts once I get out. Now how much time do people have to spend in there?
Of course there is a way that the money can be accounted for. Really, it's simple. Require the receiver of child support to provide the payer with receipts. Failure to do so= contempt of court. The big HUGE problem I have is that the receiver of the support is not obligated to use the money to support the child in today's system. What does that tell you?
OK, I'll play.
Custodial parent provides receipts showing that they paid $2,400 for rent, utilities, and car payment for the month. NCP paid $1,000 in child support. Looks like 100% went to maintaining the household that the child lives in, i.e., 100% went to supporting the kid. And NONE of it went to food clothing, etc., or other items identifiable as 100% for the kid.
Do you think that the custodial parent should purchase groceries separately for the kid? Or buy groceries for the household, and the kid eats in the house, the same as the other household members? Should separate checks be the rule if the kid goes out to eat with the family? You think you should be entitled to receipts for when they go on a family vacation (what they spent is none of your business)? Or should they make all separate charges for the kid when they go on vacation?
It is easy to see that this is pretty ridiculous, and would create a burden that the courts are not willing to place on the custodial parent.
Custodial parent provides receipts showing that they paid $2,400 for rent, utilities, and car payment for the month. NCP paid $1,000 in child support. Looks like 100% went to maintaining the household that the child lives in, i.e., 100% went to supporting the kid. And NONE of it went to food clothing, etc., or other items identifiable as 100% for the kid.
Do you think that the custodial parent should purchase groceries separately for the kid? Or buy groceries for the household, and the kid eats in the house, the same as the other household members? Should separate checks be the rule if the kid goes out to eat with the family? You think you should be entitled to receipts for when they go on a family vacation (what they spent is none of your business)? Or should they make all separate charges for the kid when they go on vacation?
It is easy to see that this is pretty ridiculous, and would create a burden that the courts are not willing to place on the custodial parent.
Rent, utilities, and car are things that one has to pay for, child or not. Really it's not that difficult to create a standard deduction formula....say 10-20% of those figures, and be able to 'apply' child support to that. The rest could be used for clothing, food, et al.... and any monies unused would have to be returned on, say, a monthly basis.
Is this silly? I would say yes, but a lot less silly than the current system. The best system would be one in which the parents simply decided how much money would be contributed to the children, or one in which fault was factored into custody.
Of course there is a way that the money can be accounted for. Really, it's simple. Require the receiver of child support to provide the payer with receipts. Failure to do so= contempt of court. The big HUGE problem I have is that the receiver of the support is not obligated to use the money to support the child in today's system. What does that tell you?
Aside from the problem of creating a bureaucratic nightmare and high administrative cost, this would be too inflexible. For one, a parent must be in good mental and physical condition in order to properly care for a child. If a parent needs a $10k surgery, surely it is also in the child's best interest to allow them to spend some money on that. But also, such restrictions would make it difficult to save some of it for purposes ultimately in the child's interest (If a car payment is acceptable, is putting aside the same amount while owning a car outright in order to buy the next car in cash not also acceptable? If the answer is no, you're forcing them to throw money away on interest!). A similar argument could be made for saving for a down payment on a house - if a mortgage payment (including the principal portion) is an acceptable expense, why is paying for a portion of a house upfront (or, in theory, even paying cash for the whole thing at very high incomes such as $500k) not also an acceptable expense? They're ultimately the same thing (buying a house).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
As to the part in red, the percentages are messed up and arbitrary. As mentioned, job loss and/or cuts in pay often results in a NCP becoming totally screwed. As mentioned, my pre tax child support right now is 55% of my pay. After taxes it's in the neighborhood of 80% of my pay. I'm not alone, either. There are men out there that are ordered to pay more than 100% of their pay.
Aside from the problem of creating a bureaucratic nightmare and high administrative cost, this would be too inflexible. For one, a parent must be in good mental and physical condition in order to properly care for a child. If a parent needs a $10k surgery, surely it is also in the child's best interest to allow them to spend some money on that. But also, such restrictions would make it difficult to save some of it for purposes ultimately in the child's interest (If a car payment is acceptable, is putting aside the same amount while owning a car outright in order to buy the next car in cash not also acceptable? If the answer is no, you're forcing them to throw money away on interest!). A similar argument could be made for saving for a down payment on a house - if a mortgage payment (including the principal portion) is an acceptable expense, why is paying for a portion of a house upfront (or, in theory, even paying cash for the whole thing at very high incomes such as $500k) not also an acceptable expense? They're ultimately the same thing (buying a house).
This is outrageous and really needs to stop.
I disagree with your overall point. Sure, in a perfect world parents are in good physical and mental health. I can buy that. However, there is a pretty big leap involved in forcing one parent to pay for the good health of the other. When you factor in the fact that the prevailing child support guidelines are ridiculously high, now you are talking about something worse- you are now in the area of one parent being forced to pay for the good health of the other while at the same time not being able to pay for their own good health. That defeats the purpose of what you are talking about.
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.
