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.
Some of you may have read this thread here where I talked about what I think of single parenting and why it's wrong. Since I summed things up there pretty well I am not going to write it all over again:
The general agreement on that thread was that people agreed with me that single parenting wasn't good but that making it illegal was going too far. Ok, but then I wonder if perhaps this issue could be solved at least in part with another less radical solution: Just abolish child benefits for single parents only.
I don't want to abolish all child benefit because as a conservative I believe in family values and also don't want to punish parents in the event they don't have much money. However, if we made it so that only people who are either married or at least a registered couple could get child benefits, then perhaps people would think twice before deciding to allow another individual to become their child's mother/father.
To insure fairness, if this were done the limitation would only apply to future parents and not parents who are getting benefits already.
Thoughts?
Your basic premise makes no sense.
Child support is not about the parents. This seems to be your fundamental ignorance.
Child support is about the children.
And since the children have the same need for parental financial support, there is no way to make a logical argument why this one child deserves parental financial support and another child doesn't.
Hopefully I'm repeating a point that has been repeatedly made in this thread. Since it's the only relevant point to make.
What state requires 60% of anyone salary? My state it is 14% for one child.
It's the max amount in California, it's for more than one kid. My son got divorced, he and his wife had 3 kids. Mom quit work as soon as she filed for divorce (she was making more than my son). She also immediately put all 3 kids in private school. She then refused my son visitation with his kids. She was found in violation of a court order several times but the judge just 'warned her'. His support was around 45% for 3 kids but they added on the private school tuition so it ended up being 60% of his income and that's not based on take home pay; it's adjusted gross income. He had to move in with his brother for a while because he couldn't pay that much support and pay rent on an apartment. When I worked in law enforcement in California there were cops who were sofa surfing or sleeping in the locker room because so much of their income was going toward support obligations. The formula in California is very complex and easy to manipulate by a good attorney or a vindictive spouse
I don't know what is going on here but the comment in #83 that is attributed to Lorrysda was written by me and the comment in #88 that is attributed to me, I didn't write! Lorrysda wrote it. I can only assume this was human error. Be more careful people!
No, that is not what I meant. What I meant, is that the man doesn't know if the woman is using her birth control correctly. If a woman says she is on the pill for example and knows what she is doing then the man can only take her word for it. Only the woman actually knows what she is doing, and if something goes wrong because she either forgot to take the pill or did so incorrectly then the man gets ****ed at no fault of this own.
Because woman are just children who can't be expected to take care of themselves right? I always love it people insist that woman aren't worse than men and should have all of the same freedoms and yet when it comes to the issue of individual responsibility those same people insist that woman never can never be responsibly for anything bad that happens to them, and that the evil males always are responsible if not fully than at least partially.
Your womb, your risk, your responsibility.
The right to "sew your wild oats" defense doesn't work in the real world. If a man is not ready to be a parent with all that entails then HE should take responsibility for that choice and not rely on the woman's birth control to be the only line of defense. Pills aren't 100% reliable. They can interact with other drugs and make them ineffective. And, yes, a woman can get busy and miss a dosage. It's called being human. A woman's body also might not be able to tolerate the pill and she'll have to use an IUD which can slip out of place without the woman knowing it. Personal responsibility is a two way street. If you're not in a committed relationship that would welcome a child should accidents happen with whatever form of birth control is used, then it's both parties responsibility to prevent a pregnancy. You have a very jaded opinion of women.
It's the max amount in California, it's for more than one kid. My son got divorced, he and his wife had 3 kids. Mom quit work as soon as she filed for divorce (she was making more than my son). She also immediately put all 3 kids in private school. She then refused my son visitation with his kids. She was found in violation of a court order several times but the judge just 'warned her'. His support was around 45% for 3 kids but they added on the private school tuition so it ended up being 60% of his income and that's not based on take home pay; it's adjusted gross income. He had to move in with his brother for a while because he couldn't pay that much support and pay rent on an apartment. When I worked in law enforcement in California there were cops who were sofa surfing or sleeping in the locker room because so much of their income was going toward support obligations. The formula in California is very complex and easy to manipulate by a good attorney or a vindictive spouse
More kids cost more money to support.
Why should men get out of paying for their offspring?
Yes their mother was in the wrong, but that does not mean that the father shouldn't have to support the children he helped create.
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.
