Child support should not exist. Tax payers should not pay for other people's kids. Split the time between the parents. When the kid is with you, do the best you can to take care of them.
Yes. Help reduce his payment.
I agree
Opinion
23Opinion
Understand that the government isn't interested in what is fair, right, or reasonable. The state makes a ton of money from child support payments, so instead of doing what is best for the child (much less the parents), the state is focused on how much they can get by imposing as much child support as they can on (in nearly all cases) the man.
The state makes reductions in support almost impossible - they don't want a pay cut, even if the mother is fine with it - and the state certainly doesn't intend to pay out as long as they have a man they can go after.
They're perfectly happy to take everything a man has, and throw him in prison, in order to get their money.
This is why I think guys are insane for having children with some random girl or some chick you bang but would never commit to. The government will destroy you.
u The child support payment should be calculated on the amout the guy is capable of earning. If there is a temporary interruption which is not his fault, the law in my state does provide for temporary relief, but the government (that is, taxpayers) should not be required to support your baby because you are a bad financial manager.
The problem here is you suggested tax payers cover it, that is not a good thing.
The child support system has a lot of problems and need to be majorly revamped. This is written not as if it is a man but the person paying, which usually is the man but can be the woman.
However I do support cutting it down if he can't afford it, cause anyone that knows details of how the system actually works, knows that to get it reduced you have to hire an attorney, go to court and get it cut down.
If you only have a net pay check of $12 dollars a pay period cause they are taking too much cause you switched jobs, good luck hiring an attorney and in the meantime they keep getting further and further behind.
If the person paying support is making a certain amount but decides to change fields/careers and the next job pays less, the court won't let them reduce it because they view that as trying to avoid paying support. The system wants to force them into staying at a dead end job that they may hate or has no future.
If they get fired, same result... cause they did something to get fired, the only 'acceptable' reason is if they get laid off through no fault of their own. Then it can be reduced.
My state, if a man and woman is married and the woman cheats and gets pregnant the husband is automatically put on the birth certificate of the baby and if he divorces her due to her cheating, now has to pay child support for a kid that isn't his... even if the birth father wants to be part of the Childs life he is cut out too. This can be changed but it is tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and years of going to court.
The state goes after people who are behind aggressively, no bankruptcy no nothing but don't pay can get thrown in jail. Mothers who deny visitation and get contempt of court never get thrown in jail for it, but a man behind on child support will.
In one case a man found out his kid wasn't his two months after he turned 18 and spent 40k going to court and finally won to get his name off the birth certificate and the mother was ordered to pay all those legal fees, the 40k and 120k or so in child support, due to him defrauding him. First thing she did was file bankruptcy on it, since it was a civil matter.
These are all example so why the system needs to be majorly revamped... and why I support Row Vs. wade for me, the concept of not forcing a man to raise a child he is not interested in. As I have seen first hand when a father who wants nothing to do with a child, takes them for visitation, then ignores them, damages them mentally... telling the mother, let me sign over my rights so I don't have to pay support and I'll stop taking the child.
That is not in the best interest of the child to be used as a pawn like that.
So yeah if a man doesn't want anything to do with his kid, don't make him. If I was ever a single mother, I sure as hell wouldn't even tell the father if he told me before hand he wanted nothing to do with any children and didn't want them, I'd be fine without him.
Where I’m from the parent who doesn’t have their child living with them 50% of the time will have to pay child support to the other parent. The parents are encouraged to decide on an amount themselves but if they can’t agree then there is a minimum standard amount for everyone set by the government.
If the parent who’s supposed to pay doesn’t pay or can’t pay at least the minimum amount, for whatever reason, then the government pays it directly to the parent who’s entitled to child support and sends a bill to the parent who have to pay the child support. If they have no or a low income they can apply to have the bills reduced temporarily but then the rest, that they can’t pay now, builds up as debt to the government.
So no matter what, the parent who the child lives with the most will get the child support one way or the other - either directly from the other parent or from the government, and the parent responsible for paying will have to pay one way or the other - directly to the other parent or to the government (either now or in the future). I think this is a good system.
These payments are actually supposed to be made to the child (ren), so just letting him avoid them via agreement with the mother isn't realistic (nor would mothers agree to them).
But there should be some reforms. First of all, throwing a father in jail for being unable to make payments is counterproductive and hurts the child (ren) as well. It's not possible to earn money and pay back child support while jailed and he now has a criminal record which will make getting a job very difficult, plus he isn't able to see his child (ren). And there are a number of valid reasons why a man can't afford child support, such as medical problems or a bad economy. Or maybe paternity fraud has occurred.
It's better to have the government make the payments so that they flow uninterrupted to the child (ren) and then recoup them from the father That said, there would need to be safeguards to prevent abuse.
Let’s start from the beginning. DNA tests should be mandatory. No man should ever have to pay for a kid that’s not his. If he is the father, he should have options for opting out of parenthood just like women do. If he is the father, and he wants to help raise the kid, he should have all the same rights as the mother, not just responsibilities. In this perfect, imaginary society, parents who are struggling to care for their kids would move to the front of the line for free or reduced cost job training, higher education and childcare while they’re learning. NOBODY would be put in jail for underpayment of child support. The welfare system absolutely should be tiered and progressive to motivate families to get off the system permanently as quickly as possible. And anyone who ends up in the system more than once should face mandatory sterilization.
No way. Two reasons.
If we are irresponsible enough to get a woman pregnant and make her life infinitely harder and completely wreck her financial situation, it is not fair that you get a break because you have issues doing the bare minimum; paying her some money every month.
Two, it's also about responsibility. If you cannot afford to pay child support, and don't want to care for a child with her, keep your pants on and don't have sex. It takes two to tango and you can't push all responsibility onto her for having sex with you, when you are the only reason she has had a kid in the first place.
Child support is not for the woman that you knocked up. It's for that child that you helped bring into the world. It's the cost that clothe child sending to the doctor feed child. To put a roof on their head. I had a brother-in-law that was a lazy ass hole who deserted his wife his children. He took employment and cash only. Social security could not catch up with him. He tucked himself in the mountains of Idaho. He basically lived off the land. So man up take responsibility.
The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." If the government takes my property, they should compensate me for it. If they want to take my child and give it to a female, then they can PAY ME, bitches.
Remember, we are the government.
So what ever comes from the government comes out of your pocket and my pocket.
Go get another job or two, they are plentiful and many are very flexible with their schedules.
We send $44B dollars to Ukraine plus weapons but you’d be against us helping each other out as Americans?
Don't breed em if you can't feed em.
Not in favor of bailing out a delinquent father.
We all fall on hard times, some sit and wallow in it, others pick themselves up and do what ever it takes to rectify the site.
We don't need to enable someone not to take care of their responsibilities.
The original post said nothing about Ukraine, if you wish to discuss that subject created a post about what the current administration is doing for that country.
To be fair, it's your problem - not the states problem.
But you should get a better lawyer if you want to come off the problem a little.
Responsibilities don't give a shit how much you're struggling.
No he still has to care for his child. If he had full custody and was still with the mother. They would have to figure out a way to afford taking care of the child anyways.
@Apple1996 If women have the option of aborting their child shouldn't men have the option of a financial abortion?
@Vegasrunner nah if a child is born then it needs to be care for financially by both the parents.
@Apple1996 Even if only one parent gets to decide if that life is brought into the world? So you're saying a man should have the right to control a women's reproductive choices?
@Vegasrunner men already do...
@Apple1996 You're right about that or at least they try to, however it's regulated per currently. I'm saying in the states where a woman has the right to abort their child why shouldn't men have the right to have a financial abortion from the mother?
Clearly, two thirds of this community haven't seen the Bradley amendment in action. The way the system's set up is nothing short of criminal.
I'd first want to see how much it is. If they have joint custody then I'd abolish it altogether.
Why don't they share equal custody and the baby mamma's get a job instead of being a deadbeat mom?
@uslegionary Reduces the leverage the woman has over the man.
m I don't like the idea of enabling irresponsibility
the fact that he is struggling financially doesn't negated that he has a child that he needs to take care of.
the government spent $84.24 million on erectile dysfunction medication, I say we take that funding and put it towards the kids.
@Avicenna well the a human being survival isn’t dependent on you paying your student loan.. your child is dependent on your ability to take care of them and of you are not there are programs for that. As far as I am aware how much you pay in child support is dependent on how much you’re making. How ever I still think that money the the government is spending on erectile function should go towards the children instead. There are about 73 million children in the United States…. Just imagine what that 84.24 million spent on viagra could do if it were used for the children instead…
Well, you probably aren't familiar with my posting on the topic, but I've advocated numerous times for monthly payments to be made to families, like "Kindergeld" in Germany.
Why should someone be jailed for not being able to pay child support, but not jailed for being unable to pay their student loan debt? After all, then they can't see their child (ren) or even work to pay the child support. And the student debt trap is well over a trillion dollars, so it obviously has a huge
effect.
The amount of child support payments isn't dynamic- meaning they don't automatically adjust when you, for example, lose your job due to a recession or due to illness or injury, and you generally have to pay an attorney to petition the court to change them to something you can afford. I don't know how often relief like that is given, and don't forget that most Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck.
And in some places. courts set payments based on what they think you should be able to pay based on educational level, not necessarily what can actually be paid.
Generally speaking, a child's survival is not dependent on child support payments- there's still enough of a social safety net and charity to prevent that. But the possibility of that is why I think the payments should come from the government and the government then recoup them. But a father who has no income still needs to pay his own living expenses- the homeless, for example, generally can't keep jobs and make child support payments, and you can't expect someone to starve while they make child support payments.
One dollar per kid isn't going to make a difference.
Public policy is very much concerned with poverty, child and child welfare in general. People like you who have a limited perspective on a public policy issue can benefit from something being explained to you anecdotally. But what you're saying here is that you are generally unsympathetic to men who face challenges.
Are you arguing that poverty is not a public policy issue? The issues surrounding child support have a lot in common with social welfare systems since they're both related to preventing poverty and when applying for welfare, women are often asked to name the father of their child (ren). And they are both public policy matters. Furthermore, when applying for welfare, matters that are normally considered private like someone's income and assets are considered, just as they are when fathers request a reduction in child support payments.
So do you think men should be required to pay child support in full even if that means that they cannot feed, house or clothe themselves?
@Avicenna you should have been an athlete, I've never seen any one try so hard to dodge a question. I'm assuming you are refusing to answer it because your answer would contradict your previous statement, meaning that you don't think that everything the government is involved in should be a matter of public policy...
So you brought in something that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Here's that exchange:
Avicenna:
As someone who was raised by a single mom, I can tell you that the major financial issue is the loss of the other parent‘s income or that it was never there. And having two households is a lot more expensive than having one when the parents were together.
Subarugirl
@Avicenna that sounds like a personal problem not the general publics
Avicenna:
Like it or not, as soon as some level of government gets involved, it's a public policy and not a private matter. And when there is a problem affecting a large number of people, someone usually gets government involved.
Subarugirl
@Avicenna you have a birth certificate right? So your life is a matter of public policy?
I'm obviously talking about government involvement in enforcing child support and in preventing poverty. Now if you don't think government should be involved, who then is going to enforce it and who's going to help alleviate poverty other than charities?
But that's the reality and the entire point. People often don't or can't. So that's why I suggest having the child support be paid by state governments and then the government recoup it from the parent who is required to pay. Someone has to adjudicate whether the parent is truly unable to, and if they can't, maybe they can be required to do some community service in return for having the payment forgiven for a certain period of time rather than letting the situation spiral out of control.
Foster care and group homes are for kids who are in unsafe/abusive home situations, they aren't somewhere to put a child because one parent can't or won't pay child support. What I'm addressing is the nonpayment of child support. Furthermore, I don't know how long it takes to get government assistance to cover missed child support payments, especially if the custodial parent is already receiving welfare benefits, or whether the missing child support payments can be replaced entirely under the current system.
It would be a really bad violation of parental rights for the state to put a child in foster care because the non-custodial parent isn't paying child support, something the custodial parent generally doesn't have control over. Note also that the system I am proposing would keep child support coming even if the non-custodial parent dies, is incapacitated, or in jail.
@Avicenna when someone refuses to pay child support their wages are garnished like when they refuse to pay taxes... and of course the child wouldn't go to foster care if just one parent isn't capable of taking care of their child. If both parents are unable to care of the child then the child would go somewhere that had the ability to care for him/her. At the end of the day the father and mother has the responsibility to care for their child and if they do not the it's the government's that enforces it. Being a parents comes with responsibilities, if you don't want to fulfil those responsibilities that is good incentive not to become a parent.
@Avicenna That's why incentivizing parents to make responsible financial decisions is better than incentivizing them to be dependent on the government for hand outs. If you want to help the children there are better ways to do that, like free healthcare for children under the age of 18, increasing child tax credits, and better education.
It's not a handout. It's a pragmatic approach to dealing with situations that can and do occur in life that make payment of child support impossible.
And free healthcare for kids isn't a bad idea (a lot do get it through Medicaid), but how is that not a handout? As you know, I do support increased child tax credits and actually making them more by paying them out monthly, but, again, how is that not a handout?
Better education , of course, but the payoff for that is years down the line when they're adults. That does nothing to help a single parent who isn't getting child support payments.
Are you serious? Even if someone collects unemployment, their income suddenly is a lot lower, and how fast do you think they can petition for lower payments and get them reduced? Can they afford an attorney? That is exactly one of the common situations my proposal would alleviate. Would you want to be a single parent who suddenly is told you won't get that month's child support payment? I sure wouldn't.
And disability- having known someone who went through the labyrinthine process of getting it- you get rejected for it the first time you apply and may or may not ever get approved, even after hiring an attorney to steer you through the process. Meanwhile, you aren't earning anything.
Another taxpayer funded bailout? And who gets to decide who qualifies?
Having the "government pay" means the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Haven't the productive been fleeced enough?
I support the idea of women not getting pregnant by losers.
Government pays too much of the child support for deadbeats already.
NO!
HE PUT THE BABY IN THE BABE, NOW PUT THE MONEY IN THE BANK IDIOT
He should get another job to pay for his kids
Why should WE pay YOUR child support?
It’s not my child support
As it stands, if he can't pay, WE are the ones who pay the costs of his imprisonment. Do you really think that's a better alternative?
It doesn't mater who's it is, if the government ends up paying for it, it comes out of OUR tax dollars which comes out of OUR pockets! Just like this shit where the government pays college tutions! YOU'RE going to college but I have to pay for it?
Yes, just like YOU pay for the roads I drive on, and I pay for the agricultural inspections that keep you from dying of easily preventable diseases. Unless you're going hardcore libertarian and claiming that only the wealthy should have the things taxes provide, you're going to paying for SOMETHING. Do you really think that throwing a guy in prison, leaving him mentally scarred by the experience and unable to earn an honest living afterward is somehow morally superior to having government-funded childrearing? It's not even less expensive!
@NamerOfStars What I'M saying is, taxes are SUPPOSED to pay for roads and making things better around us but they're NOT for handing out to people for bullshit like college tutions, just so someone can go for free on OUR dime or for someone's child support when I had NOTHING to do with that marriage or bringing that child into the world!! You HAVE to take your OWN responsibility for your OWN life choices!! How is MY fault that YOU fucked some bimbo you shouldn't have even had your dick in? Why do I have to shell out excess tax money for YOUR bad choices? I think it's utter bullshit that I even have to pay school taxes when I don''t have any kids!1 What's even worse is that the kids over the last 20-some years are VERY OBVIOUSLY NOT learning what they're IN school to learn!! I've never SEEN as many stupid kids as are running around, today!! The do incredibly stupid shit, they can't even use proper English, they hardly know math, they couldn't even point to America on a map of the world!! They can't do SHIT unless their little toy phones tell them how to do it!!
You haven't answered my question- would you rather the government spend tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, given that neither program would affect you in any way?
Feminist's would never support that.
We live in a society that hates men.
Its the government you'd have to convince
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions