Basically similar to the Link/EBT/food stamps card where only certain places accept it?
There's this fake article that I thought was real and I completely support it. But unfortunately, the card does not actually have restrictions on what can and can't be purchased.
Do you think it should be real though?
I personally do because while I know not all women abuse their child support benefits, I know a lot of men and women who do. Mostly women because women are more likely to receive benefits. It's ridiculous how there are unemployed babymamas who go out and party on their babydaddy's dime buying expensive hand bags while their kids look all raggedy. And I'm aware there would be ways to go around it, but it'll at least stop some of it.
No! Bad idea! I would be against this child support card.
Yes! It should have been like this from the beginning.
I don't know/other opinion.
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Do you think there should be a "child support card"?
I have watched a family consisting of a drunk narcissistic bitch of a mother, two teen daughters, a 7 year old girl and a 5 year old boy struggle because Mommy Dearest spends her "child support" on booze, dinner out for herself, out of state trips, etc etc while the kids stay at home in filth with a refrigerator that has nothing but tequila bottles. I watched that for years. I fed those kids myself while that bitch indulged in whatever she wanted. And that's not the only case I've ever seen like that.
Sorry, but I'm a little passionate about this. I even testified against that woman in court and of course she didn't lose custody. Shit like that needs to change... drastically...
But before some guy tells me women are horrible, the father lost custody due to sexual abuse of his stepkids and domestic violence. Bottom line, people are horrible and some people need to learn how to use a condom.
I've seen a family consisting of a drunk narcissistic asshole of a dad, spending his wage on booze, girls, dinners for himself, out of state trips, etc etc while the kids stay at home in filth with a refrigerator that has nothing but tequila bottles. etc____. His wife could do nothing against it.
Kids have many costs, you can't just allocate money to one specific thing. That's why it's paid cash and the mother uses it where it's needed. Why make it harder for mothers who use the system fairly? I'm assuming since you said they're unemployed they'd also be on welfare because child support alone doesn't cover the cost of living. If they are collecting welfare or unemployment cheques then that is cash. They would essentially spend the child support card at the grocery store or wherever they are allowed to and spend the cash they get from unemployment/welfare on handbags or partying.
I like how they like " what MOTHERS can or cannot buy" lol doesn't even try to hide it. I'm abot curious about whag would and wouldn't be allowed. Can mothers still use it to help pay rent? Or is it just for things solely benifiting the child like clothes, toys, books etc.
2
5 Reply
Asker
+1 y
I think it shouldn't be used for rent honestly because the person would've most likely been paying rent and bills even without the child.
in my opinion, it should only be used for the child's expenses like clothes, shoes, books, school supplies, food, diapers, etc.
Child support should be for supporting the child. The other parent still has to have a nice place to live and she/he doesn't get the help of child support to pay their rent... yet they still have to have a space for their child and the things the child needs. The parent with full custody obviously spends more money because the primary caretaker takes care of all the little expenses that add up due to having the child live there.
But child support should not be intended for the person to live off of because they are not a child that needs support. That money should be going for groceries and other mandatory expenses that a child needs, such as his or her medical bills, school bills (like school projects, lunch, etc.). If that parent cannot pay to have a roof over their head, then the child should be with the person who can.
That other parent is not indebted to the other parent, they are indebted to their child. They need to make sure their child is set, not the other parent.
Yes and No. All you're really accomplishing here is to create an extra but highly surmountable barrier. If someone wants to spend their child support money on negative habits like drugs and alike, they will find the means of doing so. All this does is force them to sell something else once too.
Obviously if it is used as a subsidy on an immaterial good things might work, but anything that can efficiently be sold will be. All in all I do not believe that this will help any of the really bad cases.
@Mekkalyn My point is that committing resources to creating dysfunctional barriers is an inefficient use of capital. Do not forget that this endeavor will have costs outside of that imposed on the people receiving benefits.
Yes, we can make it more difficult but it does not solve the problem. Enabling people to support their children instead of disabling them from utilizing money to their own discretion seems the more favorable use of resources, to me.
I think all involuntary child support should be abolished. Child support should be strictly voluntary and then the volunteer can decide how payments are made.
My younger cousin lost about $432,000 in child support, because her drug addicted mother decided to ruin her life. Her father sent her $4,000 a year... She did not know this until she turned 18. The card is a great idea.
I thought they already existed. I have one that does that which I grew up with because my parents divorced when I was small.
0
4 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Did it have restrictions?
Because they do exist, but it's pretty much like a prepaid card that you can withdraw money from and use it where it's accepted. Basically almost no restrictions.
so this just controls what and where the money is spent on? def yes. unfortunately most of those cards gon be empty. plenty of pops dont pay shit. but thats another issue.
@ArtDent I'm just talking about tracking where the money goes.
It's shocking to me that there isn't some kind of (at least potential) audit system in place. Just like any of my 10,000,000,000 fucking schedule C deductions could be audited, at any time. What the fuck.
really, most people I know collecting child support, don't so much use it as child support. They use it as play money. It's not even taxable to the recipient!
This isn't a man/woman thing, either. It's an equal-opportunity system for abuse. I've met Gabriel Aubry a few times at some fashion events, and lemme tell ya dat boy livin' large on what Halle pays him for "child support". Fuuuuuuck.
Just an audit system, that's all. SOME remote possibility that there might be some accountability, some-fucking-where.
This is how child support is generally calculated.
A pro-rata share of a child support amount based on the combined and individual incomes of both parents. The amount of custody time each parent is awarded The extracurricular or special needs of the children
@ArtDent Dude, I know the theory behind it. Not the point. (And, nope, it's a straight formula, into which the actual needs of the child do not enter.)
The point is that there is zero accountability. Zero audits to make sure the money is actually spent ON THE KID.
I seen lots of these situations, in which the recipient (usually a she) spends all the "child support" on her bling and shit, and the noncustodial parent forks out even MORE money, directly, for shit like sports and schools etc. Zero accountability. I seen it wi' ma aaahhhhs.
Yeah, I've seen it too. I've seen parents who don't do shit bitch about the little the contribute for the well being of their kid. They are control freaks.
@ArtDent No, I was just... confused, by that completely non-sequitur response. Talking about zero accountability, and you responded with "here's the origin of the formula." Eh? I mean, I still don't understand where that response came from. (: Hence spelling it out.
I've been on the other side of it a couple times, helping take care of kids who aren't mine, taking care of some other asshole's kids better than he is, spending far more more money, putting a roof over the children's heads and having daddy's think they have a right to get into my financial business for their meager contributions. The calculations are about contributing their share to take care of their kids. If the non custodial parent wants to reduce the child support, then increase custody, but then control issues raises it's head there too.
this puts restrictions on what is bought. in some states people actually follow the rules and do what the EBT card says, other places, no, they dont follow the rules.
I might tentatively come out in support of it. I know a babymama who receives help from both her babydaddy and the state. She has been on several cruises, which I find most irritating since we are paying for those cruises.
Well if the big brother is forcing you to pay your baby mamma a lot more money than they need and they can use all of the money on themselves and still make you buy essentials for your own child, I don't see why it'd be a bad thing for big brother to stick his neck out for the person paying child support. It'd be a good thing if the government could make those people spend that money on the child. That IS what the money is for... hence why it's called Child Support.
Most Helpful Opinions