|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by TheMadNucleus on 08:35 PM July 20th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jen,
Well, here we go again, a quick way to get attention - child support and child support evaders - and a new way to track 'em down. I wish you journalists would do some research prior to printing such hogwash.
First off - most Dads pay their child support, secondly, most child support orders border on extortion: Non-custodial parents (NCP) are demanded to pay these orders under draconian conditions, consider:
1.) There is no accountability to the NCP of where there money is spent
2.) The NCP has no ability to change careers (rule of imputed income) even if the reason to earn less is to spend more time with their children.
3.) If a NCP loses their job and can not find another (a very real situation in today's world) there is no help or means to mitigate the support order.
4.) The Custodial Parent is obliged to pay their 17% of their income as child support according to the guidelines but they can quite their job and no one cares that they are no longer contributing.
5.) The Custodial Parent receives this money Tax Free but the NCP parent must pay this money figured against their gross but out of their net with no tax benefit.
6.) The Custodial Parent can use the money on themselves and there is no enforcement for this.
7.) There is no equal enforcement of visitation for the obligation that the Custodial Parent has to the NCP.
8.) Who are the worst offenders of child support delinquency: Mothers - by a large margin - yet everyone is focused on Deadbeat Dads - what about deadbeat Moms, Methadone Moms, etc.
9.) The number one reason why Dads are delinquent in payment - inability to pay - i.e. no money - yet they are immediately treated worse then a thief, at least a thief gets a trial before they are thrown into prison.
10.) The guidelines were designed for welfare level parents where the gross income was close to the net income meaning that a percentage applied to gross was similar to a percentage applied to net. But what about people who actually earn a living and pay taxes. The guidelines penalize them by huge margins. Check Mark Rogers’ information and analysis http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/
11.) The guidelines include a sort of safety valve to ensure that they are not abused – it is the $80,000 limit of combined parental income. The law states that 17% of the combined income up to $80,000 is mandatory (most NCP’s are ok with this as it is divided based on the parents income pro-rata share) and that the courts can use their discretion for applying the percent for incomes above that. Guess what – the courts invariably apply the 17% to the full gross income of the NCP totally ignoring all other factors – sometimes even responsibilities in raising other children. Yikes! What a mess.
Funny thing, your article closes with a quote "But John Whitehead, director of the civil libertarian Rutherford Institute, said that though he's against deadbeat dads, he thinks most companies too readily provide information without a court order."
Listen to empty rhetoric - clearly made by someone who has no clue - he's against deadbeat dads - but I guess he's ok with deadbeat moms - and does he even know what's going on here - there is a revolution regarding the injustices of how the child support guidelines are being incorrectly applied and horribly abused. I suppose he will have to get a divorce to figure this out.
Well Jen, I hope you soon write another article where you do a bit more research into why there is a problem to begin with and also provide information on both sides of the issue.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Orwell . . . or at least the people he wrote about !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:06 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I notice a lot of cell phone dealers in low-income areas--in some more than liquor stores. I lived in one such area for several years (including my years in the student ghetto)--residents there move around a lot because not all can scrape together a security deposit and other fees (e.g. last month's rent, first month's rent, credit check). If they can't scrape together apartment costs, then how in heaven's name can they keep up with child support payments?
Granted there are some who would rather spend every two nickles that they rub together on crack (e.g. my ex-girlfriend). Nevertheless this seems to be yet another attempt to get blood from a turnip. What's next garnishing welfare? As that is the only legal income for a number of them.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Virginia has issued subpoenas to cellphone companies