Single rich guys getting snipped

[Galloism]

1. Agreed there.
2. Hmm, seems to be only for little children though, based on your quote.
3. I mean, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's pretty shitty to have charities support the children with upper middle class and higher parents when they really should be focused on the poor.

If you're actually upper middle class, then this is all moot. You can afford a kid just fine. What would be upper middle class in NYC? 200k a year?

Probably, yeah.

Thing is though, the two parents may not be the same class. The obligor parent could be dirt poor (which is roughly 50k in NYC terms) and the custodial parent make 200k a year. I'd argue in that case that child support may be entirely inequitable for economic reasons.

Conversely, the obligor parent could be upper class at 500k, and the custodial parent be dirt poor. In that case, quite a bit more than 18k in support is equitable.

[Arumbia67]

Sure that seems fair, but what if I can't afford to pay that? Why should I always be struggling to support myself because she chose to live in one of the most expensive cities in the country? Nobody put a gun to her head and made her.

And that's why child support is scaled to income of the obligor. There's room for improvement on calculations, but the principle of obligor income scaling is sound.

Scaled child support for me would probably be 250-300 a month. Which wouldn't even cover one weeks rent.

[Galloism]

And that's why child support is scaled to income of the obligor. There's room for improvement on calculations, but the principle of obligor income scaling is sound.

Scaled child support for me would probably be 250-300 a month. Which wouldn't even cover one weeks rent.

Ok.

[Arumbia67]

If you're actually upper middle class, then this is all moot. You can afford a kid just fine. What would be upper middle class in NYC? 200k a year?

Probably, yeah.

Thing is though, the two parents may not be the same class. The obligor parent could be dirt poor (which is roughly 50k in NYC terms) and the custodial parent make 200k a year. I'd argue in that case that child support may be entirely inequitable for economic reasons.

Conversely, the obligor parent could be upper class at 500k, and the custodial parent be dirt poor. In that case, quite a bit more than 18k in support is equitable.

I'd be fine with the pay half system for the wealthy.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And that's why child support is scaled to income of the obligor. There's room for improvement on calculations, but the principle of obligor income scaling is sound.

Scaled child support for me would probably be 250-300 a month. Which wouldn't even cover one weeks rent.

All the more reason for the government to pick up the tab until the "obligor" finishes college.

I'm betting that would cost the taxpayers less in the long run anyway.

[Arumbia67]

Scaled child support for me would probably be 250-300 a month. Which wouldn't even cover one weeks rent.

All the more reason for the government to pick up the tab until the "obligor" finishes college.

I'm betting that would cost the taxpayers less in the long run anyway.

Agreed.

[Galloism]

Scaled child support for me would probably be 250-300 a month. Which wouldn't even cover one weeks rent.

All the more reason for the government to pick up the tab until the "obligor" finishes college.

I'm betting that would cost the taxpayers less in the long run anyway.

Almost undoubtedly. You'd have to put a deferral years limit though.

[Arumbia67]

All the more reason for the government to pick up the tab until the "obligor" finishes college.

I'm betting that would cost the taxpayers less in the long run anyway.

Almost undoubtedly. You'd have to put a deferral years limit though.

Could something like that actually get support though? I mean it would be nice, but I'm not so sure.

[Galloism]

Almost undoubtedly. You'd have to put a deferral years limit though.

Could something like that actually get support though? I mean it would be nice, but I'm not so sure.

You'd have to figure it as somehow benefitting women long term. Trying to get it through under any kind of basic human decency maneuver for men is doomed to fail.

There are arguments as to the former that once he graduates she'd be better off.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

All the more reason for the government to pick up the tab until the "obligor" finishes college.

I'm betting that would cost the taxpayers less in the long run anyway.

Almost undoubtedly. You'd have to put a deferral years limit though.

Quite frankly, it shouldn't be treated any differently from student loans. Both are investments in a more educated population.

[Jello Biafra]

How about we fix an alternate problem by not punishing people who can't afford to pay child support?

The system should be less punitive and more helpful, but completely ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support would just mean more unsupported babies being born.

[Proctopeo]

How about we fix an alternate problem by not punishing people who can't afford to pay child support?

The system should be less punitive and more helpful, but completely ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support would just mean more unsupported babies being born.

If they cannot afford it, why punish them for not having the money to pay?

[Jello Biafra]

The system should be less punitive and more helpful, but completely ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support would just mean more unsupported babies being born.

If they cannot afford it, why punish them for not having the money to pay?

For the same reason you'd punish someone with 70 cats who can't afford to feed them?

[Tahar Joblis]

How about we fix an alternate problem by not punishing people who can't afford to pay child support?

The system should be less punitive and more helpful, but completely ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support would just mean more unsupported babies being born.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support doesn't really decrease collections measurably (and those collections would cost more money than would be collected in any event).

Right now, "babies being born" happens at a rate that is entirely controlled by women's willingness to have children. Women who don't want to have kids either (A) use effective birth control, (B) abort, or (C) give the baby up for adoption.

I see no reason why women would become more willing to have "unsupported babies" if we removed or reduced their ability to coerce men into financially supporting their adventures in motherhood. If anything, you would think that women would be less willing to choose to engage in motherhood.

[Proctopeo]

If they cannot afford it, why punish them for not having the money to pay?

For the same reason you'd punish someone with 70 cats who can't afford to feed them?

That analogy doesn't make any sense, Jello.

If you're wondering why, it's because you can opt out of having 70 cats.

[Tahar Joblis]

If they cannot afford it, why punish them for not having the money to pay?

For the same reason you'd punish someone with 70 cats who can't afford to feed them?

People with 70 cats choose to have 70 cats, and can avoid having 70 cats by taking them down to the animal shelter.

This is not true for men and babies. Granted, it's a pretty apt comparison for women and babies, since abortion is legal and they can take a baby to a fire station, emergency room, et cetera under "safe haven" laws, but not for men.

[Jello Biafra]

For the same reason you'd punish someone with 70 cats who can't afford to feed them?

That analogy doesn't make any sense, Jello.

If you're wondering why, it's because you can opt out of having 70 cats.

You can opt out of reproduction too. This thread is about doing just that.

For the same reason you'd punish someone with 70 cats who can't afford to feed them?

People with 70 cats choose to have 70 cats, and can avoid having 70 cats by taking them down to the animal shelter.

This is not true for men and babies. Granted, it's a pretty apt comparison for women and babies, since abortion is legal and they can take a baby to a fire station, emergency room, et cetera under "safe haven" laws, but not for men.

Abstinence and vasectomies are optouts for reproduction.

[Jello Biafra]

The system should be less punitive and more helpful, but completely ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support would just mean more unsupported babies being born.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support doesn't really decrease collections measurably (and those collections would cost more money than would be collected in any event).

It would increase the need for collections, by increasing the pool of children who are unsupported.

Right now, "babies being born" happens at a rate that is entirely controlled by women's willingness to have children. Women who don't want to have kids either (A) use effective birth control, (B) abort, or (C) give the baby up for adoption.

Men who don't want to have kids either (A) use effective birth control or (B) abstain, or (C) give the baby up for adoption. Not 'entirely controlled' in the least.

I see no reason why women would become more willing to have "unsupported babies"

They wouldn't need to be more willing to do so. Being equally willing to do so would increase the number of unsupported babies.

[Tahar Joblis]

People with 70 cats choose to have 70 cats, and can avoid having 70 cats by taking them down to the animal shelter.

This is not true for men and babies. Granted, it's a pretty apt comparison for women and babies, since abortion is legal and they can take a baby to a fire station, emergency room, et cetera under "safe haven" laws, but not for men.

Abstinence and vasectomies are optouts for reproduction.

Buying 70 cats happens on an opt-in basis, and an autonomous choice. Moreover, you can give up some or all of the 70 cats even after buying them.

Abstinence and vasectomies are not effective after impregnation occurs, and several choices made by others must occur in between a man having sex and a man becoming the legal father of a child.

Women, like your hypothetical 70-cat owner, make autonomous choices leading to being responsible for a child, and can choose to not be responsible for that child even after giving birth.

[Galloism]

Abstinence and vasectomies are optouts for reproduction.

Buying 70 cats happens on an opt-in basis, and an autonomous choice. Moreover, you can give up some or all of the 70 cats even after buying them.

Abstinence and vasectomies are not effective after impregnation occurs, and several choices made by others must occur in between a man having sex and a man becoming the legal father of a child.

Women, like your hypothetical 70-cat owner, make autonomous choices leading to being responsible for a child, and can choose to not be responsible for that child even after giving birth.

Technically, abstinence isn't foolproof either.

I still have nightmares of my rapist coming out of the woodwork with a child and demanding I pay her, enduring the court's denigration that I'm a horrible father for not being involved, and getting victimized all over again.

And millions of men have been raped by women.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm not convinced that's the case. Ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support doesn't really decrease collections measurably (and those collections would cost more money than would be collected in any event).

It would increase the need for collections, by increasing the pool of children who are unsupported.

Let's review:

The system should be less punitive and more helpful, but completely ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support would just mean more unsupported babies being born.

Who can't afford to pay child support. We have launched into this from talking about punishing people who can't afford to pay child support.

If someone can't afford to pay child support, their children are "unsupported" (in practice, supported by welfare if eligible based on low income of custodial parent) whether or not you choose to punish them. Moreover, if you choose to punish them in a way that prevents them from paying child support, your collections efforts cause that child to remain "unsupported."

Right now, "babies being born" happens at a rate that is entirely controlled by women's willingness to have children. Women who don't want to have kids either (A) use effective birth control, (B) abort, or (C) give the baby up for adoption.

Men who don't want to have kids either (A) use effective birth control or (B) abstain, or (C) give the baby up for adoption. Not 'entirely controlled' in the
least.

(A) Unlike women, men have only one method of widely available safe and effective birth control. Its efficacy is easily compromised by a pinprick by any malicious actor (or being badly stored), and it is generally understood to alter the sensations of sex (which is generally considered the main point of having sex if you're not interested in having kids, so isn't unimportant.

(B) I could have said that women who don't want to have kids abstain. I didn't, because it's inaccurate. People have additional reasons for having sex that don't relate to having children. This is true of both men and women. This is also out of order, since I was describing a multi-layered system of defense from involuntary obligation. The only method for men that could go into this layer is causing the mother to abort, which generally requires doing something illegal.

(C) Unlike women, men rarely have the ability to unilaterally decide to give a child up for adoption (or, alternately, make use of safe haven laws to eliminate their obligations).

Which is to say that instead of the three solid layers of choices I mentioned for women, men have one layer, and it's about a tenth of a millimeter thick.

Which brings us right back to reality. In reality, what regulates the supply of "unsupported babies" are women's choices. In fact, women can even have a baby when no man is willing to cooperate by having sex with them without using a condom (condom sabotage, outright rape, and finally the lone ethical choice of using a sperm bank) and end up with custody of the resultant baby.

If more women are willing to have babies, the birth rate will go up. If fewer women are willing to have babies, the birth rate will go down. If men want more or fewer babies, little effect will be observed on the birth rate.

I see no reason why women would become more willing to have "unsupported babies"

They wouldn't need to be more willing to do so. Being equally willing to do so would increase the number of unsupported babies.

See again above re: who can't afford to pay child support.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Abstinence and vasectomies are optouts for reproduction.

Yeah, and when someone is abstinent for the same reason, everyone assumes they just don't have the balls to ask a girl out. I would know.

Vasectomy reversals are known to fail, and there is uncertainty as to whether or not frozen semen results in babies just as healthy as if they were conceived using fresh semen.

Most people engage in the exact same acts that lead to deadbeat dads' circumstance, but most people don't have to face these circumstances. At the very least, we need to assist them in getting back on their feet.

[Costa Fierro]

Yes, yes they can. I can think of 5 right now that happen commonly.

Ah yes, the gold old fashioned "anecdotal evidence that magically trumps your claim" just happens to be revealed again. Tell me, seeing as pigs cannot fly, are you going to tell me that you know of several swine who have developed aeronautical capabilities?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, yes they can. I can think of 5 right now that happen commonly.

Ah yes, the gold old fashioned "anecdotal evidence that magically trumps your claim" just happens to be revealed again. Tell me, seeing as pigs cannot fly, are you going to tell me that you know of several swine who have developed aeronautical capabilities?

No, it's just possible, and if it is possible, it has happened, and if it has happened, it's not as rare as you think.

Also, you do understand that this thread started from such an anecdotal premise I could call all of your premises, all of your defenses of "why do they have to be snipped to prevent being stiffed by these evil fucking vipers", and all your whining about it bullshit, right?

So I suggest you stop with the condescending shit, because it's not funny, I replied in good faith, and you aren't even making sense with it. If you're just going to be condescending just to be condescending and bitter when there's no fucking reason to be, I suggest you go and do it to someone else, cause honestly I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is going to tell me within veiled snark to go fuck myself over an observation.

[Galloism]

Ah yes, the gold old fashioned "anecdotal evidence that magically trumps your claim" just happens to be revealed again. Tell me, seeing as pigs cannot fly, are you going to tell me that you know of several swine who have developed aeronautical capabilities?

No, it's just possible, and if it is possible, it has happened, and if it has happened, it's not as rare as you think.

Also, you do understand that this thread started from such an anecdotal premise I could call all of your premises, all of your defenses of "why do they have to be snipped to prevent being stiffed by these evil fucking vipers", and all your whining about it bullshit, right?

So I suggest you stop with the condescending shit, because it's not funny, and you aren't even making sense with it.

It's absurd anyway. It's certainly harder to trap a woman into pregnancy and parenthood (and therefore, a relationship) but not utterly and completely impossible.

Even though it probably should be, abortion is not free and available at every doctor's office, and with a bit of luck and manipulation, it might be possible to get ahold of the kid to prevent legal parental surrender that women can freely excercise in all 50 states until after the window is closed.

Much more difficult, certainly. But not impossible.