Child support law

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Inspired by this post in another thread.

Right now, men have no idea whether the women with whom they have sex would abort if pregnant or not. Their very future; their ability to afford the education and training they need to get their careers to the point where they can afford children; is subject to a decision that was not theirs to make, and yet, nowhere in child support law is the amount owed dependant upon what she said before coitus.

In the context of abortion law, opposing abortion rights without supporting welfare for single mothers is made out to be hypocritical, often with no caveat for whether they support giving the child up for adoption. Personally, I think the argument falls flat especially without such a caveat, but even with one, since the whole damn point of abortion law is to treat abortion as murder, and it's no more hypocritical than opposing the murder of born children without supporting welfare for single mothers, regardless of whether "find a way to provide for the kid" is a feasible solution or not.

But here's the thing. Adoption wasn't his choice to make either. If she leaves the baby at a hospital, it's unprosecutable. If she doesn't, he owes child support whether he thinks she should have or not, regardless of what she said prior to coitus that she would have done.

The usual platitude is "well seek partial custody then." But this is not a feasible solution either. If men can't afford their child support bills as it is, they surely can't afford partial custody. So why isn't "child support law, without assistance for men who choose to seek partial custody" considered just as hypocritical as opposing abortion without supporting welfare for single mothers?

All things considered I'd rather abortion be legal even without financial assistance for said dead-broke dads, but it still seems to make the "if you're against abortion but not for welfare you're a hypocrite" argument look a lot more hypocritical than the people they accuse of hypocrisy ever did.

[Right wing humour squad]

Paper abortions.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well pro choice
Men should have the freedom to choose not to raise the child

[Benuty]

I have noticed lately you seem to be on a very specific topic tangent lately.

[Benuty]

On to the matter at hand my personal opinion a long term solution is to abolish abortion by abolishing pregnancy entirely. Huxley was right in one regard, but we could do without the weird need to create hermaphrodites.

[Internationalist Bastard]

On to the matter at hand my personal opinion a long term solution is to abolish abortion by abolishing pregnancy entirely. Huxley was right in one regard, but we could do without the weird need to create hermaphrodites.

Hey now we can still create some hermaphrodites
For science

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Are you trying to tell us something, LUNA? Are you going to be a dad?

[Benuty]

Are you trying to tell us something, LUNA? Are you going to be a dad?

Hell if I know, but these threads recently are just way too specific for coincidence.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I have noticed lately you seem to be on a very specific topic tangent lately.

Yeah, it seems to be among the worst arguments for abortion rights I've ever seen, even though I feel fetal insentience should be an adequate case in and of itself on its own. I don't think that reflects poorly among abortion rights themselves; a stopped clock is right twice a day and all that; just on the individuals who tout it.

If "lack of feasible solution" constitutes hypocrisy in that context, why doesn't it in this one?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Are you trying to tell us something, LUNA? Are you going to be a dad?

Hell if I know, but these threads recently are just way too specific for coincidence.

I know what you mean.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Are you trying to tell us something, LUNA? Are you going to be a dad?

If that were true, I wouldn't be here.

I'm not sure what I'd do, which is why I'm abstinent. That people expected other reasons of me says more about them than it does about me.

[Datlofff]

Personally I believe abortions should be illegal except in case of medical emergency. But outside of that fact, child support is fine. It encourages couples to stay together to have kids, it also penalizes dead-beat fathers. But at the same time, it exists in extremely biased family courts that favor women in almost every scenario. This has lead us down the path of women intentionally leaving their husbands and abusing child support laws/alimony laws in order to get a paycheck every month. We need to re-encourage the nuclear family in our society, as studies have proven time and time again that single parents make shit parents. That will put a end to most of these problems.

Fun fact: There are only 2 debts in the USA you can go to jail for, despite it being unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Unpaid taxes, and unpaid child support.

[Galloism]

It's worth note that while the current child support system is very fucked, and this is a very real problem:

Their very future; their ability to afford the education and training they need to get their careers to the point where they can afford children; is subject to a decision that was not theirs to make, and yet, nowhere in child support law is the amount owed dependant upon what she said before coitus.

That doesn't necessitate abandoning the child support system. There may be equality concerns throughout (and there are), but to fix the above problem doesn't mean we have to abolish fathers responsibility. It just means fixing the math.

Here's a good example:

Let's say Bob the laborer makes 30k a year doing construction. 18 year old kid can do a lot of labor, but has few skills. Makes him useful for construction, but he'll never get above 30k.

If Bob has one kid in Arkansas, he'll pay 16% of that in child support. That's $4,800. It hurts, but it's not the end of the world.

But let's say Bob wants to go to school, and there's no way he can work 12 hour days doing construction and go to school, so his income is cut to about $15,000 per year because of his more limited labor force participation. Well, the court knows he COULD earn 30k, so they consider this a voluntary reduction in income, and he is not eligible for an adjustment down on child support. He still owes $4,800 a year in child support.

But it's worse. Let's suppose Bob's schooling costs 10k a year, but Bob, with his good SAT score, gets a full ride on it. Well, he needs to pay 16% on THAT as well. So he owes $4,800 + $1,600 a year. That's now $6,400 per year.

Bob's tax guy is pretty clever, so he leverages a little known tax option regarding making some of that scholarship taxable in order to get a tax credit. As a result, Bob gets a $2,500 American Opportunity Credit (might be less - haven't run the exact numbers, but the principle remains). Yay for Bob, right? Well, not so fast. Bob also has to pay 16% of any tax credits he's eligible for in child support. That's another $400, or a total of $6,800 out of his $15,000 income. Meanwhile, child support isn't a reduction for food stamps, housing assistance, or anything of the sort, and since he's over 100% of the poverty line (earning 15k - poverty threshold is $12,060), he will get literally zero assistance to actually live. He'll also pay another $1,147.5 in social security taxes. He'll probably also pay a couple hundred in state taxes.

So, out of this $15,000, you can subtract $6,800 in child support, $1,148 in social security taxes (rounded), and about $200 in state income taxes. This leaves him about $6,700 to actually live, or, put another way, about $560 per month.

Now, we could fix this (putting in forbearance, etc, for child support) that don't require voluntary parenthood, but he's not wrong that child support is a poverty trap.


Now, there's also EQUITY concerns (women can choose not to be legal parents after their biological role is completed, but men can't - which is a clear equality problem), but that's separate from the poverty trap aspect.


EDIT: Fixed a small math error.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Personally I believe abortions should be illegal except in case of medical emergency. But outside of that fact, child support is fine. It encourages couples to stay together to have kids, it also penalizes dead-beat fathers. But at the same time, it exists in extremely biased family courts that favor women in almost every scenario. This has lead us down the path of women intentionally leaving their husbands and abusing child support laws/alimony laws in order to get a paycheck every month. We need to re-encourage the nuclear family in our society, as studies have proven time and time again that single parents make shit parents. That will put a end to most of these problems.

Fun fact: There are only 2 debts in the USA you can go to jail for, despite it being unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Unpaid taxes, and unpaid child support.

Aye, I have a cousin up in Minnesota whos father pays for child care, only for the kid to get peanut butter for dinner, while the mother spends the fathers cash drinking her worries away.

[Scomagia]

Honestly, I don't have strong opinions on this one. It is regrettable that one party so disproportionately holds the life and livelihood of the other in their hands. And yet paper abortions and the like seem like a quick and dirty out for deadbeat fathers.

It's sketchy how many folks in this thread are drawing conclusions about LUNA as an individual. Answering the OP should be enough. There's no need to make inferences about a poster's life. This seems to be a worsening trend in General directed generally at specific posters. Infected Mushroom, for example, gets met with a lot of personal directed posts.

[Galloism]

Honestly, I don't have strong opinions on this one. It is regrettable that one party so disproportionately holds the life and livelihood of the other in their hands. And yet paper abortions and the like seem like a quick and dirty out for deadbeat fathers.

I mean, women have had paper abortions in some manner or other for centuries at least. I'm not sure we can call "quick and dirty" a practice that has been going on for centuries just because he wants to make it equal.

[Datlofff]

It's worth note that while the current child support system is very fucked, and this is a very real problem:

Their very future; their ability to afford the education and training they need to get their careers to the point where they can afford children; is subject to a decision that was not theirs to make, and yet, nowhere in child support law is the amount owed dependant upon what she said before coitus.

That doesn't necessitate abandoning the child support system. There may be equality concerns throughout (and there are), but to fix the above problem doesn't mean we have to abolish fathers responsibility. It just means fixing the math.

Here's a good example:

Let's say Bob the laborer makes 30k a year doing construction. 18 year old kid can do a lot of labor, but has few skills. Makes him useful for construction, but he'll never get above 30k.

If Bob has one kid in Arkansas, he'll pay 16% of that in child support. That's $4,800. It hurts, but it's not the end of the world.

But let's say Bob wants to go to school, and there's no way he can work 12 hour days doing construction and go to school, so his income is cut to about $15,000 per year because of his more limited labor force participation. Well, the court knows he COULD earn 30k, so they consider this a voluntary reduction in income, and he is not eligible for an adjustment down on child support. He still owes $4,800 a year in child support.

But it's worse. Let's suppose Bob's schooling costs 10k a year, but Bob, with his good SAT score, gets a full ride on it. Well, he needs to pay 16% on THAT as well. So he owes $4,800 + $1,600 a year. That's now $6,400 per year.

Bob's tax guy is pretty clever, so he leverages a little known tax option regarding making some of that scholarship taxable in order to get a tax credit. As a result, Bob gets a $2,500 American Opportunity Credit (might be less - haven't run the exact numbers, but the principle remains). Yay for Bob, right? Well, not so fast. Bob also has to pay 16% of any tax credits he's eligible for in child support. That's another $400, or a total of $6,800 out of his $15,000 income. Meanwhile, child support isn't a reduction for food stamps, housing assistance, or anything of the sort, and since he's over 100% of the poverty line (earning 15k - poverty threshold is $12,060), he will get literally zero assistance to actually live. He'll also pay another $1,147.5 in social security taxes. He'll probably also pay a couple hundred in state taxes.

So, out of this $15,000, you can subtract $6,800 in child support, $1,148 in social security taxes (rounded), and about $200 in fed and state income taxes. This leaves him about $6,700 to actually live, or, put another way, about $560 per month.

Now, we could fix this (putting in forbearance, etc, for child support) that don't require voluntary parenthood, but he's not wrong that child support is a poverty trap.


Now, there's also EQUITY concerns (women can choose not to be legal parents after their biological role is completed, but men can't - which is a clear equality problem), but that's separate from the poverty trap aspect.


EDIT: Fixed a small math error.

Also, the judge isn't even legally required to set your child support by the 14-16% rule in some states. Those are just guidelines. The judge can make you pay whatever the fuck he wants. Also this little Gem

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Honestly, I don't have strong opinions on this one. It is regrettable that one party so disproportionately holds the life and livelihood of the other in their hands. And yet paper abortions and the like seem like a quick and dirty out for deadbeat fathers.

It's sketchy how many folks in this thread are drawing conclusions about LUNA as an individual. Answering the OP should be enough. There's no need to make inferences about a poster's life. This seems to be a worsening trend in General directed generally at specific posters. Infected Mushroom, for example, gets met with a lot of personal directed posts.

It's perfectly plausible that a poster, making threads about the same subject, is doing so for personal reasons. And in LUNA's case, the threads have been about children or related to child rearing so it could be actually logical to conclude that he's becoming a father. He already said he isn't, but I don't see how this question is bad. People constantly do it on site.

[Scomagia]

Honestly, I don't have strong opinions on this one. It is regrettable that one party so disproportionately holds the life and livelihood of the other in their hands. And yet paper abortions and the like seem like a quick and dirty out for deadbeat fathers.

I mean, women have had paper abortions in some manner or other for centuries at least. I'm not sure we can call "quick and dirty" a practice that has been going on for centuries just because he wants to make it equal.

Like I said, i don't hold strong opinions on this one. Part of that is because I really haven't devoted much time to understanding this issue.

[Galloism]

Also, the judge isn't even legally required to set your child support by the 14-16% rule in some states. Those are just guidelines. The judge can make you pay whatever the fuck he wants. Also this little Gem

Well, sure - but I was highlighting what the system does when it's "working as intended".

When it works as intended, and creates a poverty trap, it's probably not a good thing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Also, the judge isn't even legally required to set your child support by the 14-16% rule in some states. Those are just guidelines. The judge can make you pay whatever the fuck he wants. Also this little Gem

Well, sure - but I was highlighting what the system does when it's "working as intended".

When it works as intended, and creates a poverty trap, it's probably not a good thing.

Wouldn't creating paper abortions for men fix this?

[Galloism]

I mean, women have had paper abortions in some manner or other for centuries at least. I'm not sure we can call "quick and dirty" a practice that has been going on for centuries just because he wants to make it equal.

Like I said, i don't hold strong opinions on this one. Part of that is because I really haven't devoted much time to understanding this issue.

It's complicated, but basically, it's an equity problem.

The horrific economic results don't help the case that the status quo is in any way "ok", but it's pretty damn sexist to assert that women are so weak-willed they can't be held legally responsible for their participation in the biological processes regardless of what was going on (or not going on), while men are so responsible that they are responsible for the choices of third parties over which they had no input, and MUST be held legally responsible for same, no matter what was going on (even going so far as to force known rape victims to pay their rapists).

[Galloism]

Well, sure - but I was highlighting what the system does when it's "working as intended".

When it works as intended, and creates a poverty trap, it's probably not a good thing.

Wouldn't creating paper abortions for men fix this?

Well, sort of.

It would fix it for anyone who chose not to become a (legal) father. For those who DO want to be a (legal) father, the poverty trap still remains. There's an argument that they consciously chose to inflict themselves with the poverty trap though, instead of being based on the choices of a third party over which they have no input.

[Scomagia]

Honestly, I don't have strong opinions on this one. It is regrettable that one party so disproportionately holds the life and livelihood of the other in their hands. And yet paper abortions and the like seem like a quick and dirty out for deadbeat fathers.

It's sketchy how many folks in this thread are drawing conclusions about LUNA as an individual. Answering the OP should be enough. There's no need to make inferences about a poster's life. This seems to be a worsening trend in General directed generally at specific posters. Infected Mushroom, for example, gets met with a lot of personal directed posts.

It's perfectly plausible that a poster, making threads about the same subject, is doing so for personal reasons. And in LUNA's case, the threads have been about children or related to child rearing so it could be actually logical to conclude that he's becoming a father. He already said he isn't, but I don't see how this question is bad. People constantly do it on site.

It's bad because he didn't invite a conversation about his personal life. Answer the OP and leave the personal speculation out if it. His personal life isn't even close to the topic.

And the fact that it happens all the time is illustrative of a problem. You took great umbrage in another thread where, iirc, people were discussing your sex life. You were right to find that unacceptable because your personal business is not related to any discussion unless you want it to be. The same is true here. LUNA's personal businesss is not for you to infer from their topics. Apologies if I'm remembering things wrong.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Wouldn't creating paper abortions for men fix this?

Well, sort of.

It would fix it for anyone who chose not to become a (legal) father. For those who DO want to be a (legal) father, the poverty trap still remains. There's an argument that they consciously chose to inflict themselves with the poverty trap though, instead of being based on the choices of a third party over which they have no input.

When my parents divorced, my father, of course, had to pay child support. It was subject to his income. Is this the way it is done in the US? And if a man isn't earning a lot, wouldn't child support be adjusted?