Child support law

[Datlofff]

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.

Then theres also the fact that women often abuse these fucked up laws for their own gain, screwing over the man from seeing his kid, and making him spend way more than is necessary in the process. (I know all of this because after my father left she screwed him over and had him court mandated to provide 21% of his income to me and my brother as child support. Money he is still having to pay even for my 19 year old brother, who isn't emancipated yet under the state law)

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

That doesn't necessitate abandoning the child support system.

Does it? The same people who support that system made it the way it currently is. Why should you expect them to be capable of good ideas? Why not just tell them to get out of the way and leave the debate of what to replace it with to everybody else?

And yet paper abortions and the like seem like a quick and dirty out for deadbeat fathers.

Give the ones who need to invest in their careers a couple years' grace period so the goverment can pick up the tab. Have them pay it back after the fact like we do with student loans. Seems a hell of a lot more practical, being that they now have more "ability to pay" than they did before.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

LUNA already answered my questions, to him. The one who keeps getting all riled up is you. Yes, posters shouldn't do that but they do. It was stopped, but you brought it back up. I think you're the one making it a bigger deal than it is.

[Badassistanian]

Those in the pro abortion camp always seem to disenfranchise the rights of the father, I would argue that abortion should only be performed if both parties (The mother and father) agree to the act first... If the father wishes to keep the child, the mother should be made by law to go through with the pregnancy and aid the father in support of the child... same goes for the vice versa... This may seem harsh from the standpoint of those in the prochoice camp but the depression that lost fatherhood brings is a problem... in a perfect world, all parents would practice safe sex and use contraceptives until they both wish to procreate and commit to each other, but we do not live in a perfect world...

[Galloism]

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?

It really depends on the reasoning.

If a person loses his good factory job because the factory closed, and he now makes half as much because the only work in his areas he's qualified for doesn't pay as well, it can be adjusted down. If he chooses to go to school and therefore works less, that's a voluntary reduction and not eligible for adjustment. If he falls down some stairs and becomes disabled, then he's qualified for an adjustment. If his parents are ill and he needs to care for them and that impacts his income, he's not eligible for an adjustment.

If he is dying because of the humidity (due to lung condition), and he moves to Arizona, where income earning potential is lower, it's arguable. He may or may not get an adjustment.

[Dagnia]

I really have no problem with the woman holding most of the power in these situations, though that doesn't mean I don't think some things need to be reformed to be more fair for everyone and I am on the fence and leaning against abortion (and no, I don't see any hypocrisy in being against abortion but denying single mothers welfare). The woman carries all the physical risk during the pregnancy, the man's only contribution to it (until the baby is born if he sticks around) is a squirt. The man does not lose work days, he doesn't risk death from the child birth, and he doesn't experience the pains of labor.
That said, I think the solution is to make things like abortion and the need for child support rare. When child support and welfare systems were set up, I would guess the thought was "society will never be stupid enough to let anything other than the nuclear or extended family not be the norm, so no need to make this perfect if less than 10% of the population will ever use it". Single motherhood has had a devastating effect on our society and before you start with the #notallsinglemothers and "I had a single mother and I graduated medical school", go look for the statistics on single motherhood's relation to crime, mental illness, low academic achievement, and you will see any successes are the exception, not the rule.

[Galloism]

That doesn't necessitate abandoning the child support system.

Does it? The same people who support that system made it the way it currently is. Why should you expect them to be capable of good ideas? Why not just tell them to get out of the way and leave the debate of what to replace it with to everybody else?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

Why we can't exclude people from the political process? I'm not sure what the question is.

[Scomagia]

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).

I understand the crux of the issue, I believe, but the potential solutions are a bit beyond my current understanding. I'm sympathetic to your reasoning but ignorant enough that I can't fully support it.

[Datlofff]

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?

It really depends on the reasoning.

If a person loses his good factory job because the factory closed, and he now makes half as much because the only work in his areas he's qualified for doesn't pay as well, it can be adjusted down. If he chooses to go to school and therefore works less, that's a voluntary reduction and not eligible for adjustment. If he falls down some stairs and becomes disabled, then he's qualified for an adjustment. If his parents are ill and he needs to care for them and that impacts his income, he's not eligible for an adjustment.

If he is dying because of the humidity (due to lung condition), and he moves to Arizona, where income earning potential is lower, it's arguable. He may or may not get an adjustment.

If he live here he'd be fucking dead before he came out of the womb.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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?

It really depends on the reasoning.

If a person loses his good factory job because the factory closed, and he now makes half as much because the only work in his areas he's qualified for doesn't pay as well, it can be adjusted down. If he chooses to go to school and therefore works less, that's a voluntary reduction and not eligible for adjustment. If he falls down some stairs and becomes disabled, then he's qualified for an adjustment. If his parents are ill and he needs to care for them and that impacts his income, he's not eligible for an adjustment.

If he is dying because of the humidity (due to lung condition), and he moves to Arizona, where income earning potential is lower, it's arguable. He may or may not get an adjustment.

One would think that in those cases, the court should try and adjust. Accidents happen, people do get laid off, parents fall ill...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

LUNA already answered my questions, to him. The one who keeps getting all riled up is you. Yes, posters shouldn't do that but they do. It was stopped, but you brought it back up. I think you're the one making it a bigger deal than it is.

It is a big deal (no one should jump to conclusions without evidence) but at the same time this isn't the thread for it. I'd like to see one, but I shouldn't be the one to post it. I've posted enough threads lately as it is...

[Galloism]

It really depends on the reasoning.

If a person loses his good factory job because the factory closed, and he now makes half as much because the only work in his areas he's qualified for doesn't pay as well, it can be adjusted down. If he chooses to go to school and therefore works less, that's a voluntary reduction and not eligible for adjustment. If he falls down some stairs and becomes disabled, then he's qualified for an adjustment. If his parents are ill and he needs to care for them and that impacts his income, he's not eligible for an adjustment.

If he is dying because of the humidity (due to lung condition), and he moves to Arizona, where income earning potential is lower, it's arguable. He may or may not get an adjustment.

One would think that in those cases, the court should try and adjust. Accidents happen, people do get laid off, parents fall ill...

Basically, it comes down to the word "voluntary". He can't control the factory staying open or closing.

He COULD choose to just let his parents die, as there's no legal requirement that he help them, therefore that's a voluntary reduction to take time off to care for them.

Yes, that's our legal premise.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

LUNA already answered my questions, to him. The one who keeps getting all riled up is you. Yes, posters shouldn't do that but they do. It was stopped, but you brought it back up. I think you're the one making it a bigger deal than it is.

It is a big deal (no one should jump to conclusions without evidence) but at the same time this isn't the thread for it. I'd like to see one, but I shouldn't be the one to post it. I've posted enough threads lately as it is...

Like I said, you have been posting about child rearing and child related topics, it isn't a hard conclusion to make. I, however, asked you point blank. I didn't concluded that you were going to become a dad. You responded. And the subject was dropped.

[Ostroeuropa]

Child support is a system that necessarily fucks over male rape victims in such a way that we would not tolerate it for women. Unless you're anti-abortion. I've got news for you, rape as exception doesn't matter unless you're going to take every woman at her word. The alternative is forcing some rape victims to carry to term. This is also true of child support, even if we introduce a rape exception which currently doesn't exist.

It also represents the privatization of welfare instead of its collectivization. Single parents from poor households have to deal with a society that has its view on childs wellbeing and the cost of it distorted by non-poor households paying child support, instead of a collective agreement on what the appropriate funds are paid for through taxes.

It unnecessarily financially penalizes men compared to women (due to biases in the custody system, as well as the simple fact women can abort) when the cost could be split along taxpayer lines.

It screws over children where the parent is missing, dead, or otherwise unavailable.

It limits men's ability to engage in family planning and leaves them disadvantaged relative to women in terms of control over their lives and decisions. (A man may become unable for financial reasons to raise a child with the woman he decides he wants to, as a result of another woman forcing him to raise a child he did not want. Not only that, but they are forced into a situation where they are half-raising a child or worse, denied even the opportunity to raise a child in their own home and live with them full time. Viewed in line with the right to family life, this is troublesome.)

It represents a means for reproductive abuse to become not only more incentivized and prevalent, but additionally damaging.

The penalties disproportionately fall on men, and not only that, disproportionately impact them, as due to societal sexism, money means more to a mans status than it does to women, and less help is available if in trouble.

It furthers female chauvinism and entitlement, and the view of men as resources/ATM's, as well as implies the role of fathers is to provide money, especially where it is not issued in conjunction with joint custody.

It represents a means by which bureaucratic error or temporary income fluctuations can, and has, ruined mens lives and left them in debt or prison.

I could go on. That'll do for now.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

One would think that in those cases, the court should try and adjust. Accidents happen, people do get laid off, parents fall ill...

Basically, it comes down to the word "voluntary". He can't control the factory staying open or closing.

He COULD choose to just let his parents die, as there's no legal requirement that he help them, therefore that's a voluntary reduction to take time off to care for them.

Yes, that's our legal premise.

Wouldn't letting his parents die provoke another host of complications? Social backlash and what not?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Does it? The same people who support that system made it the way it currently is. Why should you expect them to be capable of good ideas? Why not just tell them to get out of the way and leave the debate of what to replace it with to everybody else?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

Why we can't exclude people from the political process? I'm not sure what the question is.

We can't disenfranchise them, but surely calling attention to the real world consequences of their ideas could help discredit them in the eyes of other voters, no?

[Wallenburg]

I support paper abortions for unwilling fathers. Men have no right to force a child or abortion on the pregnant woman, but women have no right to force a child on men.

[Galloism]

Basically, it comes down to the word "voluntary". He can't control the factory staying open or closing.

He COULD choose to just let his parents die, as there's no legal requirement that he help them, therefore that's a voluntary reduction to take time off to care for them.

Yes, that's our legal premise.

Wouldn't letting his parents die provoke another host of complications? Social backlash and what not?

Sure, but there's no legal entanglements, so it's "voluntary".

[Galloism]

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

Why we can't exclude people from the political process? I'm not sure what the question is.

We can't disenfranchise them, but surely calling attention to the real world consequences of their ideas could help discredit them in the eyes of other voters, no?

I guess. But that doesn't necessarily imply abolishing the system.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Wouldn't letting his parents die provoke another host of complications? Social backlash and what not?

Sure, but there's no legal entanglements, so it's "voluntary".

I always thought it was something you're legally required to do...

[Scomagia]

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.

LUNA already answered my questions, to him. The one who keeps getting all riled up is you. Yes, posters shouldn't do that but they do. It was stopped, but you brought it back up. I think you're the one making it a bigger deal than it is.

If I'm making a deal about it, it's because this is a problem I've noticed repeatedly happening, particularly to "unpopular" posters like Infected Mushroom. It's nominally against the rules or near enough that it should be getting addressed more often. And yet....crickets.

But this, I suppose, is getting off topic.

[Galloism]

Sure, but there's no legal entanglements, so it's "voluntary".

I always thought it was something you're legally required to do...

Nope. No requirement to assist parents, at least not legally.

It's a good thing to do, but they won't fine or imprison you if you won't.

[Scomagia]

I support paper abortions for unwilling fathers. Men have no right to force a child or abortion on the pregnant woman, but women have no right to force a child on men.

I think a relevant question, though, is whether or not the child has a right to the resources of their father.

[Galloism]

I support paper abortions for unwilling fathers. Men have no right to force a child or abortion on the pregnant woman, but women have no right to force a child on men.

I think a relevant question, though, is whether or not the child has a right to the resources of their father.

I doubt it.

Do we legally punish mothers who fail to/refuse to name fathers?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I always thought it was something you're legally required to do...

Nope. No requirement to assist parents, at least not legally.

It's a good thing to do, but they won't fine or imprison you if you won't.

But isn't it negligent to allow parents to die if you can help them? Anyway, even if voluntary, it's a major life event and should be seen as a valid point to adjust child support.