Skip to comments.Congress Tags Child Support as Luxury Income; Collection System an Economic Failure
Posted on 08/16/2008 6:14:49 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Fathers' rights activists have complained about arbitrarily high child support orders for almost two decades. Class action suits were filed, the fathers' rights movement grew, debates broke out in academic journals, a few social scientists demonstrated with calculations and documentation, some men have committed suicide because they were unable to support themselves, and a few serious investigative journalists analyzed in depth.
Congress finally decided to act with a flat luxury tax on child support income.
(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...
Wait, wait, wait. The argument for high child support is that each parent pays a percentage of the child’s expenses.
Dad makes 75,000 a year
Mom makes 25,000 a year
Dad pays 75%
Mom pays 25%
Where is “luxury” anywhere in this????
Oh, right...yeah, this ought to help the Dems who are running for re-election this year. LOL
Beld admits that child support collection entrepreneur Robert Williams has had a significant influence on the development of guidelines (715716). His original 1987 study explicitly states that his recommendations were intended to increase the average child support order by 250%. SourceMost states blindly followed his recommendations.
Maybe people shouldn’t have children they don’t want to support.
Won’t matter. The ex will simply go back to court, use the judge touch-pad to dial in the increase that’ll pay for the taxes. (Nope, I’m not divorced, but I’ve seen how this stuff works... and it removes what vestige of respect there is for the law.) You want child support? Place the money into a fund that’s controlled by the judge. Funds go ONLY to the child. See how many yells you get when she can’t make payments on her BMW.
blind is the correct word.
Most states and government entities in general have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to collect money. So they increase the amount they WANT to collect to make up for the percentage of what the DO collection versus what they assess.
I’ve tried in vain for years to try to get various counties and cities to outsource their collections so that they could up the collection rates by 100+ for a small fee of around 1-3% of above-baseline collection amounts but the liberals bureaucrats in every case referred to it as mercenary work (and continued to help deny money to those who are legally entitled to it: custodial parents, municipalities, counties, various agencies, etc)
When the IRS tell us that they have somewhere in the 1/3T in uncollection assessed taxes on an ongoing basis, you have to wonder why we bother to keep them as an agency since they do little more than what we would collect as a Federal government if we simply allowed people to truly voluntarily pay taxes.
that was a slam dunk in the 1970’s.
the radical feminists got the support of fundamentalists to support the family.
afterwards, men started complaining about the unfairness.
Ive tried in vain for years to try to get various counties and cities to outsource their collections ..Are you kidding me? Most state collections are outsourced. The so-called "public-private partnership" in child support collections is what caused all the trouble in the first place. They do nothing to increase the amount collected, but a lot to reduce the amount received by fees and commissions.
Maybe people shouldnt have children they dont want to support.Children should be outlawed altogether. There's always a possibility that someone might come along one day and accuse one or both parents of not wanting to support them. It's been a popular thing to say.
Obviously children should be outlawed for some.
Weitzman’s book: “The Divorce Revolution,” which popularized the myth that woman ended up poor and men wealthy from divorce, wasn’t published till the mid-1980s; mid-way though Reagan’s reign.
i apologize. it was the early 1980s
when alliances in state legislatures formed between the radical feminists and fundamentalists to “protect families”.
and at the time my friends and i were confused by the agreement of two groups that disliked each other on this issue. and i’m talking about rural, conservative states.
think about it, the feminists alone would not be able to push their agenda through state legislatures. they had to have alliances.
see immediately above.
Yes, that’s right. And it was no coincidence that it was not long after the creation of the federal child support system, signed into law by Ford in 1975. Reagan and represenatives for N.O.W. were the only people to show up at Congressional hearings in favor of it. It was only passed as an amendment to more popular social services legislation. Nobody was much interested until the level of pork got really impressive. That was the whole thing going on starting in the early 1980s - a federal program what wanted to grow itself beyond any reason - and a President who’d made promises to help himself get elected.
Obviously children should be outlawed for some.And who would that be?
Anyone who doesn’t want to support them.
Anyone who doesnt want to support them.So what are you going to do - go back in a time machine if someone gets behind in payments to stop them from having children in the first place?
Gosh, I screwed up. In my case I took the kids and he took the BMW.
this is bull...the cases I see are where the dad making loads more than mom who has sacrificed career development to focus on the kids, now has to contend with dad withholding money, refusing to pay bills, paying car insurance late, dad flying out to California and living the Viagra life while mom is trying to learn how to do email.......
That is freakin’ stupid!!!!!
I have two sisters. One divorced to go with an old boyfriend. One had the husband leave her (imo, warranted). Both were horrendous ex-wives, causing horrible grief for both these guys. (honestly, one I like and one I don’t)
The only consolation in the whole thing is that out of 5 children, only 1 speaks to her mom on a regular basis, while every one of them has a relationship with their dad. (Two boys don’t speak to their mothers at all)
And, to me the biggest blessing is that I have taken over the “grandma” role. I have one nephew driving from Cleveland to Detroit today to see us. The youngest boy (who turns 30 this year btw) named his daughter after me.
It looks horrible now, but understand kids are not stupid and see the whole thing for what it is when they grow up.
>>And who would that be?<<
It makes no sense at all to claim child support is a luxury, and tax it that way. Most of the men in dire straits over child support got behind and then had a hard time because they owed so much money. Maybe other states are different- but my daughter was awarded $300 a month child support for one child and that doesn’t seem out of line to me. Her husband has paid very little so he owes her thousands of dollars- at some point if he gets in a spot where he is forced to actually pay he will likely get sympathy that he doesn’t have coming.
The only gripe I have about child support- is that some states use the new wife’s income with the income of the dad to determine the figure. I think that is totally out of line- the new wife’s income should have nothing to do with it.
My ex-boss (a Psychiatrist) had his wife decide that he was around too much. She started divorce procedings and it took him eight years to get through it.
She ended up with
All the money they had stashed away
And 4000.00 a month in child support
He ended up with
His practice and office equipment
I know, I did his books. He couldn’t afford to pay me. In the eight years, he met one of the nurses where we worked. They dated and moved in together. She paid my salary and the office phone.
In the end he left for CA and got a job in the private sector. And she had a tree fall on her. I kid you not.
My daughter looked into the collection system used in our state- she said it was a scam- “if” they collect they take a percentage- that part is fair- but they keep taking the percentage forever, reducing the amount the mother gets. I can see that something is better than nothing- but it still doesn’t seem reasonable for the collection to keep getting money from future payments.
Oh, I forgot.
She also got an Audi and he got a motorcycle. Great in Cleveland winters.
This man slept in our office before the nurse took him in.
That dirty 15% of the population - hard-core, loyal, registered members of both parties; that are robbing the rest of us blind.
My daughter looked into the collection system used in our state- she said it was a scam- if they collect they take a percentage- that part is fair- but they keep taking the percentage forever, reducing the amount the mother gets.I'm guessing you mean the private system. Some states allow voluntary sign-up in that system, and others - some who've been hammered for it - have actually forced everyone to go there.
This whole issue is transparent.
The government learned from the lawyer industry: Pit husbands and wives, mothers and fathers against one another. Then take a cut of the fight proceeds.
I mean come on, how does a tax on child support help the mom? Or the dad? Or the child?
Who DOES benefit? Cui bono?
Who DOES benefit?I hope the article makes it perfectly clear. It benefits an entirely unnecessary government bureacracy - that's all.
“this is bull...the cases I see are where the dad making loads more than mom who has sacrificed career development to focus on the kids, now has to contend with dad withholding money, refusing to pay bills, paying car insurance late, dad flying out to California and living the Viagra life while mom is trying to learn how to do email.......:”
That does happen alot - but there are also good dad who simply cannot keep up with the payments.
I know a man who was losing his mind, but decided he would try one last approach (you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar)
He had his wife cook up a wonderful dinner. He invited his ex over for a meeting.
He told the ex he understood her concern about income and her desire to get her fair share, but if she proceeded in her plans to take him back to court for more money then all the money would go to the lawyers, his boat would sink (bankruptcy), and she wouldn’t benefit from that.
He offered her an increase as long as she agreed that all the lawyers would go away.
She took the bait, and that resolved everything.
Actually - the problem with male intruders of various sorts - and damage to children - is a well-documented problem of divorce / single-motherhood. The child support bureacracy does nothing to combat the problem.
Read the article, this is not a tax on all child support, this is only a $25 fee on those receiving over $500 per year through the FEDERAL child support enforcement system. For those who are paying and receiving outside that system, including those working within state systems of collection, this doesn't apply. And the term "luxury" is not used in the law, its just some incendiary language designed to get people to buy a magazine or look at a website.
For those who utilize the Federal Government to rectify their bad choices of people to procreate with, it makes sense to charge something for it. If I make a bad choice as to who to do business with, and I want the might of a governmental collection system to make me whole again, I still have to pony up court costs to file suit. And they're way more than $25, and there's no guarantee that I'm gonna collect, even if I'm found to be in the right.
Gimme a break.
So paying the mortgage, lights and water aren't an issue for you?
You want the money for toy allowances for the kids? Are you nuts?
Stupid remark of the day, newbie. Right up there with “if you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.”
Brain dead, holier than thou “conservatives”. Buzz off.
Here's the thing - if "ex Mr. Wonderful" is paying on time (without problems), the State doesn't help collect and the $25 fee never applies. It's really that easy.
The state stepped in because there were so many deadbeats. And yeah, if a woman makes a bad decision on her choice of men - the $25 fee is more than fair.
Too bad the state can't publish a list of the deadbeats so other women can avoid them - seems that would be worth an extra $5...
What has surprised me lately is the boldness with which governments are taking from us. They have encouraged the balkanization of this nation (if not acted as outright agents provocateurs themselves) and then offered to mediate our differences - for a fee.
Whether the issue is child support, or drugs, or welfare, or education, or illegal immigration, or what-have-you, they sow the seeds of discord and then present themselves as our saviors here to solve the problem - but always for a price. Just as in Dr. Seuss’s “The Sneetches”, they’re in the “break-it-fix-it” business - only they never quite manage to fix anything.
I totally agree with you, and I believe it should go the other way as well, if the ex-wife is paying the child support the new husband's income should have nothing to do with the amount of support the father is receiving.
The only way I could/would approve of of that is if the reverse would be true. If the amount of support received by the custodial parent is adjusted because of a new spouse, then I can see adjusting the amount paid because of a new spouse. Unfortunately I have never encountered such happening.
I used to work in the title insurance industry out in Washington state, some of the single gals in the office would use the database to look up tax liens, child support liens, etc. on potential dates. With county record databases appearing on the Internet, most women could do that today, if they really wanted to. If they didn't want to be bothered by learning how to do it, they could pay less than $100 to have a search done by Internet firms that specialize in this.
But, chances are, they've already bought the "my ex is a greedy pig" story. And with enough of them out there like my ex, it's quite believable.
Nice to see you kids forming your own little fringe minority group. In case nobody’s told you, the 90s are over.
An easy access database would be a good idea - it would identify the deadbeats and clear the “innocent” from the overactive imaginations of some women.
I am a newbie under this name. I didn’t have a computer for a long time because my daughter took it to college. Now I have a new computer and I am back. I know you wanted to insult me, and that’s fine. But for the record, you are wrong.
And in my work I see lots of parents who don’t want to support their children. Some even agree to have their parental rights terminated to escape paying for them. I suspect this issue is somewhat personal for you. I am sorry for your children if it is.
My point was the time to think about supporting your children is before you decide to have them. It’s a simple, common-sense concept, really.