Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Tags Child Support as Luxury Income; Collection System an Economic Failure
MensNewsDaily.com ^ | August 16, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: childsupport; digg; fathers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last

1 posted on 08/16/2008 6:14:49 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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????


2 posted on 08/16/2008 6:31:41 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Oh, right...yeah, this ought to help the Dems who are running for re-election this year. LOL


3 posted on 08/16/2008 6:33:48 AM PDT by Allegra (Goodness me, goodness me, industrial disease...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Dad pays 75%
Mom pays 25%

Percent of what?

Beld admits that child support collection entrepreneur Robert Williams has had a significant influence on the development of guidelines (715–716). His original 1987 study explicitly states that his recommendations were intended to increase the average child support order by 250%. Source
Most states blindly followed his recommendations.
4 posted on 08/16/2008 6:35:27 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Maybe people shouldn’t have children they don’t want to support.


5 posted on 08/16/2008 6:38:15 AM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


6 posted on 08/16/2008 6:39:01 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


7 posted on 08/16/2008 6:41:09 AM PDT by bpjam (Drill For Oil or Lose Your Job!! Vote Nov 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


8 posted on 08/16/2008 6:44:04 AM PDT by ken21 (people die and you never hear from them again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bpjam
I’ve 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.

Two Strikes for Private Collection Company
9 posted on 08/16/2008 6:48:39 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nobama08
Maybe people shouldn’t have children they don’t 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.
10 posted on 08/16/2008 6:50:24 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay; ken21
From Welfare State to Police State
11 posted on 08/16/2008 6:51:51 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21
1970s - you're thinking about the earlier part of the movement - also involving Reagan as Gov. of California, and so-called "no-fault" divorce. The child support scam wasn't developed until Reagan became president, and it went into effect just in time for Clinton to take credit for the spin : "end welfare as we know it"

That's when all the complaining started - the 1990s - and the reaction from the lamestream media was to participate in one of the most intense propaganda campaigns in history.
12 posted on 08/16/2008 6:53:36 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Obviously children should be outlawed for some.


13 posted on 08/16/2008 6:56:59 AM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ken21

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.


14 posted on 08/16/2008 6:57:17 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


15 posted on 08/16/2008 6:58:36 AM PDT by ken21 (people die and you never hear from them again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

see immediately above.


16 posted on 08/16/2008 7:00:03 AM PDT by ken21 (people die and you never hear from them again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
I'm quite familiar with Stephen's work, and have read his book: Taken into Custody. Another well known older analysis is from Sanford Braver; Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
17 posted on 08/16/2008 7:00:13 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ken21

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.


18 posted on 08/16/2008 7:04:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nobama08
Obviously children should be outlawed for some.
And who would that be?
19 posted on 08/16/2008 7:04:44 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Anyone who doesn’t want to support them.


20 posted on 08/16/2008 7:10:15 AM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nobama08
Anyone who doesn’t 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?
21 posted on 08/16/2008 7:12:08 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Gosh, I screwed up. In my case I took the kids and he took the BMW.


22 posted on 08/16/2008 7:47:19 AM PDT by mombrown1 (PA Coordinatior SAS The Second Amendment is the reset button for the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.......


23 posted on 08/16/2008 7:49:41 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


24 posted on 08/16/2008 7:51:40 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

>>And who would that be?<<

Libs.


25 posted on 08/16/2008 7:53:04 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


26 posted on 08/16/2008 7:55:39 AM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support and pray for our Troops, as they serve us every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

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
The kids
The house
The BMW
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.


27 posted on 08/16/2008 7:59:02 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


28 posted on 08/16/2008 7:59:05 AM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support and pray for our Troops, as they serve us every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.


29 posted on 08/16/2008 8:01:11 AM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

That dirty 15% of the population - hard-core, loyal, registered members of both parties; that are robbing the rest of us blind.


30 posted on 08/16/2008 8:07:36 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8
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.

Your daughter is one of the wise ones - many leap in without looking. I understand her conclusions. They don't do anything to collect except send out some letters, etc. The fact is - most people who get behind can't pay - and that's when mom runs to them imagining they can do something about it - assume he's lying about his situation, etc. Collection agencies - knowing it wouldn't be profitable to actually try to collect - sign them up and wait for better times. All the recipient gets out of it is less than she would have if she hadn't signed up.
31 posted on 08/16/2008 8:13:52 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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?


32 posted on 08/16/2008 8:17:45 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Here we go again - in your experience, that's the way it is, huh?
33 posted on 08/16/2008 8:25:00 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
Who DOES benefit?
I hope the article makes it perfectly clear. It benefits an entirely unnecessary government bureacracy - that's all.
34 posted on 08/16/2008 8:28:22 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Child Support collection hurts pedophiles. When each woman had to take her ex to court - and 40% of men paid nothing, pedophiles hunted desperate poor women and gifted their way into trust positions.
35 posted on 08/16/2008 8:32:39 AM PDT by GOPJ (If Hillary steals the nomination, blacks will sit home - GOP will take it all. Go for it Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk; RogerFGay

“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.


36 posted on 08/16/2008 8:40:08 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

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.


37 posted on 08/16/2008 8:43:40 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
...how does a tax on child support...

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.

38 posted on 08/16/2008 8:47:13 AM PDT by hunter112 (The 'straight talk express' gets the straight finger express from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Funds go only to the children?

Gimme a break.

So paying the mortgage, lights and water aren't an issue for you?

Or food?

You want the money for toy allowances for the kids? Are you nuts?

39 posted on 08/16/2008 8:48:59 AM PDT by GOPJ (If Hillary steals the nomination, blacks will sit home - GOP will take it all. Go for it Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nobama08

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.


40 posted on 08/16/2008 8:49:37 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
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.

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...

41 posted on 08/16/2008 8:56:02 AM PDT by GOPJ (If Hillary steals the nomination, blacks will sit home - GOP will take it all. Go for it Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


42 posted on 08/16/2008 9:03:02 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8
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.

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.

43 posted on 08/16/2008 9:18:31 AM PDT by Gabz (You said WHAT?????????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
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...

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.

44 posted on 08/16/2008 9:25:57 AM PDT by hunter112 (The 'straight talk express' gets the straight finger express from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
I know I run the risk of seeming extreme, but I've been following this stuff in detail for many years. If the two parties are not literally dominated by criminal organizations, their members have been taught to act as such. Everything is a swindle and for the most part - designed to make political insiders wealthy. There is no other possible explanation that makes any sense when the details are reviewed.

I've wondered about the same thing as you are - not sure, but maybe for different reasons. I have wondered which it is, even was Kennedy shot to secure mafia control of the federal government. But the boldness and sloppiness of what I've seen lately suggests a more amateurish operation. The spin doctors and focus group marketing types just got too full of themselves, and the lawyers in charge - Congress etc. - don't have the sense they were born with.

Obviously nothing to stop things from getting out of control.
45 posted on 08/16/2008 10:12:19 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ; hunter112

Nice to see you kids forming your own little fringe minority group. In case nobody’s told you, the 90s are over.


46 posted on 08/16/2008 10:17:20 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

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.


47 posted on 08/16/2008 10:24:37 AM PDT by GOPJ (If Hillary steals the nomination, blacks will sit home - GOP will take it all. Go for it Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
I've known some "men's rights" people - and to a person they were always liberal. Conservative men (for the most part) believe in the rule of law - and in supporting their children.
48 posted on 08/16/2008 10:28:57 AM PDT by GOPJ (If Hillary steals the nomination, blacks will sit home - GOP will take it all. Go for it Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

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.


49 posted on 08/16/2008 10:29:22 AM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

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.


50 posted on 08/16/2008 10:31:46 AM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson