Congress Tags Child Support as Luxury Income; Collection System an Economic Failure

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | August 16, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

[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.

[GOPJ]

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...

[LearsFool]

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.

[Gabz]

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.

[hunter112]

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.

[RogerFGay]

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.

[RogerFGay]

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

[GOPJ]

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.

[GOPJ]

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.

[nobama08]

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.

[nobama08]

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.

[GOPJ]

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 own children.

AND conservatives resent being forced to support the children of deadbeats.

Welfare reform would never have worked if it hadn't been for child support reform. So, group or not, most of us have supported our own children and have NO desire to support the children of men who drop their responsibility on others. Whatever their high sounding excuse.

[RogerFGay]

LOL - you’re really not much of a spin doctor.

[RogerFGay]

So then what happens when life doesn’t go the way you imagined that it would?

[nobama08]

You simply take responsibility and move on.

[RogerFGay]

And if you can't afford to pay the arbitrary amounts demanded - that were never part of the original agreement - and don't make sense in context?

You're missing the main issue here. There's a gargantuan difference between "taking responsibility" and being crushed by a corrupt bureacracy. They're pretty much opposites when you actually consider the thing.

The bureaucracy is there to assure that no-one has the opportunity to take personal responsibility. That's what the personal life verses government intrusion thing is all about.

[nobama08]

In NC there are child support guidelines which the courts use. They seem very reasonable. I have never seen arbitrary amounts ordered. And usually with joint custody, very little child support is required. I can’t speak for situations in other states, as I as not knowledgeable about that.

[RogerFGay]

If NC had reasonable guidelines, there’s a good chance that I would have heard about it. Not saying for sure - but it would have been regarded as very big news. Most states, including NC followed recommendations and adopted guidelines presented by the collection industry — for the purpose described in the article. NC was not an exception - there were none.

[seemoAR]

So, how is a man supposed to defend himself against a woman that steals his children from his home? Maybe some web site needs to be started that features serial divorcees. There are a lot of good decent men who have lost their children because the court systems back the harpies they married.

[nobama08]

Get a better lawyer.

[RogerFGay]

"Get a better lawyer"

It almost pains me how little is known about modern family law. There is federal bureacracy verses everyone else. That used to be true only for people on welfare, now it's true for everyone. As the article states, marriage and family have been incorporated into the federal welfare system - not just when people are poor - the whole thing, from a legal perspective, the institutions are gone - lock stock and barrel.

Oh shoot - I started writing without realizing the comment was from nobama08. I figured out already that you're spinning. Why do you insist on wasting people's time with nonsense?