|
sassassin posted:It's not my fault she wouldn't get that abortion. This should factor into child support payments imo, if objected to early enough. If one party recognizes that they wouldnt be able to economically support kiddo, they shouldnt be unilaterally forced into said economic obligation. Also same if the father isn't notified until late stages of pregnancy and then out of no where he has an obligation. Nope.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:This should factor into child support payments imo, if objected to early enough. If one party recognizes that they wouldnt be able to economically support kiddo, they shouldnt be unilaterally forced into said economic obligation. Also same if the father isn't notified until late stages of pregnancy and then out of no where he has an obligation. Nope. Jastiger, that sounds like something riff raff would say. yeah I eat rear end posted:Yeah a steady amount that is less than ideal is better than going after all they have until they can't give anything at all. Raising a kid does cost a fairly fixed amount per month, but so does living as an adult and that amount is definitely higher than zero. Kid comes before deadbeat parent, always, forever. My dad owes about 16 years of child support and has 5 DUI jail terms so maybe I'm biased. Fix this problem by ensuring all kids have access to some kind of social insurance to meet their needs, until then, lol at whiny poo poo parents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
e: this is re: jastiger's post at the top of the page. That seems stupid to me and would just result in tons of guys suddenly saying they "can't" support a child and sticking the entire bill with the mother. If you don't want a child, either don't have sex or do it in one of the many ways that prevents pregnancies from happening nearly 100% of the time. It's not fair if only the father can get out of the whole process without having to go through in invasive medical procedure.Edgar Allen Ho posted:Kid comes before deadbeat parent, always, forever. My dad owes about 16 years of child support and has 5 DUI jail terms so maybe I'm biased. Yes but making the parent pay more than they can afford will result in that situation happening more often. If you make them pay more than what they need for their own food+rent, soon they'll lose that and then lose their job and then there's nothing left to collect from. Doing it proportional to their income is the only way that makes sense to me. Maybe the percentage of their income should be higher, I don't know, but I don't think a flat amount would ever work for poor people. yeah I eat ass has a new favorite as of 13:45 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
So fight for more social insurance, not for Male Rights to screw those bitches and infants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:e: this is re: jastiger's post at the top of the page. That seems stupid to me and would just result in tons of guys suddenly saying they "can't" support a child and sticking the entire bill with the mother. If you don't want a child, either don't have sex or do it in one of the many ways that prevents pregnancies from happening nearly 100% of the time. It's not fair if only the father can get out of the whole process without having to go through in invasive medical procedure. Naw thats why i said early enough. If yourw both 17 and an abortion makes the most sense, and neither can afford a kid, why should dad, who is all "im not ready for this by any measure"...why should he be held by thr whims of the ultra religious girls parents? Opting out should be sn option if done early enough. You can't wait until month 6 and ghost without consequence, but why should two lives be ruined in that scenario? Three if you count kiddo. And what i meant by punitive child support is that the payments often leave both parents in poverty. When i worked food stamps id see moms come in and make a claim. Child support wouldnt be countable income, so they would get a higher benefit. Good! Dad would come in the next day. Child support isnt a deduction to his income so he gets a lower benefit. Wtf. He makes 8 bux an hour and owes 400 a month in child support Grats, thats poverty for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:not for Male Rights to screw those bitches and infants. I'm not 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Teenagers shouldn't be given gonads until they're older 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:And what i meant by punitive child support is that the payments often leave both parents in poverty. When i worked food stamps id see moms come in and make a claim. Child support wouldnt be countable income, so they would get a higher benefit. Good! Dad would come in the next day. Child support isnt a deduction to his income so he gets a lower benefit. Wtf. He makes 8 bux an hour and owes 400 a month in child support Yes, congratulation, you've realized that kids cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. Why is forcing all of that burden onto the mom the only solution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
The actual answer is to push as hard as we can to destigmatize abortion and contraception. It is a simple prescriptive formula: to avoid ruining lives, you have to help people avoid ruining their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I'm not It's essentially what would happen, though. Jastiger's idea moreso though. Letting people disown unwanted kids and get out scot-free is entirely a benefit to men, unless you think men who don't want kids to be able to force their partners to get abortions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Any father who doesn't support his children should be castrated with a pair of bricks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:This should factor into child support payments imo, if objected to early enough. If one party recognizes that they wouldnt be able to economically support kiddo, they shouldnt be unilaterally forced into said economic obligation. Also same if the father isn't notified until late stages of pregnancy and then out of no where he has an obligation. Nope. Edgar Allen Ho posted:Fix this problem by ensuring all kids have access to some kind of social insurance to meet their needs, until then, lol at whiny poo poo parents. Jastiger posted:And what i meant by punitive child support is that the payments often leave both parents in poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It's essentially what would happen, though. I thought the "and the government and/or insurance should provide the rest if the father isn't able to fully contribute" part went without saying. In any case I agree the current system we have isn't perfect, especially in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Even "excessive" doesn't really apply. Kids are expensive. A statistic I see constantly is that it costs a cool quarter million to raise a child to age 17. That's $1,200 per month. $400 isn't excessive -- is is less than half of one parent's share.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
For something real hosed up regarding child support, in my state, they'll suspend your driver's license if you miss a payment. I'm not real sure what that's supposed to accomplish, since it seems like if you take away a person's main form of transportation, it makes it harder to get to work and make the payments to begin with. Then again, that wouldn't be an issue if they just made their payments to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
The long term solution is to tell pro-lifers to go gently caress themselves, have nationwide protections for the right to safe abortion and push for subsidised contraception and proper sex ed in school. The short term solution is to have the state cover missing child support payments, then the state can go after the deadbeat for repayment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Yes but making the parent pay more than they can afford will result in that situation happening more often. If you make them pay more than what they need for their own food+rent, soon they'll lose that and then lose their job and then there's nothing left to collect from. Doing it proportional to their income is the only way that makes sense to me. Maybe the percentage of their income should be higher, I don't know, but I don't think a flat amount would ever work for poor people. There are two separate issues here: what a person owes, and how they ought to pay. The situation I see most often involves kids whose parents are both students. It is totally possible that the non-custodial parent can't afford more than, say, $50/month while they're in college. You can't get money from someplace where it isn't. But the reality is that paying so little shifts the cost burden of parenting to somebody else (usually the custodial parent), so it seems totally reasonable that, once the non-custodial parent gets a real job, they ought owe actual child support costs in arrears. After all, somebody paid for day care, doctor's visits, housing, and clothes while the non-custodial parent was in college, and that party (whether it's the other parent, their family, or the state) ought be paid back once the non-custodial parent's means support it. So yeah. Some people are both poor and irresponsible. You can't get money from them. That shouldn't mean that we also pretend that the real costs of their unmet responsibilities just, like, disappears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:So yeah. Some people are both poor and irresponsible. You can't get money from them. That shouldn't mean that we also pretend that the real costs of their unmet responsibilities just, like, disappears. And that's where progressive policies like mincome and universal healthcare would help out a lot but lol humans are spiteful garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yes, congratulation, you've realized that kids cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. An evil capitalist myth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Also, prolly not an unpopular opinion but man DnD still sucks. I'm hard left but reading that forum makes me want to don a MAGA cap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And that's where progressive policies like mincome and universal healthcare would help out a lot but lol humans are spiteful garbage. Maybe. My issue is that the baseline for being a responsible parent ought to be contributing the time and money it actually takes to raise a child, regardless of what those costs turn out to be. I mean, a US welfare recipient enjoys a higher adjusted income than 80% of the world (i.e. has a higher income after cost of living adjustments). In my dream world the US safety net wouldn't be a nightmarish patchwork of bullshit. That said, if you're in at least the 80th percentile of global income earners and claim that paying half the costs of raising your own kid is an undue hardship, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Just because the child was created using my dna doesn't mean it's "My Child". I thought we were past all this *biotruths* bullshit. I identify as NOT a father.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:Maybe. My issue is that the baseline for being a responsible parent ought to be contributing the time and money it actually takes to raise a child, regardless of what those costs turn out to be. Those other countries don't charge you thousands of dollars just to have a kid, then more thousands to give it healthcare. Also that is a gross article that minimizes the plight of the poor. gently caress Forbes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Just because the child was created using my dna doesn't mean it's "My Child". I'm the baby, gotta love me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Those other countries don't charge you thousands of dollars just to have a kid, then more thousands to give it healthcare. If you're poor, neither does the the US. quote:Also that is a gross article that minimizes the plight of the poor. gently caress Forbes. I don't think that's minimizing. Nobody says that living in the US on $9K a year in government benefits is anything other than terrible, and a compassionate and wealthy country should arguably have a better safety net. But the point is that someone who says "I can't afford $400 a month to support my kid" isn't saying "I don't have $400 a month." They're saying "I am unwilling to compromise my standard of living in order to meet my responsibilities as a parent." There are cases where that position (not being willing to further compromise a standard of living) is reasonable, even if it's also unsympathetic. But in most cases it's also reasonable to expect that a parent's first financial responsibility will be his or her children; for the most part, finding $400 a month means sharing a bedroom, not starving to death. Brainworm has a new favorite as of 16:59 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:If you're poor, neither does the the US. Ahahahahahaha, oh my loving god, this is naive as gently caress. quote:I don't think that's minimizing. Nobody says that living in the US on $9K a year in government benefits is anything other than terrible, and a compassionate and wealthy country should arguably have a better safety net. You're making a shitload of assumptions here, most unfounded. Imagine trying to live on $9k a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also, prolly not an unpopular opinion but man DnD still sucks. There's something about being around that level of fear and misery and sadbrains that triggers this, like, bullying instinct. So yeah, I know what you mean, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You're making a shitload of assumptions here, most unfounded. Imagine trying to live on $9k a year. What I'm saying is that the US doen't have a poverty problem. We have an inequality problem, which is no less legitimate but absolutely different. And one of those differences is the reasoning that comes into play when you say someone else ought to be financially responsible for your kid. I meet with prospective students whose families live in one-room trailers without indoor plumbing, whose wells go dry during the Summer, and who come to college with literally one change of clothes. A surprising number don't have regular electricity. That's not poverty according to any global standard. Just shameful inequality. I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people who'd say "I can't afford $400 a month in child support" aren't under threat of living that way. What they mean is that they shouldn't have to meet their responsibilities because they deserve to live better than their kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people who'd say "I can't afford $400 a month in child support" aren't under threat of living that way. What they mean is that they shouldn't have to meet their responsibilities because they deserve to live better than their kids. Well I'm not willing to make that bet. Who the gently caress are you to claim you know all of these people's circumstances?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
My rent is 8400/year and that's just for a bedroom in someone's house. Single occupancy dwellings start at 10,200/year in my city.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
The state is the parent-figure for all its citizens so ultimately be the one paying for child support. The government has allowed a policy of free-reproduction, is mostly anti-contraception and abortion allows massive poverty and inequity, and is thus ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of children (and all citizens)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
I'm sick of all these whores tricking men into getting them pregnant and holding them hostage for 18 years
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
What I'm saying here is make the morning after pill free and mail it to every female of birthing age
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
More like oldpulloutless
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:You don't get to opt out of consequences just because they're unwanted (or unexpected). You can't show up in court and say "Look, I know I got drunk and then decided to drive home, but everyone clearly heard me say before I left that I definitely didn't want to crash my car or kill anyone. And I've driven drunk loads of times, how could I be expected to know that this time it'd go wrong? No, I'm going to have to opt out of this, thanks." Its punitive because often .missing payments means further sanctions (like garnished wages or drivers license suspension) which in turn mean more hardship, which means more missed payments which means more sanctions and so on and so forth. It becomes punitive because rather than finding a way to take care of the kid, there are more methods devoted to loving over the parents. And as others have mentioned, kids are expensive. Its not so easy on anyone to put up that money if they dont have it. Id argue its more expensive to have the parents separatw than it is together, so its a poo poo show either way As for "opt out" i think its hosed up a teenager can sex another teenager with all precautions in place and one teenager can unilaterally make a decision for the rest of both their lives. They should be able to opt out after consultation and mediation in the early stages. Kids too young ruin everyones chance at success and we should encourage family planning options instead of listening to pro life shitheels intent on ruining lives. Im just saying there should be a legal path for this to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:What I'm saying is that the US doen't have a poverty problem. We have an inequality problem, which is no less legitimate but absolutely different. And one of those differences is the reasoning that comes into play when you say someone else ought to be financially responsible for your kid. Lol no if you make 1200 a month, id like to see you live any sort of lifestyle that isnt poverty in 90% of the united states if you jad to live in $800 a month. Are they dying in thr street? No. Are they gainfully employed, able to better themselves, their community, and their children? Nope. Thats working poverty no matter which way you slice it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Hearing that kind of stuff from someone who (I think?) has kids is just weird to me and, brace yourself folks for this hot take opinion, I think Jastiger might have been trolling us all along.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Hearing that kind of stuff from someone who (I think?) has kids is just weird to me and, brace yourself folks for this hot take opinion, I think Jastiger might have been trolling us all along. No i stand by my kids through and through. Im also not making minimum wage with a hostilr baby momma that wants half my wages. Everyone loses in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Lol no if you make 1200 a month, id like to see you live any sort of lifestyle that isnt poverty in 90% of the united states if you jad to live in $800 a month. Of course it is. But the fact that someone will be working poor shouldn't give them the right to pass their childcare expenses to somebody who's no better off. Far and away, the most common situation is that dad makes more than the mom who has custody. Like, if you can't afford $400 a month, how can someone who makes less and has full-time childcare responsibilities afford it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Maybe the solution is just keeping poor people from having children. We always say there's too many poor people, so maybe we can unbreed them out? A few generations and they'll all be dead, in jail, or have bettered themselves. I'll start drafting the paperwork, you guys call our congressmen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:49
|
|
