To: Larry , familylaw@makelist.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: O
X-Status: 


Excellent analysis, Larry.

We must collectively demand that all of the money which exceeds half
of the actual costs of rearing a child be returned--with interest at
9%, plus damages.

We must also collectively demand that the recipients of welfare (who
are 95% mothers) be required to pay that money back, with interest. 
It is men who provided MORE than 100% of the federal taxes which
funded welfare in the  first place.  Why should men be required to
AGAIN refund what they already as a group paid 100% of in the first
place, plus didn't get any benefits from, plus which underwrote the
programs which took their children from them in the process, if the
women who DID receive the benefits, who haven't (collectively) paid a
dime to fund it in the first place, who used this money to support
SMHs which denied children paternal guidance, who prevented fathers
from even seeing their own children, who COULD go to work and pay the
money back, are not ALSO criminalized for not paying the money back??

The feminists are jumping for joy because women now earn 75% of what
men earn!!  If so, that means that forcing welfare moms to pay back
what they took, as they now force men to pay back what they did NOT
take, would increase collections 75%.

How could the politicos miss this chance to eliminate our Public Debt??

Sincerely,

John Knight





---Larry  wrote:
>
> Roy,
> 
> Well, we finally agree on something! lol --- kinda, sorta...at least 
> until you start rambling at the end.
> 
> The most expensive 1 bedroom apt in my complex (last year anyway) was 
> $505 and the most expensive 2 BR apt was $565...about 11%. The $60
is the 
> marginal increase attributed to having a child and needing a second 
> bedroom. Half of that is $30 and would be the non-custodial parents 
> share. A prorata share attributed to the child would be $188 (565/3). 
> Half of that is $94. That's overcharge by a factor of 3...yet that
is has 
> DHS/DCS does it.
> 
> A point that is often missed is that buying a house is an INVESTMENT. 
> When the house is sold, the expenses are hopefully recouped and a
profit 
> is made. I don't hear anybody clamoring to have the non-custodial 
> reimbursed for his share of the prorata profit due to the child!!!
> 
> The sham that most people can't seem to shake is that child support 
> should be based on income!
> 
> It should be based on costs. Studies show that the percentage of
income 
> spent on children DECREASES as income increases. This truly reflects
the 
> situation.
> 
> Think about the time and effort (read lawyers' fees) this would save
in 
> determining and arguing about the NCP's income. By basing CS on
standard 
> costs (a poor baby will consume diapers and formula at the same rate
as a 
> rich baby), we would also eliminate the need for accounting in most 
> situations.
> 
> DHS/DCS contention that the percentage remains steady across incomes
does 
> not hold up. Even the studies on which Tennessee based the guidelines 
> show this (they used the studies used in the Wisconsin model).
> 
> My 2 year-old boy couldn't care less about the 'lifestyle' he lives
in. 
> He prefers my 10 year-old truck to the my pretty red Prelude!
> 
> Child support cannot and should not be used to punish either parent.
It 
> is for the NCP's half of the child's expenses.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> >Ern,
> >
> >Ah, ha!!  It has only taken, what, 2 years?  I knew we would
disagree on
> >something...kinda, sorta, maybe just a little bit.   ;-)
> >
> >Just a thought or 3 :
> >
> >1.  I live in a 2 bedroom apartment.  The cost difference between a
1BR and a
> >2BR is not 21% as is the TN guideline for 1 child.  In my particular 
> >complex it is something on the order of 12%.
> >
> >2.  Utilities would be a negligible difference.
> >
> >3.  Food would be a variable and dependent upon lifestyle.  When
The Benj 
> >lived with me my food bill actually went down, even though he was
going 
> >into brain-deadness (teenagerhood) and we all know that a teenager
can eat 
> >one out of house and home.  Before that, I ate out a lot because I
just did 
> not 
> >want to cook for 1.  This item would be up for debate.
> >
> >4.  Clothes are also a variable.  I, for 1, would refuse (and did)
to buy 
> >Calvin Kline or Jordasche (sorry about my spelling, it's been a
while) 
> >jeans for a kid who was going to grow out of them in a month,
anyway.  
> >Same for buying Air Jordan sneaks for one who was constantly on a 
> >skateboard.
> >
> >5.  The same goes for all of the other expenses involved with
raising a 
> >child. Actually, the deal that The Benj and I had was that I would
pay 
> >the generic "K-Mart" price for his clothes and if he wanted the
spiffy 
> >stuff, he made up the difference.  Since he is now 21, I regularly
hear 
> >"Dad, when I lived with you I thought you were really mean to make 
> >me buy my own skateboards and thedifference of my el-spiffo
clothes.  
> >I appreciate you doing so now."  He even went through a stage when
he 
> >first went out on his own where the challenge was to see how
cheaply he 
> >really could live.  Of course, Daddeo (me) probably spent more on
gas 
> >hauling him from Goodwill store to Goodwill Store to have bought him
> >the el-spiffo stuff, anyway.  You know that drill.
> >
> >I guess my point is that it only takes, say, X number of dollars to
provide 
> >the necessities for any child.  From there it should be up to the
parents to 
> >decide what luxury items are to be, i.e. special clothing, private
schools, 
> >extra curricular activities, etc..  What "MARRIED" couple is told
that 
> >they MUST provide even the basic necessities for their children? 
How 
> >many times do we see a family with several children who pass the old 
> >clothes from the older ones down to the younger ones?
> >
> >As you know, we have heard over and over in the Statehouse that "we
cannot
> >legislate morality."  So true, so true.  We can, though, provide
consequences
> >for immorality.
> >
> >This said, you are absolutely correct that accountability should
not be
> >automatic for every situation.  It would be valuable to have this
as an 
> >option, though, in the event the need arises.  This could be done
as part 
> >of mediation, arbitration, or in open court.  There are many options 
> >for some sort of "show cause" action to 'splain how child support
monies 
> >are being spent when the custodial parent is buying new furniture
and 
> >allowing the kiddoes to run around with holes in their skivvie
drawers 
> >and shoes that do not fit.
> >
> >As for basic child support awards, I believe that we need to come
to a needs
> >based amount with a compensation factor for lifestyle adjustments. 
There 
> >also could be "consequences" for such things as "mom just got tired
of 
> >being married" (lower child support award or NO alimony, also a
custody 
> >consequence would probably be in order), "Dad wanted to go have fun 
> >for a change" (jam-up child support or an award of alimony to crimp
his 
> >style), proven/proveable domestic abuse (jam it to the abuser), and
so on.  
> >These latter issues could be discretionary ranges based upon normal 
> >income...bonuses, overtime, and other employment would be handled 
> >only as it occurs and not forever more taken into account in the
future.  
> >The tax consequences to both the payer and payee also
> >need to be different, and taken into consideration in the awards.
> >
> >Again, these could likely be arbitrated in some sort of mediation
program.
> >
> >Something that could also be implemented with this would be some 
> >consequence for "harassment" or frivolous requests for an
accounting.  
> >If it is found that this is being abused by one or the other od the
parents, 
> >the one making the frivolous claim would be responsible for all
costs 
> >involved.  This seems to me to be the only fair way of handling the 
> >situation and would also cut down on the claim of misuse of child 
> >support monies.
> >
> >Something to keep in mind...the fact that an option is available
often 
> >acts as a deterrent.  Whether or not it is used, the option is still 
> available 
> >for those few instances when it may be necessary.  Think about it,
when 
> >we were kids how often did we refrain from doing something because
we 
> >knew that we would be sent to hunt a switch if we got caught.  I
don't 
> >know about you, but I didn't do a lot of things just for that very
reason.  
> >Nowadays is a different story.  We have no consequences for our
actions, 
> >no accountability or personal responsibility in many instances.  If
I were 
> >going to try to play games with the system and knew that if I got
caught it 
> >could cost me several thousand dollars, do you think that I would
do it?  
> >Well maybe, but I doubt it.
> >
> >Locks serve only to keep honest people honest.
> >
> >Just my 2 cents worth.
> >
> >REB
> >
> >P.S.  Mark this date.  Ernie and Roy disagreed on an issue!
> >
> >
> >
> >zqsllc@usit.net wrote:
> >
> >> This is only my two cents, so don't put a whole lot of credence
in it,
> >> but felt the discussion was worth continuing.
> >>
> >> I have heard  only one reporting scenario which made sense to me.
 .
> >>
> >> For the most part  reporting  should be handled much as setting
child
> >> support payments are,  which is upon demand in a referee/court
setting,
> >> and expenses  prorated of some costs on family size.  (ie. four
people
> >> live in a house,  one child's expense is 1/4 of the cost - not
based on
> >> some square footage requirement factored by percent of time the
child is
> >> present. ) Some standard percentages are needed  to make the actual
> >> accounting more bearable.
> >>
> >> Child Support payers  are under identical obligation to report
raises,
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> Just as most fathers are not dead beat dads,  most mothers are not
> >> financial incompents or extravagant.   It makes sense that MOST
people
> >> would probably never have to report to anyone.
> >>
> >> An exception probably should be granted during a known  period of
> >> extraordinary expense where a more regular reporting, and perhaps
more
> >> direct control of the funds  could be made to a guardian et litem
or court
> >> house type.
> >>
> >>  Two situations come to mind.
> >>
> >> First, even though exactly  what child support payments are used
for is
> >> much open to debate, t a few situations stand out as
unacceptable. These
> >> may include support of a non-working step-parent,  litigation
costs,
> >> sudden accumulation of  luxary expenses unrelated to the child.
> >>
> >> Second,  life circumstances themselves raise questions about a
custodial
> >> parents ability to manage funds which may not be directly related
to
> >> parenting (thus not a custody challenge),  but could trigger 
similar
> >> reporting.  For example, personal bancruptcy,  participation in
some types
> >> of  rehab program, and finally  some people are psychologically
unable to
> >> manage money,  but could still be a nurturing  parent.
> >>
> >> ----
> >>
> >> Now for the argument against accounting.  There seems to be a
presumption
> >> in the court,  sometime even stated in rulings,  that the best
interest of
> >> the child is linked to the best interest of the custodial parent.
 This is
> >> also the move-away argument.
> >>
> >> If the child and Custodial Parents interest are linked than there
is a
> >> logical presumption  that the custodial parent will not spend money
> 
=== message truncated ===


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


From artbooks@rocketmail.com Fri Jul 17 14:58:10 1998
>From artbooks@rocketmail.com  Fri Jul 17 14:58:10 1998
Received: from cnj.digex.net (qlYBsVTekvXHY@cnj.digex.net [205.197.245.176])
	by pony-1.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11979
	for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web1.rocketmail.com (web1.rocketmail.com [205.180.57.67])
	by cnj.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA02931
	for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:58:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <19980717184649.22374.rocketmail@web1.rocketmail.com>
Received: from [206.194.127.4] by web1; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:46:49 PDT